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

Mon Jan 11 18:00:55 UTC 2016

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>
> For $x/month you get Y GB of LTE speed data and after that you drop to
> 128kbps.
>
> You don’t pay an overage charge, but your data slows way down.
>
> If you want to make it fast again, you can for $reasonable purchase
> additional
> data within that month on a one-time basis.
>
> I would like to encourage other carriers to adopt this model, actually. If
> Verizon had a model like this, I would probably switch tomorrow assuming
> their prices weren’t too far out of line compared to T-Mo.
>
>
This is similar to Hughesnet's FAP (unfortunately named Fair Access Policy).

I've had some consumer success with this model. There are other fairness
models that can augment it, however; it's not my favorite.

> >
> > The Internet (from the non-eyeball side) is designed around a
> free-feeding
> > usage model. Can you imagine if the App store of your choice showed two
> > prices, one for the app and one for the download? The permission-based
> > model on Android would have requests like, "This app is likely to cost
> you
> > $4/week. Is this OK?”
>
> Kind of an interesting idea, but to me, the reason usage charges induce
> stress has ore to do with the fact that they are kind of out of control
> pricey first of all and second of all that you start incurring them without
> warning and without any real ability to say no on most networks.
>
> That’s why I actually like the T-Mo strategy here. With existing tools,
> the customer has full choice and control about “overage” costs even if
> their data usage remains somewhat opaque.
>

>From what I understand, the controversy around T-Mo is that the technique
itself was opaque, correct? If the Internet as a whole *had* an "SD" knob,
like Netflix on AppleTV/etc., usage-billed customers would benefit — as
long as it was plainly spelled out.

>
>
> > In addition, let's say I know of an ISP that makes 10% of its revenue
> from
> > overage charges. Moving to a purely usage-based model would lower ACR, as
> > it would have to charge a more reasonable price/gig; that top 10% of
> users
> > won't replace the lost revenue. So even providers may have little
> incentive
> > to change models, particularly if they have a vested interest in
> inhibiting
> > the growth of video or usage in general.
>
> How can an ISP make 10% of its money from overage charges unless they are
> doing usage-based billing? If you’ve got an AYCE plan, you don’t have
> overages. If you don’t, then you have some form of usage based billing.
>
> The varieties of usage based billing that are available are a far less
> interesting exercise.
>
> Owen
>
>
On a continuum, AYCE at one end, pay-by-the-bit at the other, and in
between, usage caps. For the majority of customers on $provider network,
caps are unnecessary; for them, the flat rate they pay is effectively an
AYCE. Smaller stomachs, and they are paying a higher $/bit as they use
less. Those who incur overages are experiencing usage-based billing.

I agree it is uninteresting, but there it is.

How much uncapped LTE spectrum is needed before we can hit that 2Mbps per
customer referred to recently?