Charging for Data

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by HD, Jul 14, 2003.

  1. HD

    HD Guest

    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
     
    HD, Jul 14, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "HD" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
     
    Nicholas Sherlock, Jul 14, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. HD

    T.N.O. Guest

    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.
     
    T.N.O., Jul 14, 2003
    #3
  4. In article <bevkra$d7m$>, "Nicholas Sherlock" <> wrote:
    >"HD" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> 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 !
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Jul 15, 2003
    #4
  5. HD

    Who is this Guest

    In article <i5OQa.80098$>,
    "psi" <> 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.
     
    Who is this, Jul 15, 2003
    #5
  6. "Uncle StoatWarbler" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > 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
     
    Nicholas Sherlock, Jul 16, 2003
    #6
  7. 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?
    >
    >
    >
     
    Steve Finucane, Jul 16, 2003
    #7
  8. "Steve Finucane" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
     
    Craig Whitmore, Jul 16, 2003
    #8
  9. HD

    HD Guest

    On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:21:53 +1200, "T.N.O." <> 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
     
    HD, Jul 17, 2003
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Kendra Kay

    laptop charging advice

    Kendra Kay, Oct 28, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    918
    Kendra Kay
    Oct 30, 2003
  2. Blair

    IBM Thinkpad - Battery Charging

    Blair, Nov 21, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    7,790
    Blair
    Nov 22, 2003
  3. Joan Bakker

    prolonged charging Li-ion in Laptop

    Joan Bakker, Apr 1, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    699
    NoMoHoe
    Apr 1, 2004
  4. Elizabeth McMenemy
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    654
    Toolman Tim
    Apr 18, 2004
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,434
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page