Comcast: Usage-Based Billing for All Customers Within 5 Years

[phaZed]

Comcast: Usage-Based Billing for All Customers Within 5 Years; ‘We’re Also Allowed to Do Fast Lanes’
Phillip Dampier May 14, 2014

Comcast will introduce usage-based billing on all of its broadband customers nationwide within five years, whether they like it or not.

Comcast’s executive vice president David Cohen told Variety he predicts the new usage limit will likely be 350GB a month but could increase to 500GB in 2019. Cohen claims consumers in usage-capped test markets prefer a preset usage limit and an overlimit fee of $10 for each additional 50GB of usage.

But Stop the Cap! has learned at no time has Comcast surveyed customers about whether they want their Internet usage metered or capped. That question is evidently not an option.

If Time Warner Cable territories are merged under the Comcast brand, usage billing would likely immediately follow.

<snip>

http://stopthecap.com/2014/05/14/comcast-usage-based-billing-for-all-customers-within-5-years-were-also-allowed-to-do-fast-lanes/

This is going to have severe negative impacts on many people and businesses. I'm with Verizon FiOS so I can only hope that they don't follow this model.

I'm using in the neighborhood of 3-4TB of internet usage a month here at my home business which, if I were on Comcast and this scheme, I would be paying in the neighborhood of $800 a month for internet service. Unbelievable. Honestly, everyone needs to be out there voting against repealing net neutrality, hammering the FCC, and saving the internet. We really are on the precipice of seeing the end of the internet.

I won't even go into the impact this will have on the broader economy.

 

[cypress]

Comcast has really been pissing me off lately. This is just an experience with myself the psat couple of weeks that was finally resolved. Their support is beyond horrible now and one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing.

This doesn't surprise me in the least bit with them.

 

[oldtech]

Comcast doesn't cap business class services.

 

[PCSupportGlasgow]

Honestly, everyone needs to be out there voting against repealing net neutrality, hammerintg the FCC, and saving the internet. We really are on the precipice of seeing the end of the internet.

I won't even go into the impact this will have on the broader economy.

Nothing to do with net neutrality argument and more to do with a CEO trying to make an excuse for a pricing model that will see them earn a fortune... That big bad two percent always get mentioned before everyone gets shafted.here in UK was the excuse to traffic shape the hell out of connectionsand add download caps.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

It's been talked about for years.

I actually welcome it. Internet access isn't a right I'm entitled to, it is a utility. Much like my electric bill. Much like my water bill. Much like my propane gas. The most I use, the more I pay. The less I use, the less I pay. It's simple.

I actually don't like the socialist model we have now....were the rate for everyone is set...to allow it to still be profitable for the company to make money factoring in the small percentage of super heavy users.

You see...right now, you pay higher fees....so that you cover the super heavy users. Those kids that torrent 24x7 and suck up everything they can. So for those of us that are average users, and for those who are light users...guess what? Your bills are higher...because you're covering those selfish super heavy users.

It's kinda like the sucky new health insurance we all (in the US) got stuck with in recent months here in the United States. Thanks to Obama care having to cover everyone...including the unemployed, and the unhealthy....my hard working ass and my healthy self now suffer paying ~50% higher insurance premiums to cover the bums. Believe me....I'd much rather be back to paying what I did last year and years before...where my hard working self and healthy body was allowed a much lower insurance rate.

I say "Good" to what Comcast is bringing in...it allows the medium and light users to just pay what they use. Common sense if you ask me! It's only fair. Pay for what you use!

 

[ohio_grad_06]

Can't say I agree with StoneCat on this one. I pay for service. They say typically X speed for X dollars. To me I should get that speed for as much data as I want. These services cost too much already in my opinion. When we had charter at home, we were paying around 200 a month with TV and Internet(slowest speed they offered).

But I'm paying for a speed, not usage amount. If after 500 gb for example, they need to throttle a little, ok, but not so much that you cut them off. I'm glad we have dish and ATT DSL, not as fast as charter but at least I like their pricing.

 

[TAPtech]

OK, but... if said low-usage person only receives 10MB of data per month... what is their bill?

Let's say Acme ISP charges $50/mo for internet access and only has one plan available. I wonder what percentage of that $50 every month goes to the physical service (like electricity, equipment, lawn care for the main office, etc.) and what percentage goes to support.

If the support is included with the flat rate fee, I wonder how much the price could go down.

