Comments on: ISPs Should Decide If They Provide a Utility or a Service

By: thegeniusflies

thegeniusflies — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:41:15 +0000

does anyone see a connection between FCC auctions, fewer & larger carriers, oligopolist cartel pricing, and anticompetetive behavior? Then Congress cries foul and shakes the big guys down for more cash. But leaves the structure intact…

By: Stacey Higginbotham

Stacey Higginbotham — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:55:52 +0000

Mari, I think that what Comcast is doing with a high cap is fairly reasonable if they do keep moving that cap upwards as average usage rates increase. The ISP needs to disclose that cap as well. However, a usage-based model will hamper the rush of new services. If people still paid by the hour to be online, do you think telecommuting or all-night WoW sessions would be prevalent today?

By: Mari Silbey

Mari Silbey — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:03:56 +0000

I’m thinking specifically fixed broadband service rather than cellular, but the conclusion I’ve come to over time is that operators should be selling a service, with the caveat that a per-usage model may be necessary/appropriate above a certain threshold. It’s a very slippery proposition in determining what that threshold is, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable for there to be one.

By: kevin

kevin — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:46:26 +0000

Text messaging uses some of the “extra” bandwidth in the signalling links for controlling voice calls and is a very different thing technically from wireless broadband delivered by EVDO or other similar technologies. That being said, the carriers’ pricing schemes for texting is designed to incent users to purchase fixed monthly plans with a significantly lower average cost per text message (assuming that they use all the allotted messages each month).

The customers that I assume have really have lost out are those that send and receive relatively small amount of text messages. Those that send large amounts have received significant discounts ( I assume they are on unlimited plans or plans with large allotments of messages for a fixed price).

The distribution of revenues by monthly messages sent is what I would like to see – not just the average prices per text across all users from a carrier. Not that any carrier is sharing that kind of information.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 04:28:39 +0000

I’m an American, but I lived in Syndey (Bondi Junction) for 7 months. This was in 2003. I was shocked at how expensive even just metered dial-up was there.

However, ISPs here in America need to get their act together. They’ve set consumers’ expectations, and now are trying to change the game to make even more money. They don’t want to become ‘dumb pipes’… which is unfortunate for them as a business, but it’s happening weather they like it or not… and I’m sure they don’t like it.

By: Shannon

Shannon — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 02:54:44 +0000

You’ll find that in Australia it has always been the case that Broadband and ADSL2+ has been metered from the get-go. I think that America has it too good if they’re complaining over 20cent text fees when its 25c here to send a text and always has been.

By: Chirayu Patel

Chirayu Patel — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:55:42 +0000

“Right now carriers are trying to have it both ways, which isn’t going to work. Take monthly broadband access: Unlimited broadband for a set dollar amount per month is a service, but once carriers started seeing usage go up, some of them moved to implement usage-based pricing plans that changed broadband into a metered utility.”

The distinction between service and utility is not quite right. Bandwidth provided in any form – metered or not – is a utility. Services, as you rightly put later, would include texting, photo hosting, etc.