On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:01:00 +0100, RevK  wrote:

>Posted at 2009-10-09 09:40 BST by RevK
>Update #3: 2009-10-09 10:01 BST
>
>  We are planning to make a change to the billing for usage based
>  broadband from 1st Jan 2010.
>    
>  Customers on the 1GB basic tariff now will get an extra benefit.
>  Currently they get 1GB peak and 50GB peak. However the new tariff will
>  mean they get 2 units at the same price, which gives 1GB peak and 100GB
>  off-peak (or 2GB peak and none off-peak, or 200GB off-peak and none
>  peak, etc).

Why would anyone want this?

>> The only downside is that night time usage (2am-6am) will start to
>> count a little towards usage at a rate of 1000GB per unit rather than
>> being un-metered. Upload will still not count at all.

Correct. May not affect me but is a downside. I see absolutely no plus
side anywhere.

Paul Jones wrote:
>    
>>  Customers on the 1GB basic tariff now will get an extra benefit.
>>  Currently they get 1GB peak and 50GB peak. However the new tariff will
>>  mean they get 2 units at the same price, which gives 1GB peak and 100GB
>>  off-peak (or 2GB peak and none off-peak, or 200GB off-peak and none
>>  peak, etc).
> 
> Why would anyone want this?
> 

It allows people to trade off peak usage against off-peak usage (and 
increases off peak allowance at the same time).  So, for example, if you 
get the odd week working from home and use a LOT of peak you won't 
necessarily end up having to buy a top up because you've gone over your 
peak allowance.

>>> The only downside is that night time usage (2am-6am) will start to
>>> count a little towards usage at a rate of 1000GB per unit rather than
>>> being un-metered. Upload will still not count at all.
> 
> Correct. May not affect me but is a downside. I see absolutely no plus
> side anywhere.

See above

Terry.

On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 09:41:12 +0000 (UTC), David Taylor
 wrote:

>On 2009-10-09, Paul Jones <news@news-only.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:01:00 +0100, RevK  wrote:
>>
>>>Posted at 2009-10-09 09:40 BST by RevK
>>>Update #3: 2009-10-09 10:01 BST
>>>
>>>  We are planning to make a change to the billing for usage based
>>>  broadband from 1st Jan 2010.
>>>    
>>>  Customers on the 1GB basic tariff now will get an extra benefit.
>>>  Currently they get 1GB peak and 50GB peak. However the new tariff will
>>>  mean they get 2 units at the same price, which gives 1GB peak and 100GB
>>>  off-peak (or 2GB peak and none off-peak, or 200GB off-peak and none
>>>  peak, etc).
>>
>> Why would anyone want this?
>
>Why _wouldn't_ anyone want this?

Thanks that explains it!

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:48:05 +0100, Terry N <news@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>Paul Jones wrote:
>>    
>>>  Customers on the 1GB basic tariff now will get an extra benefit.
>>>  Currently they get 1GB peak and 50GB peak. However the new tariff will
>>>  mean they get 2 units at the same price, which gives 1GB peak and 100GB
>>>  off-peak (or 2GB peak and none off-peak, or 200GB off-peak and none
>>>  peak, etc).
>> 
>> Why would anyone want this?
>> 
>
>It allows people to trade off peak usage against off-peak usage (and 
>increases off peak allowance at the same time).  So, for example, if you 
>get the odd week working from home and use a LOT of peak you won't 
>necessarily end up having to buy a top up because you've gone over your 
>peak allowance.

Likewise your off peak then goes down so you may then have to buy top up
here.
Makes no sense to me at all.

Paul Jones wrote:

> 
> Likewise your off peak then goes down so you may then have to buy top up
> here.

But you start off with TWICE the amount of off-peak so that's an upside :-)

Terry

On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 09:59:26 +0000 (UTC), David Taylor
 wrote:

>On 2009-10-09, Paul Jones <news@news-only.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 09:41:12 +0000 (UTC), David Taylor
>> wrote:
>>>On 2009-10-09, Paul Jones <news@news-only.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:01:00 +0100, RevK  wrote:
>>>>>Posted at 2009-10-09 09:40 BST by RevK
>>>>>Update #3: 2009-10-09 10:01 BST
>>>>>    
>>>>>  Customers on the 1GB basic tariff now will get an extra benefit.
>>>>>  Currently they get 1GB peak and 50GB peak. However the new tariff will
>>>>>  mean they get 2 units at the same price, which gives 1GB peak and 100GB
>>>>>  off-peak (or 2GB peak and none off-peak, or 200GB off-peak and none
>>>>>  peak, etc).
>>>>
>>>> Why would anyone want this?
>>>
>>>Why _wouldn't_ anyone want this?
>>
>> Thanks that explains it!
>
>It wasn't supposed to.  The original status post exlained it.
>I was merely trying to get more information on why you seemed
>to think it wasn't beneficial to be able to allocate any
>previously-unused off-peak bandwidth allowance to peak (or
>vice versa).

