Home » Broadband "Shortage" »Issues » Currently Reading:

Cashing In On Usage Based Price Gouging

Phillip Dampier May 27, 2009 Broadband "Shortage", Issues 7 Comments

If you’re a broadband provider throwing a money party by charging top dollar for usage based Cap ‘n Tier rationing plans, why not spread some of that money around?  One company that wants a piece of the action is Highdeal, a German owned company that wants to sell providers the billing system to extract pay-per-byte-bucks from customer wallets.

Highdeal’s chief technology officer, Fergus O’Reilly talked to Telephony Online about how they’re going to market their products for usage based billing.

On moving beyond flat-rate broadband: Operators are realizing that the flat-rate model we had for broadband is no longer tenable. It’s hard to roll out [usage-based models] when subscribers don’t know how much a gigabyte is or what the term bandwidth means. Some [providers] have done better than others. In the Canadian market, for example, it’s getting to be accepted. Rogers has done a good job informing customers about their usage and charging them for overage with cap-and-overage-type schemes. In the US, it’s been a little more difficult. Time Warner Cable let slip that they were doing something and got negative press for it. It became difficult for them to roll that out — one step forward, two steps back. But overall throughout the market, pretty much everyone is equipping themselves with the policy management systems they need to measure and qualify bandwidth usage. The flat-rate model for broadband will change, and we will pay depending on usage, whether that’s measured in [quality of service], absolute bandwidth or a number of those factors.

The system that exists today (that is already very profitable) is always defined as ‘yesterday’ and something ‘we need to move beyond,’ while the highway robbery of overpriced tiers and overlimit fees is the ‘only tenable way forward.’  Not really, of course.  But this is an example of a company with a vested interest in that outcome — namely, a product/solution to sell that would not exist without these kinds of billing schemes.  They garner favor in industry circles by helping to throw the ball around, hopefully establishing the premise that usage based billing is conventional wisdom.

It’s tougher to sell cap-and-overage schemes. Unfortunately many of the charging systems operators have in place are relatively simplistic. And moving to these more sophisticated schemes — time-shifting and proposing a bandwidth boost — many times the blocking factor is, ‘Well, I don’t know how to do that.’ So we propose a very flexible charging system that makes that easy so you can have these dynamic business models that will make more sense for the consumer.

Actually, developing a billing system that pilfers the wallets of consumers, no matter how complex or simple, will not make any sense for customers.  What Highdeal proposes is a billing system that allows providers to rob customers in a sophisticated way, instead of the street mugging wallet extraction approach.  But whether it’s the Bernie Madoff system of billing, or the guy with the bat in the dark alley, consumers are still going to be victimized, and they’ll know it every time they get the bill.

Is Highdeal a raw deal entirely?  No.  Some of their models might actually represent some real world solutions to network congestion, particularly one that could communicate with bandwidth providers and software to schedule bandwidth intensive, but non-critical applications during off-peak usage times.  One such proposal would signal an online backup program to launch when network congestion is reported low by a provider.  Another model might allow consumers to pay more for faster connections to complete individual tasks.  Paying reasonable prices for reasonably faster speeds is not an issue for Stop the Cap!

But companies that buy into industry theories and claims in order to help score a sale have a considerable conflict of interest in being considered a credible source on what consumption and billing models are workable and which are not.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
7 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jeff
Jeff
15 years ago

“Paying reasonable prices for reasonably faster speeds is not an issue for Stop the Cap!” I totally agree. And this goes back to TWC – ( I know it’s been said before but it bears repeating ) if TWC is so interested in saving money for the low bytecount user, why don’t they advertise Road Runner Lite? It’s not like they have no advertising budget. I will add this twist to it: If TWC’s capped plan of April 2009 was such a money saver, that’s a huge competitive advantage. They could steal away customers from their competition like crazy. So… Read more »

Chris Bigelow
15 years ago

Echoing Phillip’s remark, I have TWC’s lowest cable package – I think they call it “Basic”. My bill is $10.08 per month for something like 18 channels. It includes the majors, both the Rochester and Buffalo PBS stations, and some other miscellaneous stuff including a couple of shopping channels that I suspect pay handsomely for the right to air in my living room. You will never see this package advertised. You can’t even find it listed on their web site. You have to ask for it specifically. I wonder if they advertised it if they wouldn’t actually pick up some… Read more »

Tim
Tim
15 years ago

What gets me, is that the pro-cap crowd don’t realize that if there is a cap imposed, there is no incentive for the company imposing the cap to upgrade their lines, offer faster service, or offer quality service. More than likely, they would fit as many people on one pipe as humanly possible and never do anything about it while they sat back and watched almost everyone hit their cap and have to pay extra for doing so. They all know that the way we watch TV is changing. Just like what happened to the traditional land line phone companies… Read more »

InternetCOP
15 years ago

“The reality is, we’re starting to see the beginnings of cord cutting where people, particularly young people, are saying all I need is broadband,” said Glenn Brit, president and chief executive of Time Warner Cable, during a company earnings call in February.

taken from the Wall Street Journal’s “More Households Cut the Cord on Cable”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124347195274260829.html

Don’t feel sorry for poor Brity. Evil begets evil.

preventCAPS
preventCAPS
15 years ago
Reply to  InternetCOP

Maybe consumers wouldn’t be cutting the cord if there was something compelling comming through the cord – just a thought.

Tim
Tim
15 years ago

“Those who end up cutting the cord do pay a price in entertainment. Pay-TV services, like cable and satellite, still carry more live events, TV shows, movies and other content for viewers to watch than what’s available online. Web TV also doesn’t offer as much high-definition content as pay TV.” Actually, you can get these live events on line now and I can only suspect it will grow in the future. “In many situations, consumers also have to watch the content on their computers, which can be less comfortable than watching TV on the living-room couch. And while they can… Read more »

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

Your Account:

Stop the Cap!