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

[untoldtech]

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!

you're high if you think this will result in lower prices and no I'm not a heavy user.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Fairness is all I'm after as a consumer (well...and as a business man). I try not to act entitled or selfish...is all.

 

[SAG]

I try not to act entitled or selfish...is all.

Ooooh!
I was waiting to see if you would bring this up!

That's the first thought that goes through my mind when I hear people bickering about this (not necessarily just this forum, but in news articles, other boards, the water cooler, etc). And usually it's those people who grew up in the commodity internet age, not remembering that there was a time when we DID have to pay per MB (not GB) that we used, as well as pay for the service AND the phone line to connect to it.

Complaining about Cable TV is one thing (don't get me started there), but people have spoiled themselves thinking that they can have all-you-can-eat internet for, what really is (like it or not) a fairly inexpensive bill (assuming you make use of it).

Before I got Business class into my home 2 years ago I was using your basic Comcast@Home service. And even then we had a data cap of just a few hundred GB. So to me this isn't really news, rather than them stating that what they have been doing in my area is being broadened, and likely enforced.

 

[Krynn72]

My 2 cents on the matter is that I wholeheartedly agree with StoneCat... in an ideal world. The problem is that Comcast would be in charge of determining prices, and if I am asked "do you think Comcast will charge appropriately if given the chance to bill based on usage?" well... I dont think there are enough laughing-guy animated gifs I could post to accurately express my feelings.

Lets revisit this discussion once we have some legitimate competition in all areas of the US.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

You're probably correct Krynn...but...in order to even have an ISP begin that kind of offering, someone has to start.

A major ISP possibly moving to the "pay as you eat" model...others will follow. And other ISPs may approach it more fairly.

Just need to get the ball rolling. Someone has to dip their toes in the cold water first. Others will surely do it more fairly...but you have to start with someone doing it first.

//keep typing replies as I'm flashing/provisioning Unifi APs...and now another one done... (11th on this network)...time to go climb in another ceiling....

 

[coffee]

Boy, What a thread. I wasnt going to post anything at all but I have been thinking about this matter all day now.

At one time comcast bragged and advertised about 'unlimited internet'. This got them in trouble as people found out about a invisible cap and were dropped. I do believe there were some lawsuits over this.

IMHO, The real problem is that there are too many monopolies on ISP's in areas. In my area you have the choice of AT&T or Comcast. Thats really about it. The rates are high. If you really want to know how it will work out in this new deal with internet you just have to look at past performance.

Comcast's comeback line for any buy out or expansion is - "This will help provide better service and support". But we all know thats a lie. It just puts more money in their pockets. Comcast is not interested in running fibre or any other "great" improvements. The only improvements they want to make is charging more for the same service.

If everyone wants pay-as-you-go service for internet then Im fine with that. As long as there is ample competition in the marketplace(s). Without this competition then things are really going to get out of control. Right now, Since everything is a monopoly out there you can bet your bottom dime that this will not bode well for anyone except the large companies.

It is only when we have true competition in the markets do people benefit.

coffee

 

[callthatgirl]

On another note...

To me I should get that speed for as much data as I want.

So if a client is on a monthly plan for unlimited support with you and puts in a ticket everyday and uses too much time, is that a problem for you? Or at some point would you cap the usage?

Just saying

I'm fast and responsive as cat getting spooked, but I don't do unlimited calls for a reason.

 

[numnutz]

I really do not know anything about the ISP business but, The only reason a business changes there overall pricing model is to raise more money, not to be overall more fair to there clients. Yes some may benefit and some will not but overall I don't believe a CEO or board member wakes up one morning and say's to them self, you know, it's time to be more fair to our customers. they do it to raise more money the make sure it's going to improve there bottom line.

It's easy to accept a company that needs to do it because of the example Cat gave, the small computer company's issue with the massive amount if tickets from one user bottle necking there entire business killing their ability to support other clients and possibly losing physical business and money because of it and maybe even going broke because of it.

Again, I do not know anything about the ISP business and what it really takes in man power, equipment and resources to get google to appear on my screen. But I am reading stories of the Comcast CEO making $20 million+ and I am not seeing them laying off hundreds of employees and closing locations but reading other stories on how internet providers are enjoying a very large profit margin for there business model as is.

I don't want to see anyone out if work, and if a company provides a good service and product I don't want to see any company go out of business either, and IF they need to restructure there pricing model to avoid that, then I'm extremely fine with it. but if it's just to milk more from everyone so the CEO can make $40 million instead of $20 million then.....

 

[codegreen]

Complaining about Cable TV is one thing (don't get me started there), but people have spoiled themselves thinking that they can have all-you-can-eat internet for, what really is (like it or not) a fairly inexpensive bill (assuming you make use of it).

You know what spoiled me? South Korea. When I was working there in 2002, my Internet connection was 20 down, 20 up, for about $20.00 a month. No caps, no server limitations, no down-time. Internet services have only improved since then, but prices have stayed relatively the same. 100 Mbps symmetrical is the standard for urban areas, with 1 Gbps roll-outs happening all over the place.

I understand Canada being behind the curve. We often don't get nice things when it comes to technology. But when I hear giant American communications corporations boo-hooing about Netflix and BitTorrent and who Americans don't really want excellent Internet speeds, I can't help but snort with derision. I have yet to hear any reasonable argument as to why South Koreans can have "all-you-can-eat Internet" for an extremely inexpensive bill, but North Americans can't.

