I wonder how long before ISP's will switch to a per use billing scheme like power.

[VirtualLarry]

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see metered billing become the standard in the United States. I might not like it much, but it certainly wouldn't be shocking. Whether that happens is going to depend on what kind of competition arises for the cable internet providers. At the rate it's going now, I don't see significant competition for at least a decade, except maybe in a few scattered cities.

How metered billing is received (by normal users, not those who want to move 12TB every month in torrents) will have everything to do with the implementation. I could see a base rate that's based on connection speed, plus X cents per GB. Or a base rate with a built in soft cap, and then X cents per GB over that. That's how most people pay for their cell phone plans, so it woouldn't be at all foreign.

And I'm still not seeing how the FCC's net neutrality concerns will have anything to do with how ISPs price their services to end users. It's one thing to say that an ISP cannot charge Netflix or YouTube any more than anyone else to move their data, but the FCC will never say you can't charge one customer more than another for a faster connection or for more data.

If anything positive could come out of metered billing, it could be this - broadband companies, might see wireline broadband as profitable again, and actually invest in infrastructure (more FIOS rollouts!), instead of abandoning wireline internet, and pushing potential customers to a cell-tower-based wireless service, with overages.

Edit: I would only be in support of metered billing, if it were fairly metered. As in, the vast majority of ISP customers would see their average bill (in the short term) go DOWN. But paying for "unlimited", and then paying for capped / overage data on top (as most ISPs see the opportunity for "metered billing"), wouldn't sit well with me.

I'm also in favor of gov't regulation that would require unbundling local loops, and allowing competing ISPs to spring up, that pay wholesale rates for bulk data as well as local loop access.

I was once a DSLExtreme customer, and I was very happy with them.

Sadly, due to a Verizon monopoly on local loops around here, I can't even get DSL. Only FIOS, with its greatly-increased price.

Edit: How does $50/mo for the ISP line (25/10 or better) with 100GB of data included sound, if the additional data was charged at $0.05/GB afterwards?

That would mean $100/mo for those that torrent 1TB of data a month.

Of course, a 1TB HDD is only $50, so maybe the $50 line fee should include 1TB of data a month included. That would make the price of data downloads roughly commensurate with how much it costs to store the data, thus perhaps encouraging the HDD industry, because people would start to save their downloads so they wouldn't have to pay for them again. Could be a positive for the industry.

 

[Jeff7]

You sure about that? Netflix alone will jack up most bills. One of my coworkers told me about how he got hit with Comcast's overage notification, and he thought it was his son doing something... until he realized that he had binged a bunch of TV during some of the snow that we had this past week.

Or fall asleep after loading a Youtube video. Now that Youtube auto-plays videos one after another...:whiste:

 

[The Boston Dangler]

The real question is how long before 4K content becomes widely available.

If what you're saying is accurate, then I'd say that content would become widely available by around 2020 just based on how long it took for HD content to come around. Even when 4k TVs become more affordable, it doesn't mean that they are a viable option when you can get a better quality HDTV for the same price.

but available how? 4k (or its replacements) over-the-air won't happen for decades, 4k blu-ray is almost a year away and will never become commonplace, and subscription services will continue with meager offerings of dubious quality (particularly for non-fiber cable svc).

4k or better is a massive data hog, and service providers are subject to bandwidth limited by the laws of physics. absolutely no provider is willing to sacrifice the lucrative hundreds of crap channels for the sake of a few 4k channels that a tiny minority of customers demand. never mind that content creators are in no hurry to ditch their expensive 1080i gear.

cable has 700 or rarely 800 MHz downstream to play with (minus internet and other signals), satellite about twice that. wikipedia says fios has 870 MHz of tv bandwidth. this is insufficient for the lossless transmission of many 4k channels. except for directv, they already compress the hell out of (and, to good eyes, ruin) 1080i hd and 1080p pay per view.

 

[irishScott]

As a cord cutter, $1/GB would be laughable for me. HD streams take up lots of GB, upcoming 4k streams will chew up many times more. I'd rather pay current cable rates than $1/GB.

 

[Rebel44]

Anyone willing to pay $1 per GB is insane - I pay €15 for unlimited data for both home connection and cell phone data(LTE). My monthly usage is around 1TB.