Why bother posting then?
I asked a question to a status post. As I asked it, I did not feel it
was explained. Fool!

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:59:30 +0100, Terry N <news@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>Paul Jones wrote:
>
>> 
>> Likewise your off peak then goes down so you may then have to buy top up
>> here.
>
>But you start off with TWICE the amount of off-peak so that's an upside :-)

Yes thanks, I see that but it is not a lot of use if you have moved it
(the unit) to peak time.
Unless of course it means you can split units up.
If that is the case why call them units. I am now going to have to do a
unit to MB/GB conversion.
I fail to see how changing 1GB to 1 unit makes the slightest difference.

On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 10:08:47 +0000 (UTC), David Taylor
 wrote:

>On 2009-10-09, Paul Jones <news@news-only.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 09:59:26 +0000 (UTC), David Taylor
>> wrote:
>>
>> Why bother posting then?
>
>I posted: "to get more information on why you seemed
>to think it wasn't beneficial to be able to allocate any
>previously-unused off-peak bandwidth allowance to peak (or
>vice versa)."
>
>> I asked a question to a status post. As I asked it, I did not feel it
>> was explained. Fool!
>
>In order to more effectively answer your question, I asked for
>further information.  I am not sure why you feel you need to insult
>me as a result?

No you never. You came back with an attempt at a wise crack.
Has no-one ever told you not to answer a question with a question?

On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 10:48:18 +0000 (UTC), David Taylor
 wrote:

>On 2009-10-09, Paul Jones <news@news-only.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> No you never. You came back with an attempt at a wise crack.
>> Has no-one ever told you not to answer a question with a question?
>
>And yet, when you eventually gave the answer to my question (to
>another poster), it immediately became apparant what the
>misunderstanding was.

Not at all.
I do not see any point to any of it.
All I see is a simple system being made more complicated.
Units. Units of what? Units of Gigabytes.
Why not just call them Gigabytes?

Hope this does not catch on.
What next, go to the deli and order a unit of cheese.
What's a unit of cheese? That would be 1KG sir.

In article , news@news-
only.co.uk.invalid says...
> Not at all.
> I do not see any point to any of it.
> All I see is a simple system being made more complicated.
> Units. Units of what? Units of Gigabytes.
> Why not just call them Gigabytes?

The system is being brought in because bandwidth pricing differs 
radically depending on what kind of line the end user has and A&A feel 
that their pricing structure needs to reflect that.

Units are units of bandwidth that are worth different amounts of time 
depending on the type of line and the time of day. 1 unit does not 
always mean 1Gb so calling them Gigabytes doesn't work.

For example on a 20CN line you can buy 1 unit and use the it for 0.5Gb 
of peak time traffic AND 25Gb of off-peak traffic AND 250Gb of 2-6am 
traffic. (Or whatever combination you wanted allowing for the relative 
rates at different times of the day.)

In the same way on a 21CN line you could buy 1 unit and use it for 
0.75Gb of peak time traffic AND 25Gb of off-peak traffic AND 250Gb of 2-
6am traffic.

And on a Be line you could use 1 unit for 4Gb of peak time traffic AND 
25Gb of off-peak traffic AND 250Gb of 2-6am traffic

-- 
The wages of sin are death... but the hours are good and the perks are 
fantastic

On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 15:55:30 +0100, Matchstick 
wrote:

>In article , news@news-
>only.co.uk.invalid says...
>> Not at all.
>> I do not see any point to any of it.
>> All I see is a simple system being made more complicated.
>> Units. Units of what? Units of Gigabytes.
>> Why not just call them Gigabytes?
>
>The system is being brought in because bandwidth pricing differs 
>radically depending on what kind of line the end user has and A&A feel 
>that their pricing structure needs to reflect that.
>
>Units are units of bandwidth that are worth different amounts of time 
>depending on the type of line and the time of day. 1 unit does not 
>always mean 1Gb so calling them Gigabytes doesn't work.