 

[untoldtech]

You know what spoiled me? South Korea. When I was working there in 2002, my Internet connection was 20 down, 20 up, for about $20.00 a month. No caps, no server limitations, no down-time. Internet services have only improved since then, but prices have stayed relatively the same. 100 Mbps symmetrical is the standard for urban areas, with 1 Gbps roll-outs happening all over the place.

I understand Canada being behind the curve. We often don't get nice things when it comes to technology. But when I hear giant American communications corporations boo-hooing about Netflix and BitTorrent and who Americans don't really want excellent Internet speeds, I can't help but snort with derision. I have yet to hear any reasonable argument as to why South Koreans can have "all-you-can-eat Internet" for an extremely inexpensive bill, but North Americans can't.

it's all about distance. Places like japan and other small countries, yeah crazy internet speeds because everything isn't spread apart like the US.

 

[coffee]

it's all about distance. Places like japan and other small countries, yeah crazy internet speeds because everything isn't spread apart like the US.

Give yourself a point on this one!

I chat with a friend in England alot and we get on the subject of internet speeds and cost. Evidently they have a much higher speed than the US and cost isnt as high. I also hear this from other countries like Japan.

Running connections in a small country is alot simplier than in the US. We in the US have large distances to cover and can be quite expensive.

On another note, Comcast and the other ISP's in the US should have seen this coming (netflixs ect...) and planned for it. But they didnt because they basically have a monopoly and have gotten lazy. So, Now they are *itchen about things because they never planned for them. If we had better competition then things like this become benefits or selling points to the ISP - "We provide 'Video Quality' (or whatever they want to sell it as) for Netflix. The competition doesnt".

coffee

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

I have yet to hear any reasonable argument as to why South Koreans can have "all-you-can-eat Internet" for an extremely inexpensive bill, but North Americans can't.

Kinda shocking hearing that from an IT guy...

*Small countries in Europe and Asia....infrastructures were leveled in recent wars, built from the ground up in relatively recent times.

*"Small countries"....versus...giants like the US or Canada. I'm shocked people don't go "Why can't internet in America be like Russia?" Actually it's a more realistic comparison..coming to size and coverage areas and cities and total rural and barren areas.

*Many small countries have government subsidized broadband. Can be "free"..or very low cost. BUT..people conveniently seem to forget high tax rates in those countries, the gov't intercepts your paycheck and takes a pair of scissors to it...keeping 50 or 60% for themselves. So at the end the year...really ain't that cheap...you still pay for it. In the US...it's about businesses, profit.

*Many of those countries have good broadband only in the city....not out in rural area, rice patties, straw huts. Many of those cities are very vertical...not spread out. It's easy to roll out fiber in those.

*The US, Canada, (Russia)...we're massive...and many different ISPs are in competition, different areas, and don't get along well. If you live on the east coast of the US..and you want to communicate with a node on the west coast of the US...take a few minutes and think about how many different ISPs your packet will travel through as it goes across that immense distance.

 

[codegreen]

*Small countries in Europe and Asia....infrastructures were leveled in recent wars, built from the ground up in relatively recent times.

Depends on how you define "relatively recent". South Korea's last war ended in 1953. There wasn't much Internet-capable communications infrastructure to level at that time. But, point taken. I agree that South Korea's communications infrastructure kicks the crap out of anything North America has. I'd just like our communication companies to close the gap a bit, instead of making excuses.

*"Small countries"....versus...giants like the US or Canada. I'm shocked people don't go "Why can't internet in America be like Russia?" Actually it's a more realistic comparison..coming to size and coverage areas and cities and total rural and barren areas.

Yes, on a country-wide scale. I don't expect such countries to have Internet service competitive with South Korea nation-wide. I just wonder why major cities like New York or Phoenix or Toronto can't get anything even close.

But, if you want to compare by geography, what about the UK? Size and coverage areas are similar to South Korea and Japan, and yet Internet service is more like the USA.

*Many small countries have government subsidized broadband. Can be "free"..or very low cost. BUT..people conveniently seem to forget high tax rates in those countries, the gov't intercepts your paycheck and takes a pair of scissors to it...keeping 50 or 60% for themselves. So at the end the year...really ain't that cheap...you still pay for it. In the US...it's about businesses, profit.

That may be the case for those socialist Scandinavians, but we're talking South Korea, baby. It's a market economy with tax rates comparable to the US of A. Internet service is not subsidized, and it's all provided by greedy communications companies like KT and SK Telecom.

*Many of those countries have good broadband only in the city....not out in rural area, rice patties, straw huts. Many of those cities are very vertical...not spread out. It's easy to roll out fiber in those.

South Korea's national average down speed is 21Mbps. That includes the rice patties and straw huts (well, there are still many of the former; not so many of the latter). Of course, people in the rural areas have to make do with slow (or, as we call them in North America, "typical") connections. It's the urban areas that have the mind-blowing symmetrical fibre connections.

*The US, Canada, (Russia)...we're massive...and many different ISPs are in competition, different areas, and don't get along well. If you live on the east coast of the US..and you want to communicate with a node on the west coast of the US...take a few minutes and think about how many different ISPs your packet will travel through as it goes across that immense distance.

That would be quite a few ISPs... but not as many as there would be between a node in Seoul and New York. And yet, somehow the worst Internet service you can get in Seoul blows away anything you can get in New York when you look at what you get for what price.

 

[brandonkick]

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!

100 dollars for 3 months of water, man would that be nice! I think at it's cheapest I would be spending in the ballpark of $150 for three months and that is only if I manage to keep under 2500 gallons. Also keeping in mind that if I had a dishwasher and a washer and dryer here on top of two extra people showering that my water bill would probably be easily $120 a month... so $360 quarterly for that kind of consumption!