 

[irishScott]

Anyone willing to pay $1 per GB is insane - I pay €15 for unlimited data for both home connection and cell phone data(LTE). My monthly usage is around 1TB.

Well it makes some sense if you're old and don't use the internet for anything that wasn't conceptualized in the late 90s.

It's the same reason people buy small packages of things instead of cheaper bulk quantities.

On an unrelated note I still don't understand people who buy things like individual rolls of paper towels/toilet paper or small packs of paper plates. Unless you're living in a tiny studio apartment just buy the largest pack available and shove them into a corner. They won't go bad and you'll save like 50%.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Anyone who thinks Comcast is just going to sit there idle and let everyone just get unlimited downloads/streaming on a high speed broadband, and watch people cut the cord is a fool.

Americans don't seem to have an issue paying 100 dollars a month for a cellphone that also includes an overage fee once you past a certain amount of gigabytes.

By the way, overage fees are not data caps. So net neutrality does not address the issue of overage fees, they will exist in the states where Comcast implemented it.

Net neutrality only stipulates that providers cannot stop you from accessing specific content or slow down specific types of traffic.

Net neutrality only stipulate that an Internet connection should just be a data pipe, and all data going through it is untouched. Just like water running through a pipe.

Anyone who does not think people in the future will be paying on a metered basis like water, electricity is fooling themselves.

Never underestimate the American corporation from figuring out how to suck that extra dollar out of your pocket.

 

[destrekor]

Anyone willing to pay $1 per GB is insane - I pay €15 for unlimited data for both home connection and cell phone data(LTE). My monthly usage is around 1TB.

Well, North America is always going to be screwed when it comes to internet and phone service pricing (when coupled with reliability and consistent speed). Europe and Japan have crazy awesome service rates, for the most part, for many reasons, geography and population density having a large influence.

 

[ImpulsE69]

If anything positive could come out of metered billing, it could be this - broadband companies, might see wireline broadband as profitable again

Uh, they currently see them as greatly profitable. Have you seen their profit margins?? It isn't that they aren't making money hand over fist, they are looking at it as a 'good enough for most people' scenario and basically screwed over the people who funded their infrastructure. Not only that, look at their customer service. They KNOW they have a monopoly and that most people feel they HAVE to have internet these days. It's a take it or leave it scenario. (Obviously this does not apply to every company or location).

It is very clear they can't be trusted to do what is right. To think that even this net neutrality ruling will change that doesn't help. They want maximum profits with the least amount of work. They won't start to upgrade infrastructure until forced to for some reason. Since there is no competition, they don't see any reason to make improvements. It is the worst possible situation for consumers.

 

[TridenT]

$1/GB would be shitty. I think I'm generally around 100GB/mo with four people.

$1/GB would be total horseshit. Anytime you want to download a new game off Steam it'd be $25!

A lot of YouTube videos I watch total in at a 1GB. Do I have to pay $1 for every youtube video I watch? Ridiculous.

 

[jpiniero]

It is very clear they can't be trusted to do what is right. To think that even this net neutrality ruling will change that doesn't help. They want maximum profits with the least amount of work. They won't start to upgrade infrastructure until forced to for some reason. Since there is no competition, they don't see any reason to make improvements. It is the worst possible situation for consumers.

You have to remember they are really in the business of selling Cable TV service, not internet. They upgraded their infrastructure to support digital TV and that's it.

 

[Red Squirrel]

If I won a couple billion dollars, I'd probably start a fibre ISP, across all of Canada and then do the US too, and eventually peer with the rest of the world. All my own fibre mesh. Everything would be unlimited, servers would be allowed, you'd even have the option to pay extra to get a static IP or multiple IP/blocks. Smallest package would be like 5/5 for people who don't need more than that, all the way to 1000/1000. The pricing would be a bit more expensive but with little to no limitations on how you use it. Maybe even allow reselling.

A good chunk of the profits would go towards continuously expanding the network. It would also create tons of jobs as each city would pretty much need it's own cable guys, I&R guys etc. The more cities you cover the faster money comes in, so the faster you can keep expanding. Your staff also get better and better at it so eventually you have people who have it down to a science as far as deploying to a new city goes and the entire process could be done very fast. I saw the fibre service go in our town and really, there's not THAT much to it. Cost wise, it was not even that much either, I think it was like 7mil. The hardest part is probably the political side of things, as not all cities would allow a new ISP to roll out their own cable plant as the ISPs have monopoly. Some provinces/states may even have laws in place to prevent it if the ISPs there have enough grip on the government. In cases where the local ISP owns the poles they could also charge a ridiculous amount just to keep other ISPs from trying to start. But start with the easy towns and try to fight for the rest.