 

[mraikes]

It's been talked about for years.

I actually welcome it. Internet access isn't a right I'm entitled to, it is a utility. Much like my electric bill. Much like my water bill. Much like my propane gas. The most I use, the more I pay. The less I use, the less I pay. It's simple.

I actually don't like the socialist model we have now....were the rate for everyone is set...to allow it to still be profitable for the company to make money factoring in the small percentage of super heavy users.

You see...right now, you pay higher fees....so that you cover the super heavy users. Those kids that torrent 24x7 and suck up everything they can. So for those of us that are average users, and for those who are light users...guess what? Your bills are higher...because you're covering those selfish super heavy users.

It's kinda like the sucky new health insurance we all (in the US) got stuck with in recent months here in the United States. Thanks to Obama care having to cover everyone...including the unemployed, and the unhealthy....my hard working ass and my healthy self now suffer paying ~50% higher insurance premiums to cover the bums. Believe me....I'd much rather be back to paying what I did last year and years before...where my hard working self and healthy body was allowed a much lower insurance rate.

I say "Good" to what Comcast is bringing in...it allows the medium and light users to just pay what they use. Common sense if you ask me! It's only fair. Pay for what you use!

While I agree with some of what you say, the idea that consumers may save money by getting those 24/7 torrentors to pay more doesn't withstand scrutiny.

Do you actually expect anyone's internet bill to decrease if Comcast goes through with this? At best a customer might pay the same as they did in the past while others pay a lot more.

Will connection speeds increase? Not likely.
Will customers receive better customer service? Even less likely.
Will this actually benefit Comcast customers in any way? Only those who own Comcast stock.
Will Comcast make a buttload more money with no improvement in actual service or delivery? Absolutely.

This is simply another way for Comcast to throttle/profit from Netflix, streamers and the like.

 

[SAG]

Funny how if we (as business owners) talk about the changes we make to save more or charge more, everyone is all "attaboy" about it.
And then there's this thread.....

I reserve the right to pass judgement until I see the final outcome.

Still, no matter what Comcast charges, it'll be MUCH less than my phone bill "back in the day" when I had to dial long distance to get my old modem screaming across the line.... and don't even get me start about how big the bill was when I dialed internationally in order to get one of the early Linux kernels!

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

While I agree with some of what you say, the idea that consumers may save money by getting those 24/7 torrentors to pay more doesn't withstand scrutiny.

I've spent quite a bit of time with ISP data center guys....including the data center that was the main backbone for all of New England. And my our companies prior office location...we were located in a data center. I've seen enough with my own eyes...combined with knowledge of networks and traffic, and combined with my early years building/managing public gaming servers (including an Unreal Tournament server that was in the top 20 in the world for many years)..I had to endure those complaints from the data center (I used to get on the radar for a data center that had 4x OC-3s...back then, it was big time bandwidth). Cliff Notes...yup...my experience put a spot light on that scrutiny....it does hold water.

ISPs are networks. They're just on a much larger scale. But the metrics still apply.

 

[codegreen]

An Internet connection may be a utility, but that's no argument for usage-based billing. With water, electricity, gas and such, you are consuming a resource. The more you use, the more you consume. Bandwidth isn't like that. When I download a gig of data, I don't "consume" it. Comparisons to consumptive utilities don't make much sense.

And.. "socialist model"? Getting an unlimited Internet connection from a company who either owns the lines, or is basically renting them from another company, is in no way socialism. It is simply the pricing and service model that has taken root in this part of the world. I'm not sure why the word "socialism" gets thrown around in the States so much. It gets misused so often, it is almost meaningless.

I won't touch on your healthcare comparison, because the American healthcare system is extremely confusing (and horrifying!) to me, both before and after Obamacare. I'm glad I don't have to deal with it.

Stonecat, do you seriously believe that, if Comcast switches to usage-based billing, that anyone's bill would go down? What will happen is the base pricing will remain the same, while they get to milk the so-called "heavy users", like families with Netflix subscriptions.

 

[MotzTech]

I'm actually not bothered by this. My current ISP has a 250GB cap and I have never even come CLOSE to it. Even with near constant steaming and downloading games off steam, I rarely go over 100.

As far as my business, I download a lot more, but that's why I have business class internet without a limit. It costs more of course, but no where near what the OP calculated out.

I'm not sure about other parts of the country, but around here, you can get business class service to you home if you want it.