Now that has confused me even more ;)

I think I will just continue using things how I do already and ignore
anything to do with units.
If things end up costing me less (of my money units), that will be good.
If it costs me more then I will be more than a little pissed off
(probably by about 10 of my angry units, or 8 if it is after 6pm but
before 2am).

Paul Jones wrote:
> 
> Not at all.
> I do not see any point to any of it.
> All I see is a simple system being made more complicated.
> Units. Units of what? Units of Gigabytes.
> Why not just call them Gigabytes?

You don't get it, do you?

You will get allocated a given amount of credit per month, measured in "units", 
depending on which tariff you pay for. I assume it will also be possible to 
carry forward or back up to a month's worth of credit as at the moment. Then 
you can spend your units any way you like. If you have 3 credits, you could use 
it all as 3GB daytime (4.5GB if you're on 21CN), or 300GB off-peak, or any pro 
rata combination of the two. If you choose to stick to 2 units peak and 1 unit 
off-peak then you get exactly the deal you are getting at the moment. If, on 
the other hand, you use the net almost exclusively during office hours, or 
almost exclusively off-peak, then you can use the credit from the unused time 
during the time you actually use it, rather than losing it. At no point will 
you ever be worse off than you are at the moment.

The credit buys you a different number of gigabytes per unit off-peak than it 
does peak, just like Economy 7 electricity (only in this case the differential 
between the rates is a lot greater.

Is that foolishly simple enough?

Alfred E Neuman wrote:
> ... If you have 
> 3 credits

This should of course read "If you have 3 units of credit".

> The credit buys you a different number of gigabytes ...

This should of course read "A unit buys you a different number of gigabytes".

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:24:43 +0100, Alfred E Neuman wrote:

> If you have 3 credits

That's a much better name than units. I'm going to shamelessly steal
that from you and call them credits when I'm explaining it to the
'others' :-)

-- 
Regards - Rodney Pont
The from address exists but is mostly dumped,
please send any emails to the address below
e-mail	ngpsm4 (at) infohitsystems (dot) ltd (dot) uk

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:24:43 +0100, Alfred E Neuman 
wrote:

>Paul Jones wrote:
>> 
>> Not at all.
>> I do not see any point to any of it.
>> All I see is a simple system being made more complicated.
>> Units. Units of what? Units of Gigabytes.
>> Why not just call them Gigabytes?
>
>You don't get it, do you?
>
>You will get allocated a given amount of credit per month, measured in "units", 
>depending on which tariff you pay for. I assume it will also be possible to 
>carry forward or back up to a month's worth of credit as at the moment. Then 
>you can spend your units any way you like. If you have 3 credits, you could use 
>it all as 3GB daytime (4.5GB if you're on 21CN), or 300GB off-peak, or any pro 
>rata combination of the two. If you choose to stick to 2 units peak and 1 unit 
>off-peak then you get exactly the deal you are getting at the moment. If, on 
>the other hand, you use the net almost exclusively during office hours, or 
>almost exclusively off-peak, then you can use the credit from the unused time 
>during the time you actually use it, rather than losing it. At no point will 
>you ever be worse off than you are at the moment.
>
>The credit buys you a different number of gigabytes per unit off-peak than it 
>does peak, just like Economy 7 electricity (only in this case the differential 
>between the rates is a lot greater.
>
>Is that foolishly simple enough?

NO. They are still gigabytes that we will be suing. Credits, units all a
load of codswallop.

On 9 Oct 2009 16:23:05 GMT, Bob Eager  wrote:

>On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:38:31 +0100, Paul Jones wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 10:48:18 +0000 (UTC), David Taylor
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>>On 2009-10-09, Paul Jones <news@news-only.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No you never. You came back with an attempt at a wise crack. Has
>>>> no-one ever told you not to answer a question with a question?
>>>
>>>And yet, when you eventually gave the answer to my question (to another
>>>poster), it immediately became apparant what the misunderstanding was.
>> 
>> Not at all.
>> I do not see any point to any of it.
>> All I see is a simple system being made more complicated. Units. Units
>> of what? Units of Gigabytes. Why not just call them Gigabytes?
>
>Because one unit costs a standard amount. And a unit isn't always worth a 
>gigabyte - it may be worth 100, or 1000, or 1.5.
>
>Unless you want lots of different charges instead of a unified £2.55.

As opposed to lots of units being worth different amounts of gigabytes.
I am only going to be on one tariff so the others do not concern me.