Biggest thing too, there would be no spying on my network, or at very least it would be made very hard. Transport connections would be encrypted. Maybe even the last mile. Or perhaps that could be an option you pay extra for.

Having such a large company would also make it possible to make the world a better place. The only way to get the government to listen to issues is to play the game: Lobbying.

But... back to reality, I don't have a couple billion dollars. :awe:

 

[OVerLoRDI]

Absolutely not. I did 1.3TB up and down in the last 30 days.

 

[KentState]

Here comes the slippery slope, but how does the price of bandwidth be determined and regulated?

 

[Carson Dyle]

Here comes the slippery slope, but how does the price of bandwidth be determined and regulated?

If you're the telco, you look at historical stats, and then work out a pricing model that will give to give you at least the same amount of revenue as you had before. You take into account the customers who regularly use 1.3TB per month and figure out that they won't continue to do so if you're going to charge them $500. You have to have some balance ... if you want to charge someone for using more than 300GB, then the pricing has to be somewhat reasonable. Of course, that 300GB soft cap is arbitrary and tomorrow or next year it might be 500GB or 1TB or 2TB. I think they're in the process of figuring that out right now in their trials.

Here's what will NEVER happen: A flat pricing model with no base rate. Take Gramma and Grampa, who never so much as watch a YouTube video ... A telco isn't going to cut its own throat and suddenly start charging them $8 or $9 or $15 based on their usage, when they had been paying $50 per month.

Regulation? Not likely to happen, although it may be interesting to see what states and their PUCs would do if given the go-ahead to regulate ISPs like other utilities.

 

[ch33zw1z]

$1 per gig means no can do.

nickel per gig is more like it.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Anyone who thinks Comcast is just going to sit there idle and let everyone just get unlimited downloads/streaming on a high speed broadband, and watch people cut the cord is a fool.

Americans don't seem to have an issue paying 100 dollars a month for a cellphone that also includes an overage fee once you past a certain amount of gigabytes.

By the way, overage fees are not data caps. So net neutrality does not address the issue of overage fees, they will exist in the states where Comcast implemented it.

Net neutrality only stipulates that providers cannot stop you from accessing specific content or slow down specific types of traffic.

Net neutrality only stipulate that an Internet connection should just be a data pipe, and all data going through it is untouched. Just like water running through a pipe.

Anyone who does not think people in the future will be paying on a metered basis like water, electricity is fooling themselves.

Never underestimate the American corporation from figuring out how to suck that extra dollar out of your pocket.

Overage fees are data caps. They're literally the same fucking thing (especially since most of them, especially AT&T and Verizon they operate bandwidth caps on mobile the same way, where if you go over they charge you more money, unless you happen to still be grandfathered on an unlimited plan, in which case they're already screwing you all over the place by throttling your speeds).

This ruling is much more than Net Neutrality. This gives the FCC the ability to scrutinize the hell out of any big changes like that, and take action if necessary.

Oh please, like that's any different anywhere on the fucking planet, so stop acting like this is some uniquely American thing.

We will see, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, provided it's done properly. But we haven't seen that yet.

Also, the telecoms are going to have a lot of explaining to do to the FCC if they try to move to that, as after all they've been saying this whole time that the Internet is fine and doesn't need change. So then why would they make large changes like that? I'm sure they'll spin it as that's what they have to do in order to make money under Title II, but then the FCC will point to the record profits and revenue they've have for years under the previous setup that was supposedly so terrible for them.

Well, North America is always going to be screwed when it comes to internet and phone service pricing (when coupled with reliability and consistent speed). Europe and Japan have crazy awesome service rates, for the most part, for many reasons, geography and population density having a large influence.

Population density is not the issue, and you can compare major metro areas to see that. In the US prices are high because of the lack of competition, it's as simple as that. I believe Europe (or at least Britain did I'm pretty sure) applied local loop unbundling, which led to similar competition as we got with dial-up when they regulated that similarly. In the US the telecoms have effectively zoned off areas so that they can deliberately compete as little as possible while still being able to claim they do (in most areas, they set it up so the competition is between types of companies and not normal competition, so you have satellite competing with cable, and DSL competing with fiber/cable, etc). Then they've tried to pass off cellular data as comparable when it's not at all.