I'd also be curious if they would remove the speed caps and put this in place. I would sign up for that in a second. I would much rather have a 500GB cap and no random speed limitation.

 

[mraikes]

I've spent quite a bit of time with ISP data center guys....including the data center that was the main backbone for all of New England. And my our companies prior office location...we were located in a data center. I've seen enough with my own eyes...combined with knowledge of networks and traffic, and combined with my early years building/managing public gaming servers (including an Unreal Tournament server that was in the top 20 in the world for many years)..I had to endure those complaints from the data center (I used to get on the radar for a data center that had 4x OC-3s...back then, it was big time bandwidth). Cliff Notes...yup...my experience put a spot light on that scrutiny....it does hold water.

ISPs are networks. They're just on a much larger scale. But the metrics still apply.

No debate that Comcast will benefit, both financially and (perhaps) at the data center.

What I disagree with is the conclusion that a customer's current monthly charge - which you suggest is artificially high because of 24/7 torrenters and the like - will somehow be reduced once everyone starts "paying their share". Like Obamacare for the internet.

I contend that YOU won't save a penny. Comcast is not going to come back to their customers and say "now that that nasty top 2% (or 20%, or whatever) is paying more, we're going to lower your rates!"

 

[TAPtech]

It's turned into an Obamacare debate!!!! BAIL BAIL!!!

StoneCat, you've ruined everything.

 

[brandonkick]

It's been talked about for years.

I actually welcome it. Internet access isn't a right I'm entitled to, it is a utility. Much like my electric bill. Much like my water bill. Much like my propane gas. The most I use, the more I pay. The less I use, the less I pay. It's simple.

I actually don't like the socialist model we have now....were the rate for everyone is set...to allow it to still be profitable for the company to make money factoring in the small percentage of super heavy users.

You see...right now, you pay higher fees....so that you cover the super heavy users. Those kids that torrent 24x7 and suck up everything they can. So for those of us that are average users, and for those who are light users...guess what? Your bills are higher...because you're covering those selfish super heavy users.

It's kinda like the sucky new health insurance we all (in the US) got stuck with in recent months here in the United States. Thanks to Obama care having to cover everyone...including the unemployed, and the unhealthy....my hard working ass and my healthy self now suffer paying ~50% higher insurance premiums to cover the bums. Believe me....I'd much rather be back to paying what I did last year and years before...where my hard working self and healthy body was allowed a much lower insurance rate.

I say "Good" to what Comcast is bringing in...it allows the medium and light users to just pay what they use. Common sense if you ask me! It's only fair. Pay for what you use!

It is only fair to pay for what you use, however this will not be the case and I would bet my bottom dollar on that. Customers won't pay less than they do now without "lowering" their services.

For example, I'm on comcast's blast services for something like $50 a month and I get 100-110 down and 15 up (residential connection). My bill, keeping everything the same will not go down.

Most of the utility companies that I know of do not have a true "Pay per use" model. You pay a flat rate for some portion of service and then you pay more for anything above that amount.

Another example: My water bill is $40 a month for 2500 gallons. If I use not one single drop of water, or if I use 2500 gallons then the bill is still $40 for the water. If I go over, say as I had in March, and used 3100 gallons of water then my bill went up to $75.

I do agree with a true pay as you go system, however I don't feel it will be that way.

Can't say I agree with StoneCat on this one. I pay for service. They say typically X speed for X dollars. To me I should get that speed for as much data as I want. These services cost too much already in my opinion. When we had charter at home, we were paying around 200 a month with TV and Internet(slowest speed they offered).

But I'm paying for a speed, not usage amount. If after 500 gb for example, they need to throttle a little, ok, but not so much that you cut them off. I'm glad we have dish and ATT DSL, not as fast as charter but at least I like their pricing.

All you can eat data was something we've all honestly had to see coming to an end. If or not we saw it as a good thing is debatable, but the fact that it was coming is not. I may not like it, but I can understand it. If it means my bill would be lower then I would like it.

While I agree with some of what you say, the idea that consumers may save money by getting those 24/7 torrentors to pay more doesn't withstand scrutiny.

Do you actually expect anyone's internet bill to decrease if Comcast goes through with this? At best a customer might pay the same as they did in the past while others pay a lot more.

Will connection speeds increase? Not likely.
Will customers receive better customer service? Even less likely.
Will this actually benefit Comcast customers in any way? Only those who own Comcast stock.
Will Comcast make a buttload more money with no improvement in actual service or delivery? Absolutely.

