Flatrate Schmatrate

[ToSsMaStR]

spose ppl should pay for there conection speed and not how much they use it??

 

[koffiejunkie]

henkk78,

If ISPs can offer dial-up or diginet at a flat rate, why the hell do they have to charge per GB for DSL (and 3G etc.) What's the difference?

The issue is not so much that we get charge per GB, but *how much* we get charged. If the cost was reasonable, say R1 per GB (still more expensive than in many countries), I'd happily pay for my usage.

Considering how much bandwidth Telkom has available, and how little it costs them, we're being taken for a ride.

Also consider this. In many cities of the world, in downtown business areas (Sandton would be a good spot for this, if we ever got this far), you have free, unrestricted, unlimited, anonymous wireless internet. That's right, if you're in the area, just open your notebook, connect to the "internet" network and be on your way.

 

[antowan]

Comparing Internet usage to visiting a mall is novel but ineffectual. Had you perhaps compared it to a road or a highway we might have a discussion... I trust there are clever enough folks on this forum who can tell people who might find this remotely interesting what to do with the analogy...

 

[antowan]

Yes, that's a good point! Moving water doesn't JUST consist of it falling out of heaven, it needs cleaning.

In the same way, the internet doesn't JUST consist of a bunch of copper wires connected to each other, it needs management. The more movement of data, the more management required and the higher the costs.

Henk, I am trying to figure out where you are coming from. Whilst I am doing that, here is something for you to chew on. The Internet is best described as roads running through various countries. In every country the folks pay taxes in various forms to get the liberty of well kept roads to drive on. After having paid taxes, government doesn't really care if you drive all day and all night or just in the morning and afternoon. That is up to you. Yes, the roads need upkeep and they do need management (through speed humps and other devices), but the marginal cost per road user is so low that government doesn't really go about giving you a hard time about it.

The only logical reason telco's want to convince the world (and believe me they are trying very hard!) that per meg billing for web access is good, is because they want their good old per minute analogue voice business model back. They want it back so bad it hurts! It was an oh so groovy cash cow that some of the fat cats have withdrawal symptoms since losing it so fast due to competition. Competition is such a wonderful thing if done right! That people try to defend a company like Telkom (with all the protections afforded it) with flimsy arguments like this gets my panties slightly knotted, but I am sure you mean well. We are getting so shafted in this country that trying to find arguments for justifying what Telkom is doing, is like burning the flag! It sucks!

 

[bwana]

The idea of paying more for a certain speed is pretty archaic imo. Let me use BT in the UK as an example of how it might be done here.

BT offers one level of speed for their adsl - up to 8mb. They then offer different price ranges according to data transfer - 2, 6, and 40gb. This makes so much more sense to me because the notion that having a faster line means they will necessarily download more is ludicrous.

The fact is that due to the very nature of ADSL you really cannot guarantee speeds - hence the reason BT offers a speed up to 8mb. There are many reasons for this and we're already seeing it here in SA. People who were on the 1mb lines are now getting up to 4mb.

I'm one of those who has been upgraded and there is little difference between where I was at this stage of the month in August compared to where I am now wrt traffic. I'm definitely benefiting from the speed though - for example I can download a podcast just before I want to go out rather than the night before but its still the same podcast at the end of the day.

We all know that the majority of users dont really download all that much - Telkom professes its around 1.4 gb and I dont necessarily disbelieve that. I look at what my folks, in-laws and the neighbours use and they're barely using that. Myself on the other hand download a truckload. Why should they subsidise my traffic?

There is only a certain amount of data that the lines will support but the way an ISP makes money is by oversubscribing - much like a bank operates, if everyone went in tomorrow and demanded their money the bank would collapse. In the UK contention ratios of 50:1 are regularly touted. That's a lot of people fighting for data.

What we need is a scraping of the speed level - let line conditions take care of that - and a realistic price per gb. Ideally the price would be so affordable that it would essentially be uncapped and ridiculously cheap for those that only needed a couple gb.

 

[henkk78]

Comparing Internet usage to visiting a mall is novel but ineffectual. Had you perhaps compared it to a road or a highway we might have a discussion... I trust there are clever enough folks on this forum who can tell people who might find this remotely interesting what to do with the analogy...

I agree completely, the mall analogy wasn't a good one.

I also think you're quite right, the road analogy is a much better one.

One of the ways we get charged for using roads is by taxes on petrol. I.e. people who drive more or use vehicles that consume more fuel are automatically paying more.

 

[Kasyx]

Petrol and roads have absolutely nothing to do with oneanother. The money you put towards your petrol does not go towards maintaining the roads.

What you're basically saying is that something like the cost of the RAM in your pc could be viewed as a cost for broadband. The two have nothing in common with oneanother.

But, this isn't about who can make the best analogy.

You are trying desperately to compare broadband to any and every other pay-per-unit service out there. It just doesn't work like that. Broadband and the cost it incurrs are a completely different story, you can't say we should be charged based on unit purely because that is how electricity and water works. It comes down to the simple fact that broadband is (or at least should be) a widely available, unmetered service.

Has it not occured to you that, though some people would, for some reason, like per meg pricing, there are many other individuals and businesses who require a set monthly cost for budget reasons? And I'm sure said people would not like having to worry about their uploads and downloads due to a cap or per meg pricing structure.