 

[Hugo Drax]

$1 per gig means no can do.

nickel per gig is more like it.

You would be paying metro Ethernet rates if that is your usage pattern and Comcast decided to go to a metered basis and charge 1 dollar per gigabyte.

Verizon charges 15 dollar a gigabyte on its cell data plans if you go over your base allocation.

On a cell phone that would be like a 7500 dollar bill.



Overage fee is not a data cap. data cap would imply throttling or blocking traffic once you pass a certain amount of traffic.

Net neutrality will stop data caps. It will not stop overage fees, since the data will be permitted to pass untouched, you just pay more.

Net neutrality has nothing to do with billing, FCC explicitly said they will not be imposing tariffs or regulating customer billing.


People are accustomed to 100 dollar a month cell service with overage fees. there is nothing to stop Comcast from making the minimum plan cost 100 a month with overage fees past 50 gb a month for example.

 

[destrekor]

If you're the telco, you look at historical stats, and then work out a pricing model that will give to give you at least the same amount of revenue as you had before. You take into account the customers who regularly use 1.3TB per month and figure out that they won't continue to do so if you're going to charge them $500. You have to have some balance ... if you want to charge someone for using more than 300GB, then the pricing has to be somewhat reasonable. Of course, that 300GB soft cap is arbitrary and tomorrow or next year it might be 500GB or 1TB or 2TB. I think they're in the process of figuring that out right now in their trials.

Here's what will NEVER happen: A flat pricing model with no base rate. Take Gramma and Grampa, who never so much as watch a YouTube video ... A telco isn't going to cut its own throat and suddenly start charging them $8 or $9 or $15 based on their usage, when they had been paying $50 per month.

Regulation? Not likely to happen, although it may be interesting to see what states and their PUCs would do if given the go-ahead to regulate ISPs like other utilities.

Well one utility-style approach would be a "service fee" and then charge based upon consumption from there.

If they go this route, they have to accept some customers are going to have a cheaper monthly subscription. That isn't bad, because they also know they will get a little bit more from some, and may just get more people to pay more because now it's cheaper and they can afford it.

I fully expect "service fees" to still be attached to a tier-based model, based around access speed. So, perhaps $20/month + per GB for 20Mbps/2Mbps (down/up), whereas $30/month would get you 50/10. Perhaps different service level tiers carry different consumption rate costs, so that the base $40/month may have $0.05/GB, whereas a $15/month tier might have a $0.50/GB rate.

I highly, highly doubt we will ever see something so granular, but really, that seems a pretty fine way to do it and keep everyone happy.

Of course I haven't given significant thought to what numbers I just dreamed up, and one would do well to adjust those figures in some capacity to be more realistic.

 

[Engineer]

People are accustomed to 100 dollar a month cell service with overage fees. there is nothing to stop Comcast from making the minimum plan cost 100 a month with overage fees past 50 gb a month for example.

That's why the 2nd ruling by the FCC is important. It now gives municipalities the power and WILL to build out their own networks, ala Chattanooga. Run the bills too high and people WILL abandon you for something else and something else will fill that gap. Nearby Louisville has already started looking into it and Lexington has already denied TWC a renewal of the monopoly....er....charter to be the city ISP because the mayor thinks the service sucks (and it generally does). I hope Lexington follows Louisville, Chattanooga, etc. in looking to build out their own networks and tell the others to fuck off.

Oh, and comparing a limited spectrum like cellular to virtually unlimited bandwidth capable land based isn't very realistic (if you were).

One time in history, the US used to 'get it' when it came to building infrastructure (Interstate highway system for example). Now, the rest of the world seems to get it while the US drags the consumers through the wringer for every last nickel while falling behind as a nation on the next century of infrastructure (i.e. the Internet and projects alike).

 

[darkswordsman17]

You would be paying metro Ethernet rates if that is your usage pattern and Comcast decided to go to a metered basis and charge 1 dollar per gigabyte.

Verizon charges 15 dollar a gigabyte on its cell data plans if you go over your base allocation.

On a cell phone that would be like a 7500 dollar bill.



