Also, if your billing systems allow for it, you probably want 3 tiers, minimal
users, average users, and streaming users.
John
Joe Fiero <[email protected]> wrote:
>Joe,
>
>
>
>I too built up on an open usage platform and yes, when the subscribers
>logged into their PowerCode portals and viewed usage charts I got
>plenty of
>calls. We have not yet implemented metered billing because the pipe is
>still not capable of delivery, but soon.
>
>
>
>What I told the concerned callers was pretty much what I explained
>previously, that a small percentage of subscribers are utilizing the
>majority of the systems resources and that it was effecting everyone.
> I
>went on to explain how the goal was to charge those that use more
>services
>for their usage, and assure resources remain available for low volume
>users.
>I also add that based on FCC regulations I can not restrict any
>specific
>type of traffic, so this is the only fair way to assure everyone gets
>what
>they want.
>
>
>
>I tell them that our pricing model will not change cost to about 80% of
>our
>subscribers, and the other 20% will see increases based on actual
>usage.
>Many are fearful because they see the abusive rates charged by cellular
>carriers for small packages and immediately thing we are going to start
>hammering them for $150 per month. Like much of what I have read here,
>I
>too am looking at about 30-50 GB of transfer as a base with a small per
>GB
>cost.
>
>
>
>The real value to the upgrade for me will be once we demonstrate we can
>deliver a solid stream that people that are trying to pull multiple
>streams
>will have the option to doing so by upgrading to a higher bandwidth
>package.
>And that is the point I was making before, that the amount of transfer
>has
>little to do with the pipe size, but that size does impact the
>subscribers
>ability to have concurrent streams.
>
>
>
>So we are really focusing on three things; first, we are separating the
>basic and power subscribers, then we are offering those power
>subscribers
>the option to get whatever they want, providing they are paying for it.
>Sure a few will be pissed because they have this entitlement to
>unlimited
>service. Tell them you will start the day the power and gas company
>remove
>their meters.
>
>
>
>In the long run, the decisions made will provide maximum benefit to all
>subscribers. Perhaps we will see a few that refuse to pay and leave,
>but we
>will increase significantly as word gets out about our new
>capabilities.
>Remember, all those smart televisions need a pipe to connect to these
>streaming services. And that is the simplest answer, your changes in
>billing are to accommodate a market that did not exist when you
>deployed.
>When you and I put our systems in place Netflix was not streaming. So
>we
>absolutely must accommodate these new high demand users, while
>acknowledging
>the long time basic users. Just remember that many of them will move
>to the
>other side over the next few years and be very glad you were able to
>accommodate their new requirements.
>
>
>
>Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
>Behalf Of Joe Miller
>Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 11:18 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions
>
>
>
>Joe,
>
>
>
>I do agree that usage based billing is the way to go. However, when our
>system was originally built 10 years ago, it was done so on the
>unlimited
>platform. The customers that we have I believe will respond in a
>negative
>way to the change. So how can we migrate a unlimited system to a UBB
>system
>without for a better word, piss off the existing customer base. I have
>thought about this for quite some time and the billing system I have in
>place can handle running both at the same time. What would be a good
>price
>point per gig of bandwidth? From looking at the current customer usage
>I
>think using $1.00 per gig would be a good starting point for
>discussion.
>Some customers will see a reduction in monthly cost while most will see
>an
>increase in their monthly service. I can see how we can re coup the
>cost of
>bandwidth a lot easier.
>
>
>
>I would like to come up with an email for my customers to ask them
>what
>they think in regards to having virtually as much bandwidth as they can
>use
>in exchange for billing for that usage. Basically, caped speed with
>flat
>rate vs uncapped speed with metered rate.
>
>
>
>Im looking at expanding into a new area and using the UBB platform
>will be
>a lot easier to start out with, but changing out the current customer
>base
>to UBB will be a bigger pill to swallow.
>
>
>
>I think that this is a good discussion for a session in Vegas.
>
>
>
>We have hundreds of companies that are members of WISPA, and I think
>with
>enough minds on this that we can come up with a good solution for
>everyone.
>
>
>
>Regards,
>
>
>
>Joe Miller
>
>www.dslbyair.com
>
>www.facebook.com/dslbyair
>
>228-831-8881
>
>
>
>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
>Behalf Of Joe Fiero
>Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 9:17 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions
>
>
>
>I believe Fred to be correct. Packages based on speed are not the
>answer.
>We call our connection a pipe, so lets use a related analogy;
>
>
>
>You can have two homes with water service. One is an older home that
>has a
>½ inch water main, the other is new construction and has a 1 inch
>service
>main.
>
>
>
>House number 1 has the original fixtures, so the toilet uses 6 gallons
>per
>flush, the shower flow is 7 gallons per minute and the clothes washer
>uses
>40-55 gallons per load.
>
>
>
>House number two, being built under new codes that promote conservation
>has
>a low flow toilet that will use 1.6 2 gallons per flush, a low flow
>shower
>head that restricts flow to 2.5 gallons per minute and a new clothes
>washer
>that uses 20 gallons per load.
