Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

Robert Webb rwebb at ropeguru.com
Sat Jan 9 17:44:24 UTC 2016


So you are all for supporting having to pay for data the bloatware programs, 
installed by most all providers, which most consumers do not want or use? 
When providers start putting out equipment that has the pure phone OS 
installed, not the bloatware laden crap that is sold today, then I might 
agree with you a bit more.

But we all know from the history of providers that they will never provide a 
reasonable per byte cost.

Everywhere I have lived, providers will come out and replace meters. Some do 
it better then others, especially if you are seeing anomalies in usage. In 
the case of normal utilities though, you can pretty much judge your usage. 
However with internet based per byte billing, one never knows what is going 
on under the hood of the device in places where the user has zero access to.

Robert Webb

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 11:12:16 -0600 (CST)
  Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net> wrote:
> Bytes uploaded and\or downloaded. That's all that should matter. 
>Initiated by you or not. 
> 
> I have never seen or heard of any utility meters being replaced or 
>calibrated. I suppose they should upon reasonable demand, but I've 
>never seen it regularly done anywhere. 
> 
> 
> ----- 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
>From: "Robert Webb" <rwebb at ropeguru.com> 
> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog at ics-il.net> 
> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog at nanog.org> 
> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 11:04:05 AM 
> Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the 
>fan. 
> 
> Unfortunately when it comes to "competition" in the wireless world, 
>even 
> though there are multiple providers, the consumer will always be 
>gouged 
> given the attitude of today's providers to just follow what the 
>other does. 
> In my opinion, kind of a in the public eye form of collusion. So 
>there will 
> never be a true competition based market in the wireless given the 
>current 
> players. 
> 
> There should be certifications for measurement is that is what my 
>bill is 
> going to be based on as a consumer. My power meter, gas meter, water 
>meter, 
> etc. get replaced every so often for calibration and the particular 
>utility 
> will come out and swap or test on site if I think there is an issue. 
> 
> Unfortunately, providers like Comcast, yes, I know they aren't 
>wireless, but 
> their usage meter is a joke and a proprietary based joke at that. I 
>do not 
> think I have ever seen anyone from Comcast willing to describe 
>exactly how 
> their meter works and what is and is not counted towards usage. I am 
>not a 
> wireless expert, but my guess is that it would be even more 
>difficult to 
> accurately track usage on wireless given the portable nature. 
> 
> (In my area, luckily, my landline ISP doesn't charge or have caps 
>either. 
> But my wireless carrier has caps. And given the data hungry phones 
>these 
> days in which a lot of the data cannot be controlled by the user, 
>then I 
> certainly want the technical details of the usage calculation open 
>to me for 
> review.) 
> 
> Robert Webb 
> 
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:46:29 -0600 (CST) 
> Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net> wrote: 
>> The cost to the provider is irrelevant to the consumer. Cost to the 
>>consumer is all the consumer should be concerned with. Competition, 
>>industry and media would serve as the barometer to sensible or 
>>ridiculous pricing. 
>> 
>> There are a myriad of ways to measure usage. I'm not sure there are 
>>any certifications for any other billing relating to the Internet, so 
>>why start now? 
>> 
>> 
>> (My ISP doesn't charge for usage and I don't intend to until the 
>>industry makes that shift. I'm just debating this side.) 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- 
>> Mike Hammett 
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> http://www.ics-il.com 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> 
>>From: "Robert Webb" <rwebb at ropeguru.com> 
>> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog at ics-il.net> 
>> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog at nanog.org> 
>> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 10:37:23 AM 
>> Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the 
>>fan. 
>> 
>> The normal consumer has no way to correlate what the "real" cost is 
>>as the 
>> providers keep their "costs" for bandwidth, transit, etc. 
>>proprietary 
>> secrets and always lie to the consumer and muddy the picture of what 
>>the ISP 
>> actually pays for regarding bits! 
>> 
>> Additionally, until there can be proper tools that are "certified" 
>>for 
>> measuring usage, then usage based billing will never be viable. 
>> 
>> Robert Webb 
>> 
>> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:29 -0600 (CST) 
>> Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net> wrote: 
>>> My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but 
>>>to provide equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig 
>>>certainly isn't a fair price for almost any network. People pay 
>>>variable rates for water, electricity, gas, food, etc., etc. 
>>> 
>>> Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what 
>>>their usage costs? 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- 
>>> Mike Hammett 
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> http://www.ics-il.com 
>> 
>> 




More information about the NANOG mailing list