Overage fee is not a data cap. data cap would imply throttling or blocking traffic once you pass a certain amount of traffic.

Net neutrality will stop data caps. It will not stop overage fees, since the data will be permitted to pass untouched, you just pay more.

Net neutrality has nothing to do with billing, FCC explicitly said they will not be imposing tariffs or regulating customer billing.


People are accustomed to 100 dollar a month cell service with overage fees. there is nothing to stop Comcast from making the minimum plan cost 100 a month with overage fees past 50 gb a month for example.

How can you go over something if there's not a cap? Simple as that. The ISPs have been trying to claim they're not caps when they apply caps the exact same way on mobile (where they just charge you for overage).

Caps do not imply anything about throttling or anything specific. All it is, is saying for the service you have this amount of bandwidth, at which point you then have to deal with changes, either paying more money for more bandwidth over the cap but retaining your same speed, or you get throttled. Verizon and ATT like to do overages on mobile too, since it gets them more money and they don't have any need to actually throttle (and they can throttle is necessary at their own whim so throttling is just silly when they can bilk more money out of people). MVNOs throttle for obvious reasons. As does T-Mobile (and I believe Sprint, but that's because they basically have to offer unlimited as a way to just compete).

Net Neutrality will not stop data caps at all. The FCC outright said this so not sure why you think that's the case (or why you think it'll stop caps but not overages). The FCC considers the "non-caps" to be caps too, so regardless of what you or the ISPs think they are, the FCC considers them caps (although that might depend on who's in charge in how they interpret them, but Wheeler I'm fairly sure has said they consider them caps and has been investigating them for a while, he even hinted that they believe the ones currently implemented are far too low but I believe they've been waiting to aggregate more consumer data on this, specifically waiting to see how the move to real 1080p and 4K streaming impacts things).

They already know that the overage charges are way out of whack pricewise, as it doesn't cost the ISPs anywhere close to that to provide the bandwidth, and they don't really have a need to limit users as their networks aren't congested (well except when they deliberately do like they pulled against Netflix).

Another reason why metered billing will run into huge issues is think of all the ads. Metered billing means that you would then be paying money to have ads served to you. Plus malware. Getting hacked could actually then cost you out the ass, and guess what, the ISPs will then have to try and provide absolute robust security (as if you're using their network, then chances are the hack came through their network, which means security breaches then become even bigger issue). Plus tech companies will fight metered billing that isn't basically at cost (or possibly even below) as it will kill uploads, which will kill their content and harm their services (which would then give the FCC power to regulate as that's specifically something they've singled out in limiting/preventing the telecoms from doing).

 

[Carson Dyle]

That's why the 2nd ruling by the FCC is important. It now gives municipalities the power and WILL to build out their own networks, ala Chattanooga. Run the bills too high and people WILL abandon you for something else and something else will fill that gap.

I don't think consumer broadband prices are the motivation for building such networks. It's more of a marketing move to make the area more attractive for both home buyers and businesses.

 

[Engineer]

I don't think consumer broadband prices are the motivation for building such networks. It's more of a marketing move to make the area more attractive for both home buyers and businesses.

Regardless, the consumers in those areas win in those cases. There's not many people here who wouldn't want 1Gbps down/ 1Gbps up for $70 per month like Chattanooga offers (IIRC the price). It's all about infrastructure like I said. Just like there is a city at most junctions of Interstate Highways, you build a great network and business (and new homes) will flock to it in today's Internet world.

If you don't build it, people will eventually leave for 'greener pastures'.

 

[master_shake_]

i hope it's nothing like canadian pay per use mobile plans.

401 dollars for 1gb of data.

http://support.bell.ca/Mobility/Rat...-are-Bell-Mobilitys-current-pay-per-use-rates

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA.....sad.

 

[Red Squirrel]

i hope it's nothing like canadian pay per use mobile plans.

401 dollars for 1gb of data.

http://support.bell.ca/Mobility/Rat...-are-Bell-Mobilitys-current-pay-per-use-rates

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA.....sad.

Yeah mobile data is a joke. I don't even bother. I'll use wifi where I can, and live without internet access where I can't.

What I hate though is how lot of hotels charge for wifi. Seriously? I'm already paying $150-$200 just to use a bed for a night and you want to charge for internet too? Hotels are a gold mine.