[186960] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeremy Austin)
Mon Jan 11 13:01:18 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <14DEB058-0F6C-4E40-A58F-155904DA9FE9@delong.com>
From: Jeremy Austin <jhaustin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:00:55 -0900
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>
> For $x/month you get Y GB of LTE speed data and after that you drop to
> 128kbps.
>
> You don=E2=80=99t 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. I=
f
> Verizon had a model like this, I would probably switch tomorrow assuming
> their prices weren=E2=80=99t 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?=E2=80=9D
>
> 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 witho=
ut
> warning and without any real ability to say no on most networks.
>
> That=E2=80=99s why I actually like the T-Mo strategy here. With existing =
tools,
> the customer has full choice and control about =E2=80=9Coverage=E2=80=9D =
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 =E2=80=
=94 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=E2=80=99ve got an AYCE plan, you don=E2=
=80=99t have
> overages. If you don=E2=80=99t, then you have some form of usage based bi=
lling.
>
> 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?
