[101895] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rod Beck)
Sun Jan 20 13:04:06 2008
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:54:18 -0000
From: "Rod Beck" <Rod.Beck@hiberniaatlantic.com>
To: "Marshall Eubanks" <tme@multicasttech.com>
Cc: "Scott McGrath" <mcgrath@fas.harvard.edu>,
"Rod Beck" <roderickbeck@tmo.blackberry.net>, <owner-nanog@merit.edu>,
"Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C85B8D.7ADE367B
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Marshall,=20
I think the point is that you need to get buyers to segregate =
themslevesinto two groups - the light users and the heavy users. By =
heavy users I mean the 'Bandwidth Hogs' (Oink, Oink) and a light user =
someone like myself for whom email is the main application. Afterall the =
problem with the current system is that there is no segregation - =
everyone is on basically the same plan.=20
The pricing plan needs to be structure in a way that light users have an =
incentive to take a different pricing plan than do the heavy users.=20
Similar to the way that insurance companies require high premiums for =
better coverage and more benefits.=20
There must be incentives for the heavy user to reveal him or herself as =
a heavy user.=20
I am just a dumb sales pushing point-to-point capacity ... So I don't =
have a good idea of how to do it.=20
Roderick S. Beck
Director of European Sales
Hibernia Atlantic
1, Passage du Chantier, 75012 Paris
http://www.hiberniaatlantic.com
Wireless: 1-212-444-8829.=20
Landline: 33-1-4346-3209.
French Wireless: 33-6-14-33-48-97.
AOL Messenger: GlobalBandwidth
rod.beck@hiberniaatlantic.com
rodbeck@erols.com
``Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.'' =
Albert Einstein.=20
-----Original Message-----
From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme@multicasttech.com]
Sent: Sun 1/20/2008 2:37 PM
To: Rod Beck
Cc: Scott McGrath; Rod Beck; owner-nanog@merit.edu; Patrick W. Gilmore; =
nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner =
Trial
=20
On Jan 19, 2008, at 3:25 PM, Rod Beck wrote:
> If service is metered, it doesn't imply 25 cents a minute. It would =20
> probably be based on bytes transferred and would probably be less =20
> expensive for the bulk of users than the current flat rate pricing. =20
> If the cable companies are telling the truth, roughly 5% of their =20
> customers generate 50% of the traffic. That implies that the bulk =20
> of users are effectively subsidising the five percent of heavy users.
>
> So any sort of well crafted usage-based pricing, would lower the =20
> amount paid by the vast majority of users and raise it dramatically =20
> for the five percent of heavy users.
>
>
Dear Rod;
This does not match my experience of the world. Raise the price for =20
the 5%, sure. Lower prices for the rest, probably not. What I would =20
really expect to result from this are very complicated bills full of =20
obscure fees that effectively raise almost everyone's monthly charge =20
to well above what they advertise on TV. This is, after all, the =20
common pattern on phone service, and I would expect "plans" where you =20
get so much bandwidth but if you exceed your limit you are suddenly =20
paying some exorbitant rate per GB. Soon to come would be TV =20
commercials talking about weekend Gigabytes and daytime Gigabytes and =20
how you can carry your unused Gigabytes over from one month to the next.
Regards
Marshall
> Usage-based pricing would give the cable companies and telephony =20
> incumbents an incentive to upgrade infrastructure and actually =20
> compete for the heavy users. The heavy users would be the most =20
> profitable customers. New technologies would be welcomed instead of =20
> discouraged.
>
> Ironically, the Net Neutrality debate is about the access providers =20
> trying to impose usage-based pricing through the backdor - on the =20
> content providers. It goes without saying I oppose it. It's the end =20
> users who decide what they view and hence ultimately generate the =20
> traffic flows. So the end users should be subject to the usage-=20
> based pricing.
>
> Regards,
>
> Roderick S. Beck
> Director of European Sales
> Hibernia Atlantic
> 1, Passage du Chantier, 75012 Paris
> http://www.hiberniaatlantic.com
> Wireless: 1-212-444-8829.
> Landline: 33-1-4346-3209.
> French Wireless: 33-6-14-33-48-97.
> AOL Messenger: GlobalBandwidth
> rod.beck@hiberniaatlantic.com
> rodbeck@erols.com
> ``Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of =20
> truth.'' Albert Einstein.
