And moreso, in the WirelessWAN environment I'm specifically talking about, it's even *less* so -- most of the others are circuit-switched; idle but connected calls consume much heaver weight resources (a physical channel vs. a network connection control block in the memory of a couple machines).
Yes, that is true but the available bandwidth is still finite.
Packet switching is about as cooperative an environment as you're going to get for flat-rating -- the incremental overhead is so much lighter.
The overhead is not the issue, capacity is. There is a glut of bandwidth in terms of fiber right now in the US but many people are still behind relatively slow links (T1/xDSL). Heck, I am behind a 1Mbps VSAT down here. The local telco gets $350/mo for 1Mbps ADSL to businesses. We are relatively bandwidth starved (which doesn't make a darned bit of sense since St. Thomas is the major fiber nexus for much of the Caribbean and Central America). I want users to keep their usage down so that the capacity available will go as far as possible. Usage-based billing will do that. Flat rate encourages overconsumption because you get more bang for your buck if you overconsume.
Regardless, I recognize the marketing necessity of flat-rate billing.
--
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza, Suite 201 [EMAIL PROTECTED] St. Thomas, VI 00802 +1.340.998.9447 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax GMT-4
-- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