What I am saying is that it is all good and well to have various pay-per-gig options, provided that there are set cost, unmetered options available as well.

 

[JBFRobisher]

The idea of paying more for a certain speed is pretty archaic imo.

Paying by line speed is how virtually all the major backbones in the USA charge for interconnect. Your costs relate to the facility not how much the facility is used.

 

[bwana]

Paying by line speed is how virtually all the major backbones in the USA charge for interconnect. Your costs relate to the facility not how much the facility is used.

Possibly but DSL is just one of many broadband services - arguably the slowest - available there. Besides ADSL they also have adsl2, fiber to the door, cable, and wifi. Each has its own speed profile. They might offer a couple speeds but these days everyone is trying to offer the fastest cheapest service.

When you look closely many also have fair use policies that are petty much the same as capping. I know a few people who have been politely asked to find a new provider if they didn't reign in their downloading.

You also have to take into account just how much un-used backbone there is in the states. Small towns might have more available bandwidth than the whole of south africa - not exactly a fair comparison is it?

 

[JBFRobisher]

Possibly but DSL is just one of many broadband services - arguably the slowest - available there. Besides ADSL they also have adsl2, fiber to the door, cable, and wifi. Each has its own speed profile. They might offer a couple speeds but these days everyone is trying to offer the fastest cheapest service.

When you look closely many also have fair use policies that are petty much the same as capping. I know a few people who have been politely asked to find a new provider if they didn't reign in their downloading.

You also have to take into account just how much un-used backbone there is in the states. Small towns might have more available bandwidth than the whole of south africa - not exactly a fair comparison is it?

None of what you say counters the basic fact that the cost of infrastructure and facility relates to line speed not what you put through it. What your "fair use" and "capping" boys are PAYING is based ultimately on interconnect speeds. But they want to limit you and charge you based on thruput.

It astounds me just how many people here have been brainwashed by the Telkom pay-per-gig pricing structure. So many regard it as fair and normal. They are not paying their interconnect partners in the USA per gig. They just use this abortion of a pricing structure to screw us so they can pay lower fees to their overseas partners. I mean - what the HELL is a 4mbps line doing with a 3Gb cap?

 

[bwana]

None of what you say counters the basic fact that the cost of infrastructure and facility relates to line speed not what you put through it.

But it doesnt - at the end of the day your paying for throughput. If you have a 1mb line running 24/7 you can put x through it during a certain time period - if your line speed is 8 times that then the amount of data still running over the same infrastructure - has the potential of being 8 times as much. Infrastructure hasnt changed. I've still got the same adsl here at home even though they flipped a switch and upgraded me from 1 to 4 mbit. They havent added more backbone no more fibre has been laid so the cost of the infrastructure hasnt increased.

You're always going to be capped by the physical limitations of your lines regardless of if you have a slow line or a high cap there is a certain point where you simply cannot get any more data.

I would prefer a bandwidth capping on a fast line rather than being limited by the speed of a line. At the end of the day though there is always going to be a price per gb even if they dont expressly tell you what it is.

BTW - the idea that the states is so cheap is bollocks - it depends on where you live. I pay for my dad's broadband which is $70 per month for a 1mb with about 20gb data plus a restrictive FUP. Why so much? Because that's all that is available in his area. No cable, no adsl, and no fiber and therefore no competition.

 

[JBFRobisher]

Infrastructure hasnt changed. I've still got the same adsl here at home even though they flipped a switch and upgraded me from 1 to 4 mbit. They havent added more backbone no more fibre has been laid so the cost of the infrastructure hasnt increased.

So they could just flick their costless switch and upgrade you to 64mbps without upgrading infrastructure?

 

[bwana]

So they could just flick their costless switch and upgrade you to 64mbps without upgrading infrastructure?

Of course not - ADSL only provides up to a maximum 8mb and that max is dependent on the distance to the exchange. An upgrade to 64mb/s wouldnt be possible on adsl so of course you'd need a new infrastructure.

 

[henkk78]

Petrol and roads have absolutely nothing to do with oneanother. The money you put towards your petrol does not go towards maintaining the roads.

What you're basically saying is that something like the cost of the RAM in your pc could be viewed as a cost for broadband. The two have nothing in common with oneanother.

Kasyx, the price of the actual petrol that you put in your car is less than half of what you pay. The rest is taxes, customs, road accident levys etc. I.e. people who spend more time on the road or drive heavier cars will naturally pay more.

What you're basically saying is that something like the cost of the RAM in your pc could be viewed as a cost for broadband. The two have nothing in common with oneanother.

Not saying that at all, but now that you've brought it up, the more traffic on the internet, the more RAM/ROM is needed in routers & switches.

Has it not occured to you that, though some people would, for some reason, like per meg pricing, there are many other individuals and businesses who require a set monthly cost for budget reasons? And I'm sure said people would not like having to worry about their uploads and downloads due to a cap or per meg pricing structure.

A very good counter-argument!!! Although I believe in a per-MB structure, I must admit that I cannot really argue with this fact, except to say that it shouldn't be subsidized by a large majority of people who only use a very tiny amount of bandwidth.

What I am saying is that it is all good and well to have various pay-per-gig options, provided that there are set cost, unmetered options available as well.

Agreed.