This is simply another way for Comcast to throttle/profit from Netflix, streamers and the like.

This is how I feel it will unfold, no one will really pay less. Just some will pay a lot more.

An Internet connection may be a utility, but that's no argument for usage-based billing. With water, electricity, gas and such, you are consuming a resource. The more you use, the more you consume. Bandwidth isn't like that. When I download a gig of data, I don't "consume" it. Comparisons to consumptive utilities don't make much sense.

And.. "socialist model"? Getting an unlimited Internet connection from a company who either owns the lines, or is basically renting them from another company, is in no way socialism. It is simply the pricing and service model that has taken root in this part of the world. I'm not sure why the word "socialism" gets thrown around in the States so much. It gets misused so often, it is almost meaningless.

I won't touch on your healthcare comparison, because the American healthcare system is extremely confusing (and horrifying!) to me, both before and after Obamacare. I'm glad I don't have to deal with it.

Stonecat, do you seriously believe that, if Comcast switches to usage-based billing, that anyone's bill would go down? What will happen is the base pricing will remain the same, while they get to milk the so-called "heavy users", like families with Netflix subscriptions.

It really is a usable commodity in the sense that if your using that particular chunk of "bandwidth" then no one else can. It's like driving down the highway. No one can occupy that same space that your car is in at the moment in time. So it becomes a matter of supply and demand. A highway into a big and popular city may only have 4 lanes each way, and a need to get quickly into and out of the city grows, so does the value of using that highway at any given time. As your car travels down that highway, your "consuming" an ability to travel down it.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

An Internet connection may be a utility, but that's no argument for usage-based billing. With water, electricity, gas and such, you are consuming a resource. The more you use, the more you consume. Bandwidth isn't like that. When I download a gig of data, I don't "consume" it. Comparisons to consumptive utilities don't make much sense.

Revisit what you said..."The more you use, the more you consume".

It is a utility. i\It's not air, you're not entitled to it, it's not a right by birth to have, it's a resource that you use. There is a finite amount. Your ISP has XXX amount to dole out to everyone. All ISPs follow an oversubsciption model, it's essential for them to remain in business (At least in the United States..it's a business. I know some countries provide them by the gov't...but ultimate the people still pay for it with 60% tax rates).

If I live in a 3x room house with appliances for 1x humble person...my electric bill is fairly low. I expect to be billed a rather small electric bill each month. If I go out and buy electric heaters, and run them 24x7 during the cold months, I will use more electricity. I expect to be sent a larger electric bill for that month. If I go and purchase a large house with 4 bedrooms, 7x televisions, 2x refridges, outdoor lighting...I naturally will use more electricity. I expect to get a much larger electric bill.

Or...should the electric company "take an average" of everyones electricity use, and divide by the number of clients...to get an average..and bill everyone that average? Sure...the massive mansions with huge electricity use get a lower bill, but the small houses with 1x humble person barely using anything will pay a higher rate.

Picture how the electric grid is layed out...there's a finite amount of power feeding it, and your ISPs lines are layed out in a similar fashion. The electric grid gets fatter and fatter as it goes from your house, upstream to the power station. Your ISPs lines get fatter as they go from your house, upstream...to their main data center where their gateway is.

This week, I am filling my 33,000 gallon pool with my garden hose. (well...topping it off, probably just 10,000 gallons..I lower it for winter). I expect a higher water bill for the quarter. I don't expect the water company to spread my water usage across to everyone in my neighborhood...because they share the same street water mains as I have. That would be wrong of me, no? Or that would be selfish of me. My water bill goes to a bare minimum pipe charge if I don't use it for a quarter.

We're all just speculating on this, and some are having heart attacks....this same story has been going around for almost 10 years, and this current article states it's 5x years away. So who knows. But I find it would be fair to have several tiers of packages that accommodate different households.

My parents don't use much. They have 1x computer, and don't surf much, and do minimal e-mail. Sucks they have to pay whatever they pay for internet...when they barely use it. Would be great if there was some entry level "50 gig/month" package for them....at a low rate. If they use more...they pay more. Meter it. It's only fair.

My house? Heh...I use a crazy amount. I should be fighting for the entitled selfish side...because if I paid for what I actually use...I'd have insanely high internet bills each month! I have 5x TVs in the house, 2 of which are on Chromecast. I have 2x computers myself, my wife has 3, my son has 2, my daughter has 1, plus 2x ipads in the house, plus 3 smart phones. My kid games all the time and torrents like there's no tomorrow.

