Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

From: Andrew Odlyzko (no email)
Date: Sat Jan 13 2007 - 17:22:49 EST

  • Next message: Pierre Baume: "Re: Comment spammers chewing blogger bandwidth like crazy"

    Extensive evidence of the phenomenon Mike describes (inexpensive,
    frequently used things moving towards flat rate, expensive and
    rare ones towards sophisticated schemes a la "Saturday night
    stop-over fares") is presented in my paper "nternet pricing and
    the history of communications," Computer Networks 36 (2001),
    pp. 493-517, available at

      http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/history.communications1b.pdf

    It also explains some of the mechanisms behind this tendency, drawn
    both from conventional economics (bundling, etc.) and behavioral
    economics (willingness to pay more for flat rates).

    This tendency can indeed reverse in cases of extreme asymmetry of
    usage. But one has to be careful there. Heavy users are often
    the most valuable. (In today's environment they are often the
    ones who provide the P2P material that attracts other uses to the
    network. And yes, there is a problem there, in that you don't
    need such heavy users to be on YOUR network for them to be an
    attraction in signing up new subscribers.)

    Andrew

    > On Sat Jan 13, Mike Leber wrote:

      On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
    > On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
    > > There is no technical challenge here; what the pirates are already doing
    > > works pretty well, and with a little UI work it'd even be ready for the mass
    > > market. The challenges are figuring out how to pay for the pipes needed to
    > > deliver all these bits at consumer rates, and how to collect revenue from all
    > > the viewers to fairly compensate the producers -- both business problems,
    > > though for different folks.
    >
    > Will the North American market change from using speed to volume for
    > pricing Internet connections? Web hosting and other markets around the
    > world already use GB/transferred packages instead of the port speed.

      The North American market started with charging per GB transfered and went
      away from it because the drop in cost per Mbps for both circuits and
      transit made costs low enough so that providers could statistically
      multiplex their user base and offer "unlimited" service (unlimited for
      marketing departments is being able to offer something to 99 percent of
      your customer base, which explains all residential service clauses that
      state unlimited doesn't really mean unlimited).

      You can see this repeatedly for all sorts of products as costs have come
      down in the long view. For example, consumer Internet dialup, long
      distance calling plans, local phone service plans, some aspects of cell
      phone service, it might be happening with online storage right now (i.e.
      google gmail/gfs and the browser plugins that let you store files in your
      gmail account).

      What might or might not be trending is a digression, the "unlimited"
      service is a marketing condition that seems to occur when 99 percent of
      your customer base uses less than the cost equal to the benefit of
      offering "unlimited" service.

      Mike.

      +----------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -----------------+
      | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 |
      | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 |
      | http://www.he.net |
      +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+


  • Next message: Pierre Baume: "Re: Comment spammers chewing blogger bandwidth like crazy"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD