se.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Roderick Beck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 4:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial
Hi Frank,
My impression is that IP networks are
Consumers have been conditioned through advertising that 'bigger is
better' so bigger numbers imply a better service in their minds. Look
at the current flat panel TV size madness
there is a formula for calculating the size of a display based on
distance to the viewer I live in a older house
I think a rate limited plan would appeal to most customers as it would
give them a fixed monthly budget item. But I am pretty sure this will
not happen in the US based on experiences with the broadband by cell
providers who prefer a 'bill-by-byte' method with no mechanism to stop
loss in th
TED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 5:36 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial
> There are symmetric versions for all of those. But ever
> since the dialup days (e.g. 56Kbps modem
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 4:47 PM
To: Frank Bulk
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Frank Bulk wrote:
> You're right, the major cost isn't the bandwidth (at least the in the
U.
> There are symmetric versions for all of those. But ever
> since the dialup days (e.g. 56Kbps modems had slower reverse
> direction) consumers have shown a preference for a bigger
> number on the box, even if it meant giving up bandwidth in
> the one direction.
>
> For example, how many peo
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Frank Bulk wrote:
You're right, the major cost isn't the bandwidth (at least the in the U.S.),
but the current technologies (cable modem, DSL, and wireless) are thoroughly
asymmetric, and high upstreams kill the performance of the first and third.
There are symmetric versi
TECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alex
Rubenstein
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 2:02 PM
To: Taran Rampersad; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial
Am I the only one here who thinks that the major portion of the cost of
having a custom
The big advanatge of these plans is that the cost is fixed
even if I've used up all my alotted transfer.
This is the success of systems that implement rate limiting (not
additional charging) once a specified ceiling has been reached.
It provides some fiscal security that y
> There's a missing piece here. You'd need a way to go from the
> 1-gige interfaces that commodity hardware can keep up with to
> the 10gige-plus interfaces that the backbone requires.
Or you could stick with 1G circuits and rely on wavelengths
and laying more fiber to take up the slack. Not to
> Yes there are P2P pigs out there but a more
> common scenario is the canonical "Little Old Lady in a Pink Sweater"
> with a compromised box which is sending spam at a great rate.
>Should
> she pay the $500 bill when it arrives or would a more prudent
> and rational approach be like som
Another view from OZ.
I've got a plan that is labeled as Unlimited (12G) Cable.
12G/M (12:00:00-23:59:59)
24G/M (00:00:00-12:59:59) (Disappears if the base 12G is used up)
Once the 12G is used up it drops to 64k.
Every 4th month is free as I also
On 21/01/2008, at 7:53 AM, Jeff Johnstone wrote:
All of these discussions ignore the developments taking place in the
consumer electronics marketplace. A quick glance at this years
consumer electronics show in Vegas shows a HUGE variety of home,
mobile and automobile consumer devices using
> If we define "customer" to be an average user of the provided service,
and
> bandwidth to be transit pipe cost, then no, bandwidth is not the major
cost
> of their service. However, if you're advertising an 'unlimited'
service
> and want to keep your promises, you can't plan your network aro
ct: RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial
> > As long as the companies convince people that the "cap" is large
> > enough to be essentially the same as unmetered then most people
won't
> > care and will take the savings.
I don't
On Jan 20, 2008 12:03 PM, Mark Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> For example, on my residential DSL service i've used 4.7G this month. With
> 1/3 of the month left, I have more than half of my self-selected 10Gig cap
> available. (And I grabbed at least two CD ISO's the other day.)
>
> The
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 03:02:15PM -0500, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
>
> > > As long as the companies convince people that the "cap" is large
> > > enough to be essentially the same as unmetered then most people
> won't
> > > care and will take the savings.
>
> I don't agree.
>
> When we sold b
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, Buhrmaster, Gary wrote:
My guess is the market will work this out. As soon as it's implemented,
you'll see AT&T commercials in that town slamming cable and saying how DSL
is "really unlimited".
If I were the DSL companies, I would consider advertising
with a commerci
> > As long as the companies convince people that the "cap" is large
> > enough to be essentially the same as unmetered then most people
won't
> > care and will take the savings.
I don't agree.
When we sold boatloads of dialup in the mid to late 90's, people did not
like caps, no matter how
> My guess is the market will work this out. As soon as it's implemented,
> you'll see AT&T commercials in that town slamming cable and saying how DSL
> is "really unlimited".
If I were the DSL companies, I would consider advertising
with a commercial recalling the fable of the tortoise and
t
> I think the point is that you need to get buyers to segregate =
> themslevesinto two groups - the light users and the heavy users. By =
> heavy users I mean the 'Bandwidth Hogs' (Oink, Oink) and a light user =
> someone like myself for whom email is the main application. Afterall the =
> problem
> To put it another way, they do not give you a better price
> per minute if you go and deposit $2400 in your prepaid account.
