Flatrate Schmatrate

[Daveogg]

Henk i kind of get what you are saying, but the crux of the matter is their needs to be affordable unmetered broadband in SA. If you then want to make it even more affordable to low usage individuals by imposing caps - thats great.

As people become more used to using what is available online their bandwidth requirements increase exponentially. If as a country we accept pay per Gb, then the cost of that Gb should decrease exponentially for access to remain affordable.

 

[enx]

the "shopping mall" comparison is a fallacy - you should really compare it to hotels with free minibars...

 

[Kasyx]

So according to your analogy. If me and my friend walk into Edgars and both want to buy a chino. I walk in grab the first Chino I see, pay and leave so my Chino cost R56.00. He wanders around looking at shoes and some shirts, runs into a friend and has a chat, tries on a couple of chinos and finally decides on the blue one with the pink bells and goes to the counter to pay. His Chino cost R235.00 based on the time spent in the shop which he has to pay to the security guard and the R56.00 to the shop.

Let's take that one step further...

You have an edgars account which costs you R100 per month - this is for your basic Edgars card and access. However you also have to pay an additional R245 per month just to walk through the door, it doesn't cost Edgars anything extra to have you walk through the door, but they charge you for it anyway. Thus you have paid Edgars a total of R345 without even looking at their clothing yet.

 

[pip]

Pip, I'm pretty sure most people don't pay R19/GB.

From telkomsa.net, I see that a 3GB shaped account now costs R249.00 and a 1mbps line rental is R516. That adds up to R765.

Roughly $36 per GB.

Froot Loops will be welcome though

*update* I previously said 512kbps line & 3GB. I based this on R477 line rental (on my last bill) and R300 for 3GB, both of which have come down slightly.

OK I left off some costs you included - more like R25/Gb all in. 512k ADSL and line rental from Telkom approx R460, uncapped connection R1540, about 80Gb traffic. Miles off your US$36.

I still say you should be charged for the size of your pipe not what you put through it. Caps are the work of the devil.

 

[henkk78]

I still say you should be charged for the size of your pipe not what you put through it.

Okay, but my question is: why? Where does this idea come from?

And why don't we just get charged for water in the same way? Or electricity?

Heck, water falls out of the sky! All that's needed is some 'routing', some 'cleaning' (QoS, error correction), some 'storage' (caching)...

I just find it interesting that we would insist on flatrate internet, when no other commodities are charged on a flatrate basis. (i'm sure there must be some though.

 

[Kasyx]

Television???

You can watch as much Television as you like. It depends on what you want, just eTV? SABC TV Licence, MNET, DSTV?

You aren't charged for the amount of television you watch, it is a flat, monthly rate. The only factor influencing how much you pay is what channels you want access to (ie you pay more for DSTV than you would for MNET).

I'd say television is a much better comparison to broadband than groceries are.

 

[henkk78]

I actually thought about Television and Radio as well...

It may still be flatrate, but you can't USE more TV or Radio. Adding a 2nd or 3rd TV in your house doesn't mean you're going to USE more signal, as it's 1-way broadcasting.

This is not the case with petrol, water, electricity or internet access.

And yes, I agree, groceries really aren't the best example.

 

[pip]

Okay, but my question is: why? Where does this idea come from?

I'm not feeling very imaginative today, but the big networks overseas charge in that way, and Telkom themselves charge in that way if you hire a leased line ( Diginet/Martis or whatever the term is these days ) ( except for the distance portion ) - you can pump what you like though that 64k/128k/whatever line. Your PC - you don't pay more the more keys you press. The gym - you pay a monthly fee not per weight you push. Bandwidth is a facility, not a thing like sugar. Regarding your mention of internet access - dialup is like that - you pay a monthly fee, and if you have yourself organised, you can pump 5-6Gb a month on a 56k dialup, for much less than ADSL.

 

[Debbie]

As mentioned above, 'bandwidth' is not a physical product.

 

[Kasyx]

Nor is bandwidth a finite commodity like water or petrol.

 

[Arcadies]

nor does bandwidth cost something per unit, it costs an inital cost, and thats it

 

[henkk78]

nor does bandwidth cost something per unit, it costs an inital cost, and thats it

Same could be said for electricity. It's just energy 'conversion'.

