Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bowdon]

I was thinking last night while half a sleep so I know that the answers to this question might be an easy.

I got to wondering why on every other Internet connection technology, only Fibre as had speed packages (I'll include Virgin Media's packages in this as well).

I can't remember paying different levels of money for connections before Fibre/Cable. The only time people would pay extra money is for unlimited downloads.

So I guess what I'm saying is why isn't the FTTC pricing just one price at upto 80Mb speeds and have a minimum guaranteed speed of like 35mb's.

I think the 330Mb package is on an FTTP/H so I'm excluding it from the pricing as its a different technology.

I guess the point I'm making is that prices before used to be set on the technology, not the speed we individually could get on it. What is the reason behind grouping speeds in to packages and selling it like that?

[Al1264]

IMO & IIRC fibre (FTTC) was originally only capable of 40Mbps (on profile 8c), introducing the faster 80Mbps capable (profile 17a) FTTC meant a great marketing opportunity to charge more for those wanting the new 'even faster' speeds (which probably cost much the same to provide/operate as the original slower version).

[licquorice]

IMO & IIRC fibre (FTTC) was originally only capable of 40Mbps (on profile 8c), introducing the faster 80Mbps capable (profile 17a) FTTC meant a great marketing opportunity to charge more for those wanting the new 'even faster' speeds (which probably cost much the same to provide/operate as the original slower version).

So you think that all the extra backhaul bandwidth to carry the extra speed comes for free?

[jelv]

There have been previous times when different speeds were different prices. E.g. before ADSL Max the 512Kbps, 1Mbps and 2Mbps fixed rate products were different prices.

[kitz]

Scroll down the page

Historic pricing for plusnet adsl,  theres been quite a few different prices for speed.   Plusnet even had a 4Mb product for a very short while and there were a few other ISPs who also sold different priced products based on speed.
http://www.kitz.co.uk/isp/plusnetfees_old.htm

adsl max was the first rate adaptive DSL and sold as 'up to 8Mbps' and synced as fast as it could.   
adsl2+ is also rate adaptive but now limited at 24Mbps rather than 8Mbps.
Wholesale costs generally were 256kbps, 512kbps, 1Mbps, 2Mbps & adslmax.

[Al1264]

So you think that all the extra backhaul bandwidth to carry the extra speed comes for free?

No, but for a lot of users the actual bandwidth used will not be a great deal more on an 80Mb/s service than on a 40Mb/s service.  Obviously there will always be some users that will make the most of whatever capacity they have available but for the average user that probably does not apply.

[Chrysalis]

ADSL max era was sort of an anomoly (a bad unfair one at that) which had the adsl market all paying the same price whilst getting different speeds.

Cable has always had multiple speed packages, so not sure where the OP's comment regarding cable came from.

The reason different prices for different speeds are twofold.

1 - you get more so you pay more, seems logical and fair to me.
2 - Burst speed costs money (although some argue against this, but its a fact).  The higher burst speeds are the higher peak time demand is, and peak time demand is prime driver for capacity requirements on percentile billing.

[NewtronStar]

1 - you get more so you pay more, seems logical and fair to me.

Not true on a 40/10 service I pay more than a user on the 80/20 service who's exchange is unbundled or in the profitable market

Which does not seem fair to me

[Chrysalis]

newt not the same thing you in a different area.

[Bowdon]

I avoided the ADSL Max technology. I was on Be and we had the ADSL2+ technology going on, which I found to be a lot more reliable.. well, until Sky took over, then my phone and broadband problems started (grumbles).

[Chrysalis]

I hated all of adsl max, and to me adsl2+ was even more of a raw deal as it had a one price fit all policy regardless if you got 0.5mbit or 24mbit.  The marketed speeds of 24mbit were not even achievable by 1% of people.

FTTC has gone in the right direction in that its not as bad, there is different tiered products at different price points and its a whole lot more than 1% that are able to hit 80mbit sync speed.

[gt94sss2]

I guess the point I'm making is that prices before used to be set on the technology, not the speed we individually could get on it. What is the reason behind grouping speeds in to packages and selling it like that?