Actually, AT&T did (when I last looked at at least one
of their prepaid plans a year or so ago for a friend).
Deposit $100, get a $20 "bonus". Or something like that.
enemy of truth.'' Albert
Einstein.
-Original Message-
From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun 1/20/2008 2:37 PM
To: Rod Beck
Cc: Scott McGrath; Rod Beck; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Patrick W. Gilmore;
nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: An Attempt at Economically Rati
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
As long as the companies convince people that the "cap" is large
enough to be essentially the same as unmetered then most people won't
care and will take the savings.The other angle is to convince the
95% of customers that caps will actually deliver them a faste
On Jan 20, 2008, at 12:06 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
However, if you look, all the prepaid plans that I've seen look
suspiciously
like predatory pricing. The price per minute is substantially
higher than
an equivalent minute on a conventional plan. Picking on AT&T, for a
minute,
here, look at th
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jan 19, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Taran Rampersad wrote:
Rod Beck wrote:
Ironically, the Net Neutrality debate is about the access providers
trying to impose usage-based pricing through the backdor - on the
content providers. It goes without saying I oppose it. It's th
Hi Andrew,
I don't think it is obvious that it is too expensive to justify metering in
today's environment. Such a claim was definitely true a few years ago when end
users were mostly sending email, instant messages, and downloading web pages,
but innovation has probably changed the outcome of
> > However, if you look, all the prepaid plans that I've seen look
> > suspiciously
> > like predatory pricing. The price per minute is substantially
> > higher than
> > an equivalent minute on a conventional plan. Picking on AT&T, for a
> > minute,
> > here, look at their monthly GoPhone
Such caps, if they are high enough, may be a reasonable compromise.
As Mark Newton wrote a few days ago, about Australia,
The more sensible end of town pays about $80 per month for about
40 Gbytes of quota, give or take, depending on the ISP. After that
they get shaped to 64 kbps unless
On Jan 19, 2008, at 3:25 PM, Rod Beck wrote:
If service is metered, it doesn't imply 25 cents a minute. It would
probably be based on bytes transferred and would probably be less
expensive for the bulk of users than the current flat rate pricing.
If the cable companies are telling the tru
Simon Leinen wrote:
While I think this is basically a sound approach, I'm skeptical that
*slightly* lowering prices will be sufficient to convert 80% of the
user base from flat to unmetered pricing. Don't underestimate the
value that people put on not having to think about their consumption.
Stupid typo in my last message, sorry.
> While I think this is basically a sound approach, I'm skeptical that
> *slightly* lowering prices will be sufficient to convert 80% of the
> user base from flat to unmetered pricing. [...]
"METERED pricing", of course.
--
Simon.
Frank Bulk writes:
> Except if the cable companies want to get rid of the 5% of heavy
> users, they can't raise the prices for that 5% and recover their
> costs. The MSOs want it win-win: they'll bring prices for metered
> access slightly lower than "unlimited" access, making it attractive
> for
On Jan 19, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
Mikael Abrahamsson writes:
Customers want control, that's why the prepaid mobile phone where
you get
an "account" you have to prepay into, are so popular in some
markets. It
also enables people who perhaps otherwise would not be eligable
becau
On Jan 19, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Taran Rampersad wrote:
Rod Beck wrote:
Ironically, the Net Neutrality debate is about the access providers
trying to impose usage-based pricing through the backdor - on the
content providers. It goes without saying I oppose it. It's the end
users who decide w
anuary 19, 2008 2:25 PM
To: Scott McGrath; Rod Beck
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Patrick W. Gilmore; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial
If service is metered, it doesn't imply 25 cents a minute. It would probably
be based on bytes transfer
Rod Beck wrote:
Ironically, the Net Neutrality debate is about the access providers
trying to impose usage-based pricing through the backdor - on the
content providers. It goes without saying I oppose it. It's the end
users who decide what they view and hence ultimately generate the
traffi
If service is metered, it doesn't imply 25 cents a minute. It would probably be
based on bytes transferred and would probably be less expensive for the bulk of
users than the current flat rate pricing. If the cable companies are telling
the truth, roughly 5% of their customers generate 50% of th
Condensing a few messages into one:
Mikael Abrahamsson writes:
> Customers want control, that's why the prepaid mobile phone where you get
> an "account" you have to prepay into, are so popular in some markets. It
> also enables people who perhaps otherwise would not be eligable because of
> bad
--
From: Scott McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:00:19
To:"Patrick W. Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial
Why does the industry as a whole keep trying to drag us ba
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of David Conrad
Sent: Fri 1/18/2008 11:06 PM
To: Scott McGrath
Cc: North American Network Operators Group
Subject: Re: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial
On Jan 18, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Scott McGrath wrote:
> Why does the indust
If the cheap flatrate broadband were to go away and be replaced by a
metered one, we as an industry need to figure out how to do billing in
a customer-friendly manner. We do not have much experience with this
in many markets.
Us Aussies have PLENTY of experience and are willing to travel an
On Jan 18, 2008 4:16 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sooner or later, somebody is going to try to apply Google's
> approach to hardware in a network backbone. Imagine a network
> backbone with no Cisco or Juniper boxes in it, just lots of
> commodity boxes with triple-redundancy everywhere (quin
As many universities found out long ago after installing Centrex
lines in dormitory rooms, the quote below is not correct. Only, in
telco-land, extended call duration was what used up the available
connection paths. No, I don't know how many Erlangs.
On Jan 18, 2008, at 3:53 PM, Patrick
On Jan 18, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Scott McGrath wrote:
Why does the industry as a whole keep trying to drag us back to the
old days of Prodigy, CompuServe, AOL and really high rates per
minute of access.
Because they want to make more money and not be a provider of a
commodity (see: NGN)?
Re
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jan 18, 2008, at 3:11 PM, Michael Holstein wrote:
The problem is the inability of the physical media in TWC's case (coax) to
support multiple simultaneous users. They've held off infrastructure
upgrades to the point where they really can't of
Why does the industry as a whole keep trying to drag us back to the old
days of Prodigy, CompuServe, AOL and really high rates per minute of
access. I am old enough to remember BOS>c202202
The 'Internet' only took off in adoption once flat rate pricing became
the norm for access. Yes
On Jan 18, 2008 2:53 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> IOW: Usage-based billing makes sense commercially, whether you are a
> propeller-head or a bell-head.
>
> And since Internet providers tend to be for-profit businesses, doing
> what "makes sense commercially" is kinda requi
On 19/01/2008, at 6:41 AM, Michael Holstein wrote:
My guess is the market will work this out. As soon as it's
implemented, you'll see AT&T commercials in that town slamming cable
and saying how DSL is "really unlimited".
Meanwhile, on TWC where downloading the entire Internet over bitto
On Jan 18, 2008, at 4:01 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jan 18, 2008, at 3:11 PM, Michael Holstein wrote:
My guess is the market will work this out. As soon as it's
implemented, you'll see AT&T commercials in that town slamming
cable and saying how DSL is "really unlimited".
P.S. Perha
On Jan 18, 2008, at 3:11 PM, Michael Holstein wrote:
The problem is the inability of the physical media in TWC's case
(coax) to support multiple simultaneous users. They've held off
infrastructure upgrades to the point where they really can't offer
"unlimited" bandwidth. TWC also wants to
On Jan 18, 2008, at 3:06 PM, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
I always find it interesting that people with a telco background keep
trying to go back to the ma bell days and ways, even as the telcos
themselves are abandoning those models for phone service.
I am not at all certain that is what is happen
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
If the cheap flatrate broadband were to go away and be replaced by a metered
one, we as an industry need to figure out how to do billing in a
customer-friendly manner. We do not have much experience with this in many
markets.
Caps/fair use plans
Some restuarants are all-you-can-eat and others are pay by portion.
None of the nice ones. Then again, the nicer restaurants have a portion
size that reflects the higher cost.
The problem is the inability of the physical media in TWC's case (coax)
to support multiple simultaneous users.
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
I'm also looking forward to the pricing, all the per-byte plans I have
seen so far makes the ISP look extremely greedy by overpricing, as
opposed to "we want to charge fairly for use" that is what they say in
their press statements.
I see it more as an experiment
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Right. And mobile phones, which you admit are more difficult to
understand and manage, have clearly been a disastrous failure. By your
analogy, we should expect this to be a slightly less disastrous failure.
(Would that Time Warner were so luck
> Of course, there are ways around this, such as pricing the "base GB"
> below the unlimited plans. Then parents who surf the web for 20
> minutes a day might beat their kids into turning off eDonkey and save
> some cash. Suddenly _everyone_ is happy - except the kids. But since
> they don't pa
On Jan 18, 2008, at 1:57 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Rod Beck wrote:
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/rsstory/61251.html
So, anyone but me think that this will end in disaster?
Possibly. But I do not think it for the same reason you do.
I think the model where you ge
Do other industries have mixed pricing schemes that successfully coexist? Some
restuarants are all-you-can-eat and others are pay by portion. You can buy a
car outright or rent one and pay by the mile.
Roderick S. Beck
Director of European Sales
Hibernia Atlantic
1, Passage du Chantier, 75012 P
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Rod Beck wrote:
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/rsstory/61251.html
So, anyone but me think that this will end in disaster? I think the model
where you get high speed for X amount of bytes and then you're limited to
let's say 64kilobit/s until you actually go to the web pa
60 matches
Mail list logo
