Metered broadband in the US, very nice pricing if you are used to NZ prices

Author's note by foobar, on 4-Jun-2008 15:02 , user id: 30276)

@sbiddle: Yes, no doubt. P2P is eating into the margins of the 'flat' providers. That's why 'flat' hasn't really been flat for quite some time. Before you know it, you are being rate-shaped, or otherwise restricted.

Anyway, the point really is: In a metered scenario I think the ISPs have less incentive to pay for rate shaping equipment, since they can just charge me more. So, why should they limit me? This in turn should mean that I at least am able to use more bandwidth if I absolutely have to, and in the way I want to. Honestly, I am rarely using much more than 5 GB a month, but I don't want to be limited if I have to use more for some reason, and I don't want to run into pesky BitTorrent filters if I have to use that for something.

If ISPs can charge me for additional bandwidth, I would hope that they actually let me use this additional bandwidth they charge me for. In the metered scenario. people will not just blindly run P2P day in and day out, unless they have money to burn. So, the usage of P2P should self-regulate. As a result, the overall experience for 'the rest of us' might actually improve, no?

I really don't mind metered service, and I can understand why flat rates are not really a viable option for ISPs, what with their thin margins and all. But just wish it would be a little bit cheaper here in New Zealand.

Author's note by foobar, on 4-Jun-2008 15:10 , user id: 30276)

@OldGeek: No, they are not at all spectacularly cheap. For spectacularly cheap there are some prices in Europe, Scandinavia and Asia to check out (so I have heard).

My point was: They are cheaper than what you'd get here in New Zealand, and offer much more bandwidth included. In fact, with 40 GB included in the price, it would almost be like a flat fee for me, since I don't think I ever had the need to download that much in a month.

Sure, the prices might be a bit lower because customers need to be lured, but because there are so many flat rates there to compete with that, I think we will see similarly (or even lower priced) options for quite some time to come.

And as I said in my comment above, once customers start to pay for 'excess' bandwidth, the P2P issue should begin to self-regulate for the ISPs, and they have less incentive to start managing my bandwitdh for me, which is good because I want the option of using my bandwidth in any way I want.

So, if that is a side effect of metered service then I am all for it.

Author's note by foobar, on 4-Jun-2008 17:22 , user id: 30276)

@hellonearthisman: Yeah, I understand that. But ISPs do indeed have very thin margins. I don't quite see why 5% of the people using up most of the ISP's capacity should cause restrictive and invasive bandwidth management for the rest of us. If metered service is causing them to download a few less things then I am fine with that.

Everyone's freedom to be able to do with their bandwidth what they want and when they want is worth more than ability for some download a few more gigs for free.

This is - of course - assuming that the ISPs don't introduce restrictive bandwidth management on top of the metered service. I would think they should have somewhat less motivation to do so then.

Author's note by foobar, on 5-Jun-2008 04:49 , user id: 30276)

@KiwiOverseas66: I think that in the end one really can't just compare dollar values from one country to the next. The actual purchase power needs to be taken into consideration. Just because the average income there is US$ 46k, vs US$ 23k here, doesn't mean that people there can afford twice as much. After all, they need to buy things priced in US$, and if you employ someone, you need to pay them in US$ ... on average US$ 46k a year.