I am always going to have to look at the unit and convert it to
gigabytes because that is the real 'currency' I use on the Internet. I
don't download any units.

I like:
A certain amount of inclusive gigabytes for peak and off-peak.

Purchase topups if needed (I never have):
1 off-peak GB costs x amount.
1 peak GB costs x amount

Oops that is what we have now. Guess we have been doing things all wrong
up to now.

Now I understand AAISP have to change their pricing model for whatever
reason.
I am sure the real reason is to get us off peak time usage as much as
possible as this is what costs them the most.
So up the prices without introducing something that just adds an extra
layer of confusion.
It was already the most confusing pricing structure of any ISP. It is
now double so.

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:21:38 +0100, Paul Jones wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:24:43 +0100, Alfred E Neuman 
> wrote:

>>Is that foolishly simple enough?
> 
> NO. They are still gigabytes that we will be suing. Credits, units all a
> load of codswallop.

It wasn't foolishly simple enough..



-- 
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:36:24 +0100, Paul Jones wrote:

> I like:
> A certain amount of inclusive gigabytes for peak and off-peak.
> 
> Purchase topups if needed (I never have): 1 off-peak GB costs x amount.
> 1 peak GB costs x amount
> 
> Oops that is what we have now. Guess we have been doing things all wrong
> up to now.

It's not, quite. I pay for 4GB peak and 100GB offpeak per month. I don't 
know how much one peak GB costs. Or how much one offpeak GB costs. I just 
pay a lump sum.

You've just described the new pricing model!

You are insinuating that this is a way of raising prices. Mine have gone 
down.


-- 
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

Alfred E Neuman wrote:

> Is that foolishly simple enough?

There's nothing foolish about simplicity. On the contrary, it's the
essence of good design.

I too would rather keep tariffs in straightforward GB rather than have
to parse this new layer of abstraction to work out what I'm getting for
my money. Just have different tariffs for the different kind of line -
it's much better that AAISP do the work once than every customer have to
do it himself.


-- 
Richard Lamont                        http://www.lamont.me.uk/

OpenPGP Key ID: 0xBD89BE41
Fingerprint: CE78 C285 1F97 0BDA 886D BA78 26D8 6C34 BD89 BE41

Paul Jones wrote:
> 
> I like:
> A certain amount of inclusive gigabytes for peak and off-peak.
> 
> Purchase topups if needed (I never have):
> 1 off-peak GB costs x amount.
> 1 peak GB costs x amount
> 
> Oops that is what we have now. Guess we have been doing things all wrong
> up to now.
> 
However, the way things are now, if you use up all your peak inclusive
gigabytes, but haven't used all your off-peak gigabytes, you can't
transfer the unused off peak allowance to give you more peak time useage
before having to top up (or carry forward).

AIUI, the new scheme would allow you to transfer unused off peak useage
to peak time use (and vice versa).  Because the cost per gigabyte is
lower off peak than it is peak, the term "units" is used to avoid
confusion as to why 100 off peak gigabytes becomes only 1 peak gigabyte.

On 2009-10-10, Alex Monro  wrote:
>
> AIUI, the new scheme would allow you to transfer unused off peak useage
> to peak time use (and vice versa).  Because the cost per gigabyte is
> lower off peak than it is peak, the term "units" is used to avoid
> confusion as to why 100 off peak gigabytes becomes only 1 peak gigabyte.

Maybe "inverting" the definition of units would be better.  It would
certainly stop people getting the idea they're "indivisible" and
assigned permanently to either peak / off-peak.

Something like:

You are given a fixed number of usage credits per month.  You may
purchase additional usage credits for £x.xx each.

Your usage uses credits at the following rates:


                Peak         Off-peak     Night
               (credit/GB)  (credit/GB)  (credit/GB)
BT 20CN line      1           1/100       1/1000
BT 21CN line      2/3         1/100       1/1000
Be line           1/8         1/100       1/1000


Current tarrifs will be converted as follows:

              Old   Old       Old           New Combined
              Peak  Off-Peak  Night      Peak/Off-peak/night
              (GB)  (GB)      (GB)           (credits)

4GB            4    100       unmetered        5
...

-- 
David Taylor

Rodney Pont wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:24:43 +0100, Alfred E Neuman wrote:
> 
>> If you have 3 credits
> 
> That's a much better name than units. I'm going to shamelessly steal
> that from you and call them credits when I'm explaining it to the
> 'others' :-)

Indeed, and maybe "credits" is an easier term. I'll consider that.