I was interested by the recent question of ISP control. In the first, it was a well-formed question instead of a complaint regarding internet usage rules. Secondly, there are some good thoughts that I align with in regards to what an ISP should offer as customer packages.
There are some good questions raised by the concerns that caused this question: what do customers of ISP have a right to? Certainly, they have the right to the use of their connection as determined by the terms and conditions of their contracts - but do they have a right to be able to use that connection at full speed, all the time, for any purpose? Do heavy resource consumers have the right to slow down my use of that connection? Does that one-size-fits-all package actually suit my usage?
There is a gamble that the ISP's took, and lost. They bet that if they advertised fast speeds and unlimited(* nothing is really unlimited) download caps that customers would be happy. But they over-provisioned the system - much like an airline that overbooks at Christmas there are too many users with high speed connections for the backbone to support - and they rely on the fact that a majority of users will not use all the resources alloted to them. Luckily a great majority are happy, our household rarely uses the full bandwidth cap alloted to us monthly and we are mostly happy with the speeds. (aside: we live in the North after all....). However, there are a small minority that do want to use the full speed and unlimited(*) download space - and these people irk me.
Why?
I am irked by them because their use is being subsidized by my under utilization of the system. I am helping them save money because I don't use all of my alloted bandwidth.
For a more clear example imagine the following:
User 1 (me): uses 50% of their alloted resources at a cost of 100$/month.
User 2 (you): uses 100% of their alloted resources at a cost of 100$/month.
User 1 is paying twice as much per unit of data than User 2 *AND* User 1 is not getting any additional benefit. User 1 has the same speed, the same quality of service, and in fact they might experience a slow down in performance because User 2 is always generating more data traffic. ISP's love User 1 - they are good for profit margins. User 2 - is not good for margins, and they impact the satisfaction of User 1 by always using more resources.
Imagine a situation where you pay for the level of service - the speed, latency, etc - and can choose to get the package you want for your needs. A la carte data service.
In this situation both User 1 and User 2 start with a common base package. It's "Good Enough for Normal use" - e.g. not for YouTube fiends, people that love online Movie Rentals or folks that love NBC's online TV offerings (via a US based proxy) - note these are all video properties. I digress.
Now User 1 chooses to pay to have their connection, at a minimum, 2 times faster and for the amount of traffic they generate they spend the same or less because they generate less of the ISP's traffic volume.
User 2 decides to reduce their usage but to increase the minimum speed by 4 times so they can get their massive data files faster. Their costs go up but they can control when they want to reduce speeds and/or their data use.
If I wanted to make this model even more appealing I would make the choice of features dynamic so I can have incredibly fast speeds for set periods of time, but, I pay for that feature while I am using it, and I don't pay for the feature when I turn it off. Kinda like pay-per-view.
I believe that this kind of model - the pay for what I want and need - instead of the 3 or 4 categories of "one size fits most" is a direction ISP's need to consider - they might even make larger margins off the people that previously did not use all of their alloted resources as they exert more control over their personal service offering.
Comments
Tiered pricing confuses consumers. If a competitor to the company that offered tiered offered unlimited*, everyone would use them, instead. And of course, the "bet" sounds like ISPs with bad planning and a bad business model.
And a la carte data service pretty much sounds like an excuse to implement throttling. Should I now pay extra to transport Bittorrent bits vs. web browsing bits?
I'm not in the everything should be free camp, but (consumer) Internet access in general has many reasons why it should be provided cheaply and efficiently.
I am also in the "you should pay for what you use" camp (as seen above). As you say - you want cheap and efficient internet - but how can you avoid a tragedy of the commons situation where people simply overuse their fair share of resource allotment? Are they entitled to that? Should I help pay for their (over) use?
It's not tiered pricing - it's feature enhancements. The base plan is for everyone. You would then choose to have a faster guaranteed minimum speed for your connection and not buying an unattainable top-speed. While you are using these enhancements you would be able to choose which kinds of activities you want to indulge in - Bit Torrents, gaming, video downloads - you put the value on the bits. The bonus of this model is that if you are the only person at a particular speed rate you could access the *entire* pipe at that speed rate; kind of like driving in Vancouver after 9pm.
