Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Charging for Data

Reply
Thread Tools

Charging for Data

 
 
HD
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2003
Greetings,
I was at a Conference last week in Auckland where I heard a very
provocative address by a Professor Bill Caelli from the Queensland
University of Technology. He suggested that ISPs should be flatrate
charging and that there should be no charging for data. He was
suggesting this in the context of broadband and went on to say that if
an ISP did charge for data (like Ihug does if a customer exceeds the
cap) then the customer should tell the ISP to move into the "real
world"
I was interested to see that even our flat rate charges are rather
high in comparison with other countries.
I am interested in the rationale for data charging - or is this
something that is imposed by Telecom.
Frankly charging for data by any sort of volume seems silly. ISPs
should perhaps be charging for enhanced internet services.
I should be interested to hear if there are any other "takes" on this.

DH
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Nicholas Sherlock
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2003
"HD" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Greetings,
> I was at a Conference last week in Auckland where I heard a very
> provocative address by a Professor Bill Caelli from the Queensland
> University of Technology. He suggested that ISPs should be flatrate
> charging and that there should be no charging for data. He was
> suggesting this in the context of broadband and went on to say that if
> an ISP did charge for data (like Ihug does if a customer exceeds the
> cap) then the customer should tell the ISP to move into the "real
> world"
> I was interested to see that even our flat rate charges are rather
> high in comparison with other countries.
> I am interested in the rationale for data charging - or is this
> something that is imposed by Telecom.
> Frankly charging for data by any sort of volume seems silly. ISPs
> should perhaps be charging for enhanced internet services.
> I should be interested to hear if there are any other "takes" on this.


It costs Telecom to pass bandwidth. It costs them more to pass more
bandwidth than it does to pass nothing. Therefore, they are correct in
charging for bandwidth.

Cheers,
Nicholas Sherlock


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
T.N.O.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2003
HD wrote:

> Greetings,
> I was at a Conference last week in Auckland where I heard a very
> provocative address by a Professor Bill Caelli from the Queensland
> University of Technology. He suggested that ISPs should be flatrate
> charging and that there should be no charging for data. He was
> suggesting this in the context of broadband and went on to say that if
> an ISP did charge for data (like Ihug does if a customer exceeds the
> cap) then the customer should tell the ISP to move into the "real
> world"
> I was interested to see that even our flat rate charges are rather
> high in comparison with other countries.
> I am interested in the rationale for data charging - or is this
> something that is imposed by Telecom.
> Frankly charging for data by any sort of volume seems silly. ISPs
> should perhaps be charging for enhanced internet services.
> I should be interested to hear if there are any other "takes" on this.
>
> DH


A few points.

We are in the middle of a big ocean, far away from pretty much
everywhere, we have a big fat cable joining us to the rest of the world
that cost a heap of money to put there. It must be paid for.

Untill that cable is paid for, or a cheaper alternative comes along, we
will continue to pay a fair bit for the privilege of fast internet.

Incidentally, Im moving to Wireless here in Dunedin, Im just trialing
it, but pricing seems very good, and from doing the sums, it seems to be
pretty good for the ISP too.

Will report back when I can.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Sinclair
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2003
In article <bevkra$d7m$(E-Mail Removed)>, "Nicholas Sherlock" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>"HD" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> Greetings,
>> I was at a Conference last week in Auckland where I heard a very
>> provocative address by a Professor Bill Caelli from the Queensland
>> University of Technology. He suggested that ISPs should be flatrate
>> charging and that there should be no charging for data. He was
>> suggesting this in the context of broadband and went on to say that if
>> an ISP did charge for data (like Ihug does if a customer exceeds the
>> cap) then the customer should tell the ISP to move into the "real
>> world"
>> I was interested to see that even our flat rate charges are rather
>> high in comparison with other countries.
>> I am interested in the rationale for data charging - or is this
>> something that is imposed by Telecom.
>> Frankly charging for data by any sort of volume seems silly. ISPs
>> should perhaps be charging for enhanced internet services.
>> I should be interested to hear if there are any other "takes" on this.

>
>It costs Telecom to pass bandwidth. It costs them more to pass more
>bandwidth than it does to pass nothing. Therefore, they are correct in
>charging for bandwidth.


um ... in many ways it costs them nothing to use the bandwidth they currently
have (ie the cost would be the saem whether ther's traffic or not ... wouldn't
it ?).

Only when the load gets too high for the current hardware would an extra
actual cost start to figure ... wouldn't it ? I guess there's a little
maintenance and depreciation ... but ... ?

Bruce

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Oook !
NOTE remove the not_ from the address to reply. NO SPAM !
 