Based on that above paragraph...I shouldn't vote for the "pay what you use" model....however, I'm in business...I understand usage of resources has a cost.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

How about this analogy. For those of you that offer MSP services....managed services to clients. You get 10x clients together. You estimate the same amount of your time spent across them all evenly. However....1 of those clients ends up calling you every couple of hours, and each call takes up at least an hour of your time. Pretty soon...you don't have enough time to devote to your other clients...and they suffer. And you're unable to take on more clients...to make profit..because so much of your time is focused on this 1x person.

So what do you do? Raise your rates for all 10x clients? IMO...that's unfair for the other 9 clients...they're paying because this 1x client is sucking up your time.

I say...turn that 1x offending client into a "pay as you go" model, or...double their rates. don't penalize the other 9.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

I lot of people say "All you can eat" bandwidth...or more commonly..."unlimited internet".

Yet I've yet to see any actual writing in the TOS of any ISP that states that.

Back in the early days of cable internet, the term "always on" came about. Old DSL had PPPoE dial up adapters that connected on demand. but cable was "always on"...got misinterpreted to mean "always consume all you can" or something. It never meant that. ISPs gave bandwidth in gobs...within reason. There was always a "within reason" clause there to give them the ability to shut down abusers. It's tucked in the small print that everyone never reads when signing up.

 

[brandonkick]

I can say I do completely agree with usage based billing. You pay for what you use, makes sense to me.


As I've stated about my water bill, I get charged a flat rate for the first 2500 gallons and then even a few extra hundred gallons cost an arm and a leg. In fact if I go over by just 500 gallons, those 500 cost just as much as the first 2500. AND if i only use 1500, I still pay the same flat rate that allows me to use up to 2500 gallons. That's hogwash to me. I argued it with the water company making the analogy to the grocery store. It would be the same as if I got a bill from the grocery store every month for $100, even if I didn't go to the store and get a single can of food.

Also I just remembered about Verizon's $30 "upgrade fee" they started a little while ago. So when you upgrade to a new phone, say the iphone 5s which is $99 with two year agreement. You now pay an extra $30 on top of that, so they don't have to charge for their "smartphone classes". It's a "introductory" course on using a smart phone for mom or dad, or grandma or grandpa so they can get the basics of using the phone. Don't get me wrong... it's probably a decent service (I don't know as I never took the course) but why should I get charged so THEY can take the class? Why not charge those who take the class? I don't NEED the class, I can use my smart phone just fine without it.

I guess it's much much easier for me to lobby things to be this way, because I am a minimalist in the fact that I make it a point to try to consume/use/spend as little as possible on a daily basis. I make it a point to be in and out of the shower in five min. I turn lights off unless it's a light in the room I'm currently in and I need it. I refill plastic water bottles 2-3 times each. We only eat out two times a month on average. I use rain water to water things. To me, it's a challenge to use as little resources as possible. But a challenge that I like, and I'm motivated to do better at...


So yeah, we should only be billed for what we actually use. Even if you didn't have the same ideals as I do... I still think it holds water to be charge for what your actually using.

EDIT: By the way, I bet that 10,000 gallons of water hikes your water bill pretty good!

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

I can say I do completely agree with usage based billing. You pay for what you use, makes sense to me.


As I've stated about my water bill, I get charged a flat rate for the first 2500 gallons and then even a few extra hundred gallons cost an arm and a leg. In fact if I go over by just 500 gallons, those 500 cost just as much as the first 2500. AND if i only use 1500, I still pay the same flat rate that allows me to use up to 2500 gallons.

EDIT: By the way, I bet that 10,000 gallons of water hikes your water bill pretty good!

You have expensive water where you are...I gotta look at our bills, but if I recall I think we're under 100 bucks quarterly...save for my spring (due to pool load) And that's a household of 4...2 of 'em kids that take 1/2 hour showers.

(I miss having my own well and septic!)

Getting pool water delivered by a local pool company is around 350 bucks for 10k gallons. "spring water" they call it. Hah!

But yeah we appear to be on the same page. I'm good with "tiers" of usage. Offer someone different tiers of monthly consumption...starting with small packages. Gives the "light" users the chance to save money. That still, to me, qualifies for a "pay for what you use" approach. It's all about being fair.