[186961] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Jan 11 13:17:15 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABNB40VQxd3rR9MxpGUxv2usw8oy3M=7YU_XfzXhY8Q0ybN-Jw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:15:02 -0800
To: Jeremy Austin <jhaustin@gmail.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Jan 11, 2016, at 10:00 , Jeremy Austin <jhaustin@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com =
<mailto:owen@delong.com>> wrote:
>=20
> For $x/month you get Y GB of LTE speed data and after that you drop to =
128kbps.
>=20
> You don=E2=80=99t pay an overage charge, but your data slows way down.
>=20
> If you want to make it fast again, you can for $reasonable purchase =
additional
> data within that month on a one-time basis.
>=20
> 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=E2=80=99t too far out of line compared to T-Mo.
>=20
>=20
> This is similar to Hughesnet's FAP (unfortunately named Fair Access =
Policy).
>=20
> I've had some consumer success with this model. There are other =
fairness models that can augment it, however; it's not my favorite.
What is your favorite?
> =20
> >
> > 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
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> =46rom 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.
Yes=E2=80=A6 And I=E2=80=99m in line criticizing T-Mobile for this. =
However, when it comes to the pricing model for data overages, there=E2=80=
=99s is the best I=E2=80=99ve seen yet.
> =20
>=20
>=20
> > 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.
>=20
> 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 =
billing.
>=20
> The varieties of usage based billing that are available are a far less
> interesting exercise.
>=20
> Owen
>=20
>=20
> 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.
Another term for usage caps is =E2=80=9Cusage tiers=E2=80=9D where you =
select a tier that you live in and you pay a fine if you exceed your =
usage tier.
However, as I said, I consider everything to the right of AYCE on your =
=E2=80=9Ccontinuum=E2=80=9D to be simply variations of usage-based =
billing.
Sure, to a consumer who stays within their usage tier, their tier looks =
like AYCE (until it doesn=E2=80=99t), but it certainly isn=E2=80=99t =
actually.
>=20
> I agree it is uninteresting, but there it is.
>=20
> How much uncapped LTE spectrum is needed before we can hit that 2Mbps =
per customer referred to recently?
I would assume quite a bit. There are 7 billion potential subscribers, =
so that=E2=80=99s 14 billion Mbps or 14 Petabits per second world wide.
Owen
