I think a rate limited plan would appeal to most customers
as it would
give them a fixed monthly budget item. But I am pretty
sure this will
not happen in the US based on experiences with the broadband
by cell
providers who prefer a 'bill-by-byte' method with no
mechanism to stop
loss in the event of a runaway process or compromised host
It seems
the market has lost it's taste for a known revenue stream
with known
costs and profits in exchange for a Vegas go for broke
growth at all
costs mentality. And too often the vendor does go broke
it seems the
market has lost a degree of rationality to the point where
ISP are
'firing' customers who are using 'too many' resources
instead of trying
to help them fix their issue or if they really are using all
those bits
finding a mutually beneficial method of profiting from
them.
Mark Foster wrote:
>
>>
>> The big advanatge of these plans is that the
cost is fixed
>> even if I've used up all my alotted transfer.
>>
>
> This is the success of systems that implement rate
limiting (not
> additional charging) once a specified ceiling has been
reached.
>
> It provides some fiscal security that you're not going
to blow out
> your upper limit. (I've seen some horrendous bills in
the face of
> 'overage' caused by virus/drone infections, spammers
hitting
> mailservers run on SME broadband links, etc etc.)
>
> Both .nz and .au have implemented this. No reason that
.us can't do
> the same?
>
> Heck were I in the USA and I had to choose between
'flat rate' and
> some figure in the vicinity of 10-15GB/month then 'rate
limiting'
> (especially then including the option to buy more
bandwidth as a
> one-off), the latter would win hands down. Flat rate
(in my world)
> often includes port-based and/or time based throughput
limiting that's
> designed to prevent the ISP from being ground to a halt
by P2P during
> peak hours, etc....
>
> I'd rather have a (reasonable) monthly limit for an
affordable price,
> thanks.
>
> Mark. (In .nz)
>
|