As others have indicated this has happened for a long time - not just with fibre.

In dial-up days when one faced telephone charges, 'time' was effectively the limiting factor to how long customers stayed online/downloaded.

In fact, I even have a very distant memory (possibly faulty!)  that when 56K modems were introduced some ISPs initially charged extra to connect to them.

The introduction of 'always on' connections meant time was no longer the limiting factor, it effectively became the amount of data you can transfer.

With ADSL you originally had fixed speeds of 512KB, 1MB and 2MB - if your line couldn't achieve the speed BT would not install the line. Some ISPs - as now used bandwidth caps - others offered unmetered tariffs.

The introduction of the rate adaptive services (upto 8/24MB) allowed the introduction of cheaper self install options and a 'what ever the line is capable of' services. But even there, the wholesale costs reflected what the maximum possible connection was (in theory).

That is the good news; the bad news is that as soon as it happened you had complaints about I am paying for 'upto xx' but only getting 'y' - the charges should reflect my actual connection speed (its still a common complaint).

It used to happen with dial up as well but it was less significant if someone connected at 40k or 50k given the state of the net then and the fact it was relatively less popular/important.

In brief, charging by speed reflects the maximum data you can download - in general the faster the connection you pay for the more data you use.

[kitz]

In fact, I even have a very distant memory (possibly faulty!)  that when 56K modems were introduced some ISPs initially charged extra to connect to them.

I was with Unet.   They charged £12pm to connect and then you paid per min.  The phone bills could be horrendous.
The year was 1996 and I had a 33k PCI modem that my brother bought me for my birthday.
Who else can remember the term v.fast 

BT introduced 'Freecall' in 2000 for a flat rate of £9.99.  For this you could go online between 6pm to midnight and at weekends.
By 2001 ISPs were kicking people off for being online too much.

Theres a couple of gems here
http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/history.htm

26-04-00    BT is launching a new broadband service

Among UK telecom operators, only Telewest has already launched its broadband service Called Blueyonder, it is currently available only in cable households in south-east England. It charges £50 a month.
The BT service will cost £39.99 a month for consumers, with an installation fee of £150.
Businesses wanting a single use connection will have to pay VAT on top of those prices.
Multi-user business deals will cost £99.99 a month with a £260 installation charge - both prices are exclusive of VAT. Initial speeds will be up to 512 kilobits per second (kbps), but BT hopes to upgrade to 1 or 2 megabits per second (mbps) by the autumn.

 

[Chrysalis]

I was living with my parents when I started using the net, I had my modem hooked up all day and got into trouble with my dad as his customers couldnt ring in, he let me have my own phone line to solve the issue.

[adrianw]

My initial comms forays were with BBSs with a 300 bps modem (long since given away), eventually settling on CIX (the Compulink Information eXchange).

My first venture on to the net (sort of) proper was a UUCP (store and forward for mail and USENET, complete with a bang path email address) connection to a machine made from spares by an acquaintance at a BT offshoot. A local call after which my traffic went over BT's internal network to Martlesham Heath, and then on to UKC. UK traffic was free, but international email traffic via the satellite link was several pence per kilobyte. "Downloading" via email could get very expensive.

Later, I switched to Demon's Internet by dial up, complete with long distance rate calls. There were a few 24 hour phone call incidents. Followed, in some sequence, by Pipex (ugh), Nildram (good till they were taken over), Sky (never again, they lied to me), Be (happy, but left on the Sky take over news), BT Business (just say no, unbelievable incompetence), Plusnet, and recently switched to the at long last available Plusnet FTTC.

A pair of Courier HSTs only recently entered my electronic waste box, along with some other dial up modems, an ISDN modem (I think), and a frightening number of ADSL modems. Free to anybody who wants to lumber themselves with them and can collect from the vicinity of Crewe. The power supplies are not available, being jumbled in a big box of spares. I long ago fried my Trailblazer (2400 bps with UUCP spoofing) by connecting the power supply with it turned on (8-(

Returning to question posed in the title - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_segmentation - internet junkies like us are prepared to pay a lot to get our fix fast.