On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote:
> > For $x/month you get Y GB of LTE speed data and after that you drop to > 128kbps. > > You don’t pay an overage charge, but your data slows way down. > > If you want to make it fast again, you can for $reasonable purchase > additional > data within that month on a one-time basis. > > I would like to encourage other carriers to adopt this model, actually. If > Verizon had a model like this, I would probably switch tomorrow assuming > their prices weren’t too far out of line compared to T-Mo. > > This is similar to Hughesnet's FAP (unfortunately named Fair Access Policy). I've had some consumer success with this model. There are other fairness models that can augment it, however; it's not my favorite. > > > > The Internet (from the non-eyeball side) is designed around a > free-feeding > > usage model. Can you imagine if the App store of your choice showed two > > prices, one for the app and one for the download? The permission-based > > model on Android would have requests like, "This app is likely to cost > you > > $4/week. Is this OK?” > > Kind of an interesting idea, but to me, the reason usage charges induce > stress has ore to do with the fact that they are kind of out of control > pricey first of all and second of all that you start incurring them without > warning and without any real ability to say no on most networks. > > That’s why I actually like the T-Mo strategy here. With existing tools, > the customer has full choice and control about “overage” costs even if > their data usage remains somewhat opaque. > >From what I understand, the controversy around T-Mo is that the technique itself was opaque, correct? If the Internet as a whole *had* an "SD" knob, like Netflix on AppleTV/etc., usage-billed customers would benefit — as long as it was plainly spelled out. > > > > In addition, let's say I know of an ISP that makes 10% of its revenue > from > > overage charges. Moving to a purely usage-based model would lower ACR, as > > it would have to charge a more reasonable price/gig; that top 10% of > users > > won't replace the lost revenue. So even providers may have little > incentive > > to change models, particularly if they have a vested interest in > inhibiting > > the growth of video or usage in general. > > How can an ISP make 10% of its money from overage charges unless they are > doing usage-based billing? If you’ve got an AYCE plan, you don’t have > overages. If you don’t, then you have some form of usage based billing. > > The varieties of usage based billing that are available are a far less > interesting exercise. > > Owen > > On a continuum, AYCE at one end, pay-by-the-bit at the other, and in between, usage caps. For the majority of customers on $provider network, caps are unnecessary; for them, the flat rate they pay is effectively an AYCE. Smaller stomachs, and they are paying a higher $/bit as they use less. Those who incur overages are experiencing usage-based billing. I agree it is uninteresting, but there it is. How much uncapped LTE spectrum is needed before we can hit that 2Mbps per customer referred to recently?