Likewise, water could be seen as an infinite product as well.

 

[bwana]

I think the obvious solution is simply to provide different tiers as is done elsewhere with a product geared towards everyone. Obviously the more you use the lower the per unit cost to you should be - that's basic economics.

 

[henkk78]

I think the obvious solution is simply to provide different tiers as is done elsewhere with a product geared towards everyone. Obviously the more you use the lower the per unit cost to you should be - that's basic economics.

ditto!

 

[pip]

Same could be said for electricity. It's just energy 'conversion'.

Likewise, water could be seen as an infinite product as well.

You are really giving forth unadulterated k@k now. It's not the same as bandwidth at all. If you have a copper pair connecting two points there is no marginal cost per quantum of data you run across the pair other than perhaps a miniscule amount of electricity sourced from a third party. There is a very definite marginal cost to Eskom to generate the electrical energy when you plug in an extra heater or stove. Likewise to the municipality or whoever to purify those extra few hundred litres of water for your aspidistra collection. Unless you rely on rain water and you live in a high rainfall area, or have found some clever scheme to harness lightning and store it as electrical energy. Which I doubt.

 

[henkk78]

You are really giving forth unadulterated k@k now.

Do you seriuosly think there's no cost to providing bandwidth???

Electricity, water or bandwidth are very much the same in concept.

OF COURSE moving bits of data around is much cheaper than electricity or water, but the more you use of any of these, the higher the costs become. More water, more pipes etc; more electricity, more lines etc; more bandwidth, more copper/fibre/routers/manpower...

 

[pip]

Do you seriuosly think there's no cost to providing bandwidth???

Electricity, water or bandwidth are very much the same in concept.

When did I say there is no cost to providing bandwidth? Your second statement is where you are misguided. I referred to MARGINAL COST of the next extra byte. Once the infrastructure is in place ( the copper pair that connects 2 points in simple terms ) there is NO extra cost to the next byte. There IS an extra cost to the next litre of water or whatever of electricity. Which it why it is sensible to pay for the size of the ( data ) pipe, as that is where the infrastructure cost is - i.e: the quality of the line, the terminating equipment, etc.

Kindly don't impute moronic ideas to me.

 

[henkk78]

When did I say there is no cost to providing bandwidth? Your second statement is where you are misguided. I referred to MARGINAL COST of the next extra byte. Once the infrastructure is in place ( the copper pair that connects 2 points in simple terms ) there is NO extra cost to the next byte. There IS an extra cost to the next litre of water or whatever of electricity. Which it why it is sensible to pay for the size of the ( data ) pipe, as that is where the infrastructure cost is - i.e: the quality of the line, the terminating equipment, etc.

Kindly don't impute moronic ideas to me.

Of course, when one starts losing the argument, you have to call the other person's ideas moronic... particularly if you don't have a good understanding of the ideas and then redefine it so that you do understand. So whose idea is it actually now?

Water falls out of the sky. The cost is in distributing it. Water itself doesn't cost anything.

Same with bandwidth.

If you have a good counterargument for that, I'm really open to listening to it. But don't start behaving like a 3-year old please.

 

[pip]

Of course, when one starts losing the argument, you have to call the other person's ideas moronic... particularly if you don't have a good understanding of the ideas and then redefine it so that you do understand. So whose idea is it actually now?

Water falls out of the sky. The cost is in distributing it. Water itself doesn't cost anything.

Same with bandwidth.

If you have a good counterargument for that, I'm really open to listening to it. But don't start behaving like a 3-year old please.

You know really, I can assume only that you are now just trolling for fun. Or that your understanding of English is sub-standard. Go find out what "impute" means. I have given you plenty counter arguments that you, like most trolls, ignore. Do you understand the principle of marginal cost? No, I figured not. If I am behaving like a 3-year old it is only because of vainly attempting to communicate in terms you might understand.

 

[rwenzori]

Of course, when one starts losing the argument, you have to call the other person's ideas moronic.

If you have a good counterargument for that, I'm really open to listening to it. But don't start behaving like a 3-year old please.

Pip never called you moronic - he said you imputed moronic ideas to him. He has given arguments against your point. Why not try to respond?