>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C85B8D.7ADE367B
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
6.5.7638.1">
<TITLE>RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner =
Trial</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Hi Marshall,<BR>
<BR>
I think the point is that you need to get buyers to segregate =
themslevesinto two groups - the light users and the heavy users. By =
heavy users I mean the 'Bandwidth Hogs' (Oink, Oink) and a light user =
someone like myself for whom email is the main application. Afterall the =
problem with the current system is that there is no segregation - =
everyone is on basically the same plan.<BR>
<BR>
The pricing plan needs to be structure in a way that light users have an =
incentive to take a different pricing plan than do the heavy users.<BR>
<BR>
Similar to the way that insurance companies require high premiums for =
better coverage and more benefits.<BR>
<BR>
There must be incentives for the heavy user to reveal him or herself as =
a heavy user.<BR>
<BR>
I am just a dumb sales pushing point-to-point capacity ... So I don't =
have a good idea of how to do it.<BR>
<BR>
Roderick S. Beck<BR>
Director of European Sales<BR>
Hibernia Atlantic<BR>
1, Passage du Chantier, 75012 Paris<BR>
<A =
HREF=3D"http://www.hiberniaatlantic.com">http://www.hiberniaatlantic.com<=
/A><BR>
Wireless: 1-212-444-8829.<BR>
Landline: 33-1-4346-3209.<BR>
French Wireless: 33-6-14-33-48-97.<BR>
AOL Messenger: GlobalBandwidth<BR>
rod.beck@hiberniaatlantic.com<BR>
rodbeck@erols.com<BR>
``Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.'' =
Albert Einstein.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Marshall Eubanks [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:tme@multicasttech.com">mailto:tme@multicasttech.com</A>]<B=
R>
Sent: Sun 1/20/2008 2:37 PM<BR>
To: Rod Beck<BR>
Cc: Scott McGrath; Rod Beck; owner-nanog@merit.edu; Patrick W. Gilmore; =
nanog@merit.edu<BR>
Subject: Re: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner =
Trial<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On Jan 19, 2008, at 3:25 PM, Rod Beck wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> If service is metered, it doesn't imply 25 cents a minute. It =
would <BR>
> probably be based on bytes transferred and would probably be =
less <BR>
> expensive for the bulk of users than the current flat rate =
pricing. <BR>
> If the cable companies are telling the truth, roughly 5% of =
their <BR>
> customers generate 50% of the traffic. That implies that the =
bulk <BR>
> of users are effectively subsidising the five percent of heavy =
users.<BR>
><BR>
> So any sort of well crafted usage-based pricing, would lower =
the <BR>
> amount paid by the vast majority of users and raise it =
dramatically <BR>
> for the five percent of heavy users.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
<BR>
Dear Rod;<BR>
<BR>
This does not match my experience of the world. Raise the price =
for <BR>
the 5%, sure. Lower prices for the rest, probably not. What I =
would <BR>
really expect to result from this are very complicated bills full =
of <BR>
obscure fees that effectively raise almost everyone's monthly =
charge <BR>
to well above what they advertise on TV. This is, after all, =
the <BR>
common pattern on phone service, and I would expect "plans" =
where you <BR>
get so much bandwidth but if you exceed your limit you are =
suddenly <BR>
paying some exorbitant rate per GB. Soon to come would be TV <BR>
commercials talking about weekend Gigabytes and daytime Gigabytes =
and <BR>
how you can carry your unused Gigabytes over from one month to the =
next.<BR>
<BR>
Regards<BR>
Marshall<BR>
<BR>
> Usage-based pricing would give the cable companies and =
telephony <BR>
> incumbents an incentive to upgrade infrastructure and =
actually <BR>
> compete for the heavy users. The heavy users would be the =
most <BR>
> profitable customers. New technologies would be welcomed instead =
of <BR>
> discouraged.<BR>
><BR>
> Ironically, the Net Neutrality debate is about the access =
providers <BR>
> trying to impose usage-based pricing through the backdor - on =
the <BR>
> content providers. It goes without saying I oppose it. It's the =
end <BR>
> users who decide what they view and hence ultimately generate =
the <BR>
> traffic flows. So the end users should be subject to the usage-<BR>
> based pricing.<BR>
><BR>
> Regards,<BR>
><BR>
> Roderick S. Beck<BR>
> Director of European Sales<BR>
> Hibernia Atlantic<BR>
> 1, Passage du Chantier, 75012 Paris<BR>
> <A =
HREF=3D"http://www.hiberniaatlantic.com">http://www.hiberniaatlantic.com<=
/A><BR>
> Wireless: 1-212-444-8829.<BR>
> Landline: 33-1-4346-3209.<BR>
> French Wireless: 33-6-14-33-48-97.<BR>
> AOL Messenger: GlobalBandwidth<BR>
> rod.beck@hiberniaatlantic.com<BR>
> rodbeck@erols.com<BR>
> ``Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy =
of <BR>
> truth.'' Albert Einstein.<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C85B8D.7ADE367B--