>
>
>
>With a family of 5 in each house, its easy to see that , despite the
>smaller service pipe, that house number 1 will have many times the
>water
>usage as house number 2. A smaller pipe did nothing to control the
>flow
>because the flow limit of the pipe was not reached.
>
>
>
>Those two pipes are exactly like a 3 meg and 5 meg Internet connection.
>Within reason, the size of the pipe will do little to limit heavy
>bandwidth
>usage. It only serves to spread it out, creating a longer period of
>time
>that it puts a demand on our networks.
>
>
>
>Like most, we saw our network performance begin to deteriorate as
>Netflix
>switched from a physical to a digital delivery system. The others
>since
>then have continued to slow our once speedy connections. Now we, as an
>industry, are faced with a continued rebuild to meet a voracious demand
>for
>bandwidth to deliver content that we never intended, or anticipated.
>Worse
>yet, we are being positioned to provide these improvements to support
>the
>business model of companies that barely acknowledge our existence.
>
>
>
>And they are getting smarter in their use of our pipes. There was a
>time
>when if you didnt have a good 4.5 meg flow, Netflix would not stream.
>They
>have gone to much more advanced encoding that will adjust to feeds of
>less
>than 2 megs, rendering a 3 meg rate limit useless in defending against
>them.
>
>
>
>The issue of Net Neutrality somehow became synonymous with no caps. It
>appears we are the only service that is viewed by consumers and
>governments
>that should be given away. Services like water, natural gas and
>electricity
>are each brought to a home and metered for actual usage, because it is
>the
>only fair way for those that use these services to pay their fair
>share. In
>most locals, the billing is specifically broken down into two parts.
>The
>first addresses the base cost of the connection to the property, and
>the
>second reflects the cost of the metered usage.
>
>
>
>How is Internet different? We are a service that delivers a commodity
>to be
>used and never recovered. The bits of data we move for our subscribers
>are
>no different than the kilowatt, gallon or therm moved by the others.
>Could
>you imagine if consumers demanded there be no metering on these
>services?
>
>
>
>We are being restricted by network limits from delivering the full pipe
>to
>subscribers. This limitation is a function of cost. Under our current
>structures we cannot justify the cost of building a large pipe to each
>subscriber. After all, we are an industry built on contention. This
>sharing of bandwidth was the impetus of the WISP business for many
>years,
>but that concept has outlived its usefulness. Our subscribers no
>longer
>want to surf the web or check email. Most now do that on their smart
>phones. No, our pipe has become an unwilling player on the next
>pervasive
>shift in the paradigm, as subscription video shifts to a digital
>delivery
>medium.
>
>
>
>Just as VoIP has been disruptive to POTS, and satellite was to cable,
>we are
>on the cusp of the next trend in consumer electronics. Televisions
>today
>are being built with Ethernet ports and wireless networking. They are
>coming with built in apps for all the streaming services. And they
>want all
>this to work over OUR pipes.
>
>
>
>So we need to face reality and understand that if we dont provide
>these
>services, we have become useless to our subscribers. Our failure to
>respond
>to this trend will throw the doors open for someone to come in to our
>markets and pluck each of our hard earned subscribers until we are
>decimated
>and a faint memory. If you think subscribers are satisfied with basic
>Internet services today, you are in denial.
>
>
>
>The answer is we need to build out robust networks that can deliver
>copious
>amounts of bandwidth to our subscribers. Our repayment will come by
>employing the time proven practice of metering for usage.
>
>
>
>We can divide our subscribers into two groups. The cutting edge-tech
>savvy
>type that is creating our issues, and the rest who will be joining
>them. I
>am sure that most of us have similar network statistics. If I look at
>one
>of my network segments I have the top 4 users consuming 25% of all
>bandwidth. I hit 50% at the 13th subscriber. This is a change in
>trend.
>It used to be just 8 that consumed 50%. And yes, bandwidth consumption
>has
>increased accordingly. This change from 8 to 13 subscribers being in
>the
>top 50% indicates my high usage subscribers have increased by 120% in
>roughly the past 6 months. Post holiday season I expect to see at
>least a
>300% increase in my high usage subscribers, which without changes to my
>network, will bring data flow to a standstill.
>
>
>
>So build and meter. Dont ignore the elephant in the room referenced
>earlier in this discussion. Just look at copper phone lines that
>peaked at
>186 million in 2004 which today number about 84 million. In just 9
>years,
>pureplay VoIP, cable VoIP and cellular technologies caused a 55% shift
>in a
>once-thought untouchable market.
>
>
>
>Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
>Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
>Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 5:55 PM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions
>
>
>
>On 9/25/2013 1:00 PM, heith petersen wrote:
>
>I just got off the phone with a customer. I made some adjustments to
>his SM
>the other day to make netflix work. He called back today to tell me it
>works
>good but his direct tv showtime package is OK but not great. I kind of
>wanted to ask him what the hell gives dish net the right to sell you a
>service that rides on my back bone where I do not make anymore money
>for
>your additional use of my service. Anyways I got that off my chest.