Reply With Quote
 
Who is this
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2003
In article <i5OQa.80098$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"psi" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I understand the international traffic but why do we have to pay for
> domestic traffic with telecoms jetstream ?
>
> R


I don't, I have UNLIMITED national traffic on jetstart and Xtra.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Nicholas Sherlock
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-16-2003
"Uncle StoatWarbler" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed).. .
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:05:20 +1200, Nicholas Sherlock wrote:
>
>
> > It costs Telecom to pass bandwidth. It costs them more to pass more
> > bandwidth than it does to pass nothing. Therefore, they are correct in
> > charging for bandwidth.

>
> It _costs_ roughly 3 times as much to supply 2Mb/s as it does to supply
> 64kb/s and that's the chargng model you find in the USA anbd other
> countries with open data connection environments.
>
> In NZ, the charges are almost strictly linear.
>
> You're posting so much misinformation you must be a telecom marketing

droid.
>


"I am a robot you must do what I say"

Cheers,
Nicholas Sherlock


 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve Finucane
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-16-2003
Actually the Southern Cross group are charging like wounded bulls for
their services. A single 2Meg pipe to the States is (or was last year,
so I don't expect that it has changed much) 1 mill for one year - this
is the charge to the end telco's.
The older land (ocean) based transmission systems have been
decommissioned so assuming you don't want to use satellite (which even
dearer) you don't have much choice.

Cheers

Steve F

Uncle StoatWarbler wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:21:53 +1200, T.N.O. wrote:
>
>
>>A few points.
>>
>>We are in the middle of a big ocean, far away from pretty much
>>everywhere, we have a big fat cable joining us to the rest of the world
>>that cost a heap of money to put there. It must be paid for.
>>

>
> Before southern cross went in, you could buy 1.5Mb/s (T1) from the USA
> landed in Auckland for about $9000/month.
>
> Getting it delivered in Auckland would cost $4500/month. Getting it sent
> to Palmerston North would cost $20,000/month, getting it to Dunedin was
> $45,000/month
>
>
>>Untill that cable is paid for, or a cheaper alternative comes along, we
>>will continue to pay a fair bit for the privilege of fast internet.
>>

>
> It's not the international charges which are holding things back.
>
> International rates have dropped sharply. National DDS charges are much
> the same as they were...
>
> Guess which company is forcing prices to stay high?
>
>
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Craig Whitmore
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-16-2003

"Steve Finucane" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Actually the Southern Cross group are charging like wounded bulls for
> their services. A single 2Meg pipe to the States is (or was last year,
> so I don't expect that it has changed much) 1 mill for one year - this
> is the charge to the end telco's.
> The older land (ocean) based transmission systems have been
> decommissioned so assuming you don't want to use satellite (which even
> dearer) you don't have much choice.
>


I am pretty sure ~$2500/64K is not what the Telco's look are paying. I
looked at it last year and if you brought enough (which the Telcos/ISP's are
buying), the prices are ALOT less that than your quoted price.

Over the last couple of years TelstraClear/Telecom/GBLX/SPRINT/UUNET/etc and
others prices for international capacity have dropped alot and if you want a
reasonable amount of bandwidth prices are quite competitive.

Thanks
Craig


 
Reply With Quote
 
HD
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-17-2003
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:21:53 +1200, "T.N.O." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>HD wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>> I was at a Conference last week in Auckland where I heard a very
>> provocative address by a Professor Bill Caelli from the Queensland
>> University of Technology.

>A few points.
>
>We are in the middle of a big ocean, far away from pretty much
>everywhere, we have a big fat cable joining us to the rest of the world
>that cost a heap of money to put there. It must be paid for.
>
>Untill that cable is paid for, or a cheaper alternative comes along, we
>will continue to pay a fair bit for the privilege of fast internet.
>
>Incidentally, Im moving to Wireless here in Dunedin, Im just trialing
>it, but pricing seems very good, and from doing the sums, it seems to be
>pretty good for the ISP too.
>
>Will report back when I can.
>


I emphasise that Proff aelli is from Australia not the USA. Given the
significance and versatility of the internet in today's society, don't
you think that that the high bandwidth service should be free rather
than a per mb gouge.

The other tantalising thing that Prof Caelli advanced was that the
days of the ISP are limited as well.

Cheers
DH
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Your disgraced service and totall failure to tak eany notive of my repeated complaints for charging me and disconecting me from internat and e-mail serice Elizabeth McMenemy Computer Support 6 04-18-2004 12:30 AM
prolonged charging Li-ion in Laptop Joan Bakker Computer Support 6 04-01-2004 03:59 PM
IBM Thinkpad - Battery Charging Blair Computer Support 6 11-22-2003 09:18 PM
laptop charging advice Kendra Kay Computer Support 19 10-30-2003 05:42 PM
Website charging Blindsya HTML 24 07-13-2003 12:01 PM



Advertisments