Ya, thats my gut feeling and why I havent done it. Thanks!

On 1/24/07, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No... I don't think that model works... because Joe Surfer sees how fast
this last movie downloaded and decides to grab 3 more while he's at it...
The model of "the customer will use what they are going to use and then
get off" is not true... imagine if Joe Surfer figures out he can
download the movies AND still surf, check email, etc. at the same time?
Then he can just leave it downloading 24x7. :(

Travis
Microserv

RickG wrote:
> Sorry guys for hijacking the thread but this hit a chord...
>
> I've sold bandwidth in all sorts of ways but the most prevalent is by
> speed which is the  way  am currently doing it. My question is this:
> What if you played the "cable game" and just sell  all you can eat?
> Would that not free up your network more quickly for everybody else?
> Example: Joe Surfer downloads movies on demand but is too cheap to buy
> your highest speed offering. So, he buys your slowest speed and ties
> up your network much longer. Just  looking for some opinions here ;)
>
> Thanks!
> RickG
>
> On 1/24/07, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> OR, we could stop playing the Cable Co. and Telco "games" with their "up
>> to 3meg" and "up to 7meg" connections for $34.95 and just start selling
>> what they get.
>>
>> We started selling 512k, 1meg, 1.5meg and 2meg connections (up and down,
>> guaranteed speed 24x7) about 3 years ago. It was the best thing we ever
>> did... people get what they pay for, and when they need more, they buy
>> more. No games, no "burstable" speeds, etc.
>>
>> Make your customers pay for what they need and use.
>>
>> Travis
>> Microserv
>>
>> Blair Davis wrote:
>> > We sell mainly to residential users and to some small businesses.
>> >
>> > We are quite rural, and my cost for a T-1 is $450 per month.  My
>> > pending fiber hookup is $1100 per month for 5Mbit.
>> >
>> > A bit ago, a business customer's new IT consultant complained that the
>> > 256Kbit committed rate for $60 a month was over priced.  He demanded a
>> > 1Mbit committed rate and no price change.  I explained this was not
>> > possible.  He was quite nasty and told me he was recommending that the
>> > customer find a new ISP.  I, fed up with his big city attitude, told
>> > him to go right ahead.  He said to come pick up the gear on this
>> > Friday.  Although, I might have lost my temper a bit and used some
>> > words that the FCC doesn't permit on the phone......
>> >
>> > After he was quoted $600 per month for a T1, (and $9500 install), and
>> > a 3 month lead time, he called me back...
>> >
>> > He decided that my offer of 1Mbit committed rate (6am-6pm, Mon-Fri)
>> > and a 256Kbit committed rate at other times) for $250 a month was a
>> > damn good deal......
>> >
>> > The point of this, is that, for many customers, pricing and bandwidth
>> > expectations are being driven by the cheap bandwidth in the large
>> > cites....  Out here in the real world, it don't work that way.....
>> >
>> > The other point is, that with a good mix of residential and business
>> > customers, and a little creative thinking, one can match their usage
>> > patterns to minimize ones peak bandwidth requirements while still
>> > providing the 'fast, snappy feel' that the users prefer....
>> >
>> > Just my $.02
>> >
>> >
>> > J. Vogel wrote:
>> >
>> >> I would suspect that the customer (as is the case in much of the
>> world,
>> >> not necessarily in the limited
>> >> world you may operate in) does not want to, or in many case could not
>> >> pay for such a pipe. In many
>> >> areas of the US, especially rural, bandwidth is extremely expensive.
>> >> Customers do not want to pay
>> >> close to $1k / month for their residential connection to the
>> internet,
>> >> yet the customer would like to
>> >> access the internet at speed approaching 1.5 mbps (or even faster)
>> >> whenever they can. In such a case
>> >> it makes sense, is good business practice, and not at all
>> unethical to
>> >> sell customers shared bandwidth.
>> >>
>> >> In cases such as these, the question posed by the OP is a valid
>> >> question, and deserves an answer
>> >> other than one which implies that they may be doing something they
>> >> should not be. The world is a big
>> >> place. It is good to get out and see parts of it you may not have
>> seen
>> >> lately.
>> >>
>> >> John
>> >>
>> >> Matt Liotta wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for
>> any
>> >>> and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as
>> opposed to
>> >>> deciding for the customer?
>> >>>
>> >>> -Matt
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> --
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to