>
>
>
>So our situation has been for years residential customers pay a flat
>rate,
>we have no speed or usage based packages. When the customer calls about
>netflix I make throttle adjustments in the SM to make them happy. Well
>eventually I have an overloaded AP, then I have to either sectorize or
>add a
>different frequency, add higher capacity BHs out of my pocket, just to
>keep
>my customers happy at the same price we have been charging for 10
>years. (We
>recently, since going to new billing service, added a $2 paper fee for
>non
>emailed invoices and I get crucified by the same customers every
>month).
>Ideally I want to get away from mechanical throttles.
>
>
>
>We are in the middle running our authentication thru our new billing
>system,
>and converting bridged to fully routed. You know, the things we should
>have
>been doing from day one. Anyways, once we get things squared away,
>whats a
>common practice on doing packages? If you have basic customers out
>there
>that do not stream or use tons of bandwidth would you keep them at the
>current rate, or drop the rate and throttle them tight? I would assume
>that
>we would want to offer an increased package to known streamers, maybe
>throttle them down to a basic level and wait to hear from them when
>they are
>willing to upgrade their package? I would then anticipate that making
>the
>expenditures to provide them with the service would be worth the
>venture.
>
>
>
>Anyways just looking for some suggestions. There is always time to do
>it
>right the second time around
>
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
>This is a really big problem for WISPs. Streaming high-quality video
>has
>been the potential elephant in the room of the ISP business for a long
>time.
>It is finally starting to show up in the room, thanks to Netflix, Hulu,
>and
>others like them.
>
>Poisoning the well is the public's paranoia about cable companies, who
>usually have ample Internet capacity (fiber to a major peering point;
>high
>capacity HFC networks). So if they do anything to limit streaming,
>it's
>seen as an anti-competitive trick, to get people to buy more channels.
>This
>may or may not be true, but that's the public perception, which was a
>major
>driver of the "network neutrality" kerfuffle now in court.
>
>Of course most WISPs are nothing like cable! But the public doesn't
>see the
>difference, and if the FCC gains authority over WISPs (which they
>shouldn't
>have, by law, but what's the law when the public wants their circuses,
>I
>mean teevee?), then if WISPs do anything that selectively blocks video,
>or
>even UDP, it might be seen as a violation. So your legal authority to
>act
>is in question. And who is leading the appeal against the law?
>Verizon,
>who is actually behind it (since it hurts Comcast more than them).
>Hence
>their arguments are on the lame side. The only things going for us in
>the
>DC Circuit are that the DC Circuit dislikes the FCC in general, and the
>FCC
>did a really bad job in claiming the authority.
>
>Thus the "neutral" answer is to move towards bandwidth caps. This to
>me
>makes more sense, to a WISP, than a rate-based price tier. Somebody
>can
>burst at 10 Mbps once in a while and put little load on the network,
>but
>somebody watching TV at 3 Mbps all day will clobber you.
>Gigabytes/month
>represents a monthly average load. If you do this, you can raise
>everyone's
>base rate to the max. Cellular does this.
>
>But there are two very different approaches taken even by cellcos when
>the
>cap is reached. If you are on VZ, ATT or Sprint, you are charged extra
>when
>you exceed the cap. A lot extra. This leads people to buy bigger
>plans
>than they need, just to be sure they don't hit the cap. If on the
>other
>hand you're on T-Mobile, once you hit the cap your data is throttled
>WAY
>down to EDGE speeds (around 80 kbps if the wind is from the west), but
>they
>don't charge more.
>
>So my gut feeling is that the best strategy for dealing with pink-eyed
>elephants is to move to usage-based plans. Look at the actual monthly
>usage
>for each customer and see how many would fall into any given tier, if
>you
>draw tiers. Set it up so that few people pay more than now, but those
>who
>watch TV will. Something like 50 GB/month is probably a typical heavy
>web
>surfer who likes YouTube (which is not streaming) and has their share
>of
>Microsoft Updates to deal with, but only watches a little streaming.
>It's
>the 100+ GB users you want to ding. But you can create a low-cost plan
>(say, <10 GB) for those who mainly need just email and web. It still
>beats
>mobile.
>
>Throttling T-Mobile style (say, down to 512/256k, not 80/24k) seems
>more
>friendly to me than hitting someone with a big bill. That would be
>"neutral" but block TV. And you could even let people "bank" last
>month's
>unused quota (AT&T does this with minutes, right?) for those special
>occasions (like the Breaking Bad finale), if your software can handle
>it.
>But a bill-based system is easier to implement... at least if you don't
>count post-bill customer calls.
>
>I wish there were an easy answer but this is going to be a big issue so
>it's
>good that you're bringing it up for discussion.
>
>--
> Fred R. Goldstein k1io fred "at" interisle.net
> Interisle Consulting Group
> +1 617 795 2701
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wireless mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
Wireless mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
