> On Jan 11, 2016, at 10:00 , Jeremy Austin <jhaus...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com > <mailto: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.
What is your 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. Yes… And I’m in line criticizing T-Mobile for this. However, when it comes to the pricing model for data overages, there’s is the best I’ve seen yet. > > > > > 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. Another term for usage caps is “usage tiers” where you select a tier that you live in and you pay a fine if you exceed your usage tier. However, as I said, I consider everything to the right of AYCE on your “continuum” to be simply variations of usage-based billing. Sure, to a consumer who stays within their usage tier, their tier looks like AYCE (until it doesn’t), but it certainly isn’t actually. > > 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? I would assume quite a bit. There are 7 billion potential subscribers, so that’s 14 billion Mbps or 14 Petabits per second world wide. Owen
