Charging for BB by the Gb downloaded

  Tim1964 23:30 09 Oct 03

With reference to an article in the news, what do you guys(not gender spec.) think of the idea of 'freeing up' bandwidth by charging by the amount of data downloaded as apposed to a flat rate. The argument 'for' seems to be that, why should someone who only sends emails and browses pay the same as a user who downloads films (for e.g) all day everyday?

Personally I like the idea of a flat rate. I appreciate the fact that some days I may download software/stream videos and surf for hours and some days I may only browse for a matter of minutes, but at least I know what the bill will be.
Or, should it be like electricity/gas and in some cases water in that you should pay for what you use. Assuming that 'bandwith' is a quantifiable product that can in fact be measured (like water)

What do you think?

  Hitch-Hiker 23:36 09 Oct 03

I know it make sence. Don't know how it will work?

Unless we all have a dwonload metre fitted.

  Simon_P 23:47 09 Oct 03

Flat rate is easy to budget for!

I am happy to pay my monthly fee for mainly surfing and e-mail, as I don't download that much. and like to know how much I will pay each month.

If you spend a lot of time on line you are downloading every page that you visit! So it could work out quite expencive just surfing, without actually downloading anything.

  powerless 23:54 09 Oct 03
  woodchip 23:55 09 Oct 03

Yes but it's hardly a fair system, It's like road tax why they do not put it on petrol, It's because they would not be able to run the country if it was not for the double fuel tax and road tax. A Sunday driver as to pay the same amount of road tax as some one running round all day like reps

  Forum Editor 23:56 09 Oct 03

will prove to be the preferred method of operation for most ISPs. If you're running a service business of any variety it's comforting to have a predictable revenue stream, rather than one which fluctuates according to the whim of your customers.

From the consumers'point of view it's a good idea for much the same reason - it's a predictable 'pay it and forget it' item.

I fail to see how metered charging would 'free up' bandwidth anyway. Water companies have not found that people with meters use less water than those on a flat rate, and I think the same would apply to Internet use.

  Tim1964 00:01 10 Oct 03

Like the £25 per month local call tariffs on landlines, I guess some know that they may never make over £25 worth of calls/month but it's the advantage of knowing what to budget for.

  Tim1964 00:04 10 Oct 03

I didn't think of it from the ISP's point, but yes they need to know what's coming in every month (don't we all).
Are we then, at the moment, paying for more bandwidth than we actually use?

  woodchip 00:06 10 Oct 03

And that is why PCA would rather you took out a subscription all though it cost's the customer that's you and me less, it makes for a steady income for PCA

  Simon_P 00:08 10 Oct 03

It is true that some people dont use the full potential but can rest easy knowing that they wont get a BIG BILL.

If you are on a tight budget then this is important to many people.

  Tim1964 17:49 10 Oct 03

It seems that the customer AND the ISP both prefer a fixed rate so it seems a strange issue for the article, unless they were 'testing the water'. If bandwith does become a problem then the only answer seems to be to raise the price of the monthly fee.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Hands-on: Samsung Galaxy S8 review

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

Samsung's beautifully designed Galaxy S8 makes for better VR experiences too

47 iPhone camera tips to help you take better photos