The "bet"/bad business plan is in a lot of industries - almost every service the public uses (water, electric, highways, airlines, ISP, mobile phones etc) has this bet built in - that although everyone *could* use 100% of their alloted resources, they don't. Some counter argument are: Look at the collapse of phone networks when earthquakes happen and everyone calls their friends at the same time or, even in rainy Vancouver, what would happen if everyone decided to leave their kitchen faucet running all day, every day. Perhaps, Internet Conservation is not far behind...?
Finally, a la carte service is, in a way, an excuse to throttle. I would rather have my entire bandwidth throttled than have the ISP to decide that only *some* of my traffic is worthy of my full allotment of available bandwidth (a.k.a. Deep Packet Inspection). There is no first class data type if you simply throttle everything.
"you should pay for what you use" I hear that a lot, but, I think it is backwards. You should use what you pay for.
User 2 above is using what they pay for. User 1 is not.
When I buy a truck that can haul a huge boat, but I never tow anything, I don't complain that the money I spent on the truck helped pay for the R&D of the trucks abilities. My neighbour hauls their loads with the same truck that I have. My neighbour is user 2, and I am user 1.
Perhaps in your market there are few options, but in Victoria, there are at least 3 levels of service with my ISP. I chose the middle, and doubt I am using the plan to the max. I refuse the lowest level since it isn't adequate.
You asked "Are they entitled to that?" I say yes since that is what they are paying for.
and this is just me picking on the choice of a personal item you can own: the truck.
You can't really do a fair comparison of something that becomes personal property with a public service. You own that truck, you do not own a service connection.
Personally, I feel water usage is a better example.
If you pay flat water fees, which I believe you still do in Victoria, you can use as much water as you want. For instance, you pay the same as that neighbour who waters their lawn in the rain and during droughts. You use less water because you don't have the useless lawn and because you installed all sorts of water saving devices in your house BUT when you get your bill you have paid, by volume, must more per litre of water than that neighbour. They do not feel the pinch of that excessive use. How do you feel as a paying consumer?
This is why metering and water saving campaigns exist. They are there to encourage the shared responsibility for a public service that we all need. With the importance of internet, I can see us moving towards a "pay for the use" coming sooner than later. Eliminate the caps, give me the choice to create my own service.
Even in your own example you may be able to save money if you could choose a faster connection speed and then ensure you are happy with the cost for the usage you incur. By not using the full package you are subsidizing the others in your package group who do use the full amount alloted to them.
I knew the truck example was bad as I was writing, but I couldn't think of anything better at the time.
Water in Victoria is actually pay for what you use, but I understand what you are saying. The metering and water saving campaigns in Victoria were mostly about water conservation so our reservoir didn't run dry.
The thing is, if a service is offered to me as unlimited, and I pay a flat fee, then I don't see anything wrong with using the service to its fullest extent if I want to. That is why I am paying the fee. Cells phones are pretty analagous to an internet connection. Limited bandwidth, plans, caps, etc. If I use all my minutes every month, what is wrong with that? If I download all my bits every month, what is wrong with that?
You asked: Do heavy resource consumers have the right to slow down my use of that connection?
I still say yes. It is the provider that is at fault. They have a bad network design/equipment, or haven't provisioned their services correctly.
This all boils down to: I just see things from a different perspective. And of course I just realized I haven't read the original article you linked to.
Good points.
I agree that the providers brought this on themselves. They still have service plans that worked when customers only had 28.8kbs dial-up connections. The aggregate bandwidth of all their modem lines was less than their trunk to the internet. Broadband changed this.
Now there is no hope of the provider having more bandwidth to provide an unlimited usage model. This is why I am advocating for the pay as you go model.
I think there will be a cultural spin on this as well; we are used to having unlimited phone lines that we pay flat rates on. The issue is that providers equated an unlimited phone line with unlimited bandwidth and missed a very simple problem - computers don't get tired, don't rest, don't stop talking.
Penalize the users because the ISP screwed themselves by over-provisioning? Not many companies have a good reputation when they don't live up to their promises.