Posted at 2009-10-09 17:36 BST by RevK
Update #0: 2009-10-09 17:38 BST

We have had some negative comments on the proposed new billing system.

I can only assume I am failing to explain it. The new system is better!

I'll see if I can make pages to explain it better. An interactive
calculator is one suggestion.

However, if we really do get negative comments I am sure we can make a
system that retains the existing system for those that want it. They
will be worse off, but if that really is what people want we can do
that I am sure.

I'll bear it in mind.[IMAGE]

URL: http://aaisp.blogspot.com/2009/10/info-not-liking-change.html

-- 
AAISP Status Blog
URL:http://aaisp.blogspot.com/

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:38:04 +0100, RevK  wrote:

>Posted at 2009-10-09 17:36 BST by RevK
>Update #0: 2009-10-09 17:38 BST
>
>We have had some negative comments on the proposed new billing system.
>
>I can only assume I am failing to explain it. The new system is better!
>
>I'll see if I can make pages to explain it better. An interactive
>calculator is one suggestion.
>
>However, if we really do get negative comments I am sure we can make a
>system that retains the existing system for those that want it. They
>will be worse off, but if that really is what people want we can do
>that I am sure.

By "worse off" do you mean worse off than we are now or worse off
compared to the new system?

I am not too opposed to a small price increase if it means staying as it
was. Units (or even credits) don't really make any sense to me (and yes
I do now understand how they will work).
So yes, if sticking with the old system is an option then count me in,
price dependent ;)

RevK  writes:

> Posted at 2009-10-09 17:36 BST by RevK
> Update #0: 2009-10-09 17:38 BST
>
> We have had some negative comments on the proposed new billing system.

To counter the negative comments. I understood the new scheme and like
the upcoming change to the  charging system.

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:19:49 +0100, Graham Murray wrote:

> RevK  writes:
> 
>> Posted at 2009-10-09 17:36 BST by RevK Update #0: 2009-10-09 17:38 BST
>>
>> We have had some negative comments on the proposed new billing system.
> 
> To counter the negative comments. I understood the new scheme and like
> the upcoming change to the  charging system.

<AOL>



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

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:53:56 +0100, Paul Jones
<news@news-only.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:38:04 +0100, RevK  wrote:
>>
>>However, if we really do get negative comments I am sure we can make a
>>system that retains the existing system for those that want it. They
>>will be worse off, but if that really is what people want we can do
>>that I am sure.
>
>By "worse off" do you mean worse off than we are now or worse off
>compared to the new system?
>
>I am not too opposed to a small price increase if it means staying as it
>was. Units (or even credits) don't really make any sense to me (and yes
>I do now understand how they will work).
>So yes, if sticking with the old system is an option then count me in,
>price dependent ;)

I have done the maths on this. To use the new 'Unit' system in an
identical way to how I currently use the existing system will cost me
more money.
I download evening, night and weekends. Daytime use in the week is just
a small amount of web browsing and email. Rare I go over 1GB in the
daytime and when it is, it is only by a tiny amount. To date I have
never been charged for this.
I have never gone over the off-peak or night usage.

I choose to allow my downloads to continue throughout the night and do
not wish to have to put a schedule in place to stop them at 2am.
So I am going to need to pay the 'line cost' and 1 unit each of 'Peak,
'Off Peak' and 'Night'.
This will cost me nearly £3 (£2.92) a month more than the current
system.

Even if I never buy the night unit the cost will be exactly the same as
it is now. With the downside I will not be able to use any 'night'
usage.

If I am wrong about this then please make this 'interactive calculator
available. so I can see it for myself.

New 'Unit' System:
=============
£10.17 - BT 20CN line.
£2.55   - 1 X BT 20CN 'Peak' Unit.
£2.55   - 1 X BT 20CN 'Off-Peak' Unit.
£2.55   - 1 X BT 20CN 'Night' unit.
---------------------------------------
£17.82 - Total excl VAT
£2.67   - Vat @ 15%
------------
£20.49 - TOTAL Monthly Usage

Current System:
===========
£17.57  - Basic Broadband (50+1GB/month)

RevK wrote:
> Posted at 2009-10-09 17:36 BST by RevK
> Update #0: 2009-10-09 17:38 BST
> 
> We have had some negative comments on the proposed new billing system.
> 
> I can only assume I am failing to explain it. The new system is better!
> 
> I'll see if I can make pages to explain it better. An interactive
> calculator is one suggestion.
> 
> However, if we really do get negative comments I am sure we can make a
> system that retains the existing system for those that want it. They
> will be worse off, but if that really is what people want we can do
> that I am sure.

I had to go through it twice then thought that's ok by me.

I'm on 2Mbit 20CN

I can't see a nice easy method to explain it better than you have
but perhaps a section with some examples might help, or not.

David

> I'll bear it in mind.[IMAGE]
> 
> URL: http://aaisp.blogspot.com/2009/10/info-not-liking-change.html
>

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:07:43 +0100, Paul Jones wrote:

>Even if I never buy the night unit the cost will be exactly the same as
>it is now. With the downside I will not be able to use any 'night'
>usage.
>
>If I am wrong about this then please make this 'interactive calculator
>available. so I can see it for myself.
>
>New 'Unit' System:
>=============
>œ10.17 - BT 20CN line.
>œ2.55   - 1 X BT 20CN 'Peak' Unit.
>œ2.55   - 1 X BT 20CN 'Off-Peak' Unit.
>œ2.55   - 1 X BT 20CN 'Night' unit.
>---------------------------------------
>œ17.82 - Total excl VAT
>œ2.67   - Vat @ 15%
>------------
>œ20.49 - TOTAL Monthly Usage
>
>Current System:
>===========
>œ17.57  - Basic Broadband (50+1GB/month)

You don't have to buy a credit for each band. I'm on the same package
as you and will have to buy 2 credits a month since that is the
minimum.

I don't very often go over 500MB peak so that leaves a half a credit to
use for night or for off peak. For night that is now 500GB and for off
peak it's 50GB. So for just one credit I could have 500MB peak (9am to
6pm Mon to Fri), 200GB night (2am to 6am) and 30GB (6pm to 2am) off
peak usage and I still have a credit left so could double those figures
without paying any more.

This is why I'm not keen on the name 'unit' since it implies that you
can't split them whereas I can get my head around splitting a credit
and that credit having different values at different times.

I hope I've gotten the maths right :-)

-- 
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 2009-10-09, Paul Jones <news@news-only.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> I choose to allow my downloads to continue throughout the night and do
> not wish to have to put a schedule in place to stop them at 2am.
> So I am going to need to pay the 'line cost' and 1 unit each of 'Peak,
> 'Off Peak' and 'Night'.
> This will cost me nearly £3 (£2.92) a month more than the current
> system.
>
> Even if I never buy the night unit the cost will be exactly the same as
> it is now. With the downside I will not be able to use any 'night'
> usage.

I think the key sentence in the web page is:
"When billed, gigabytes are converted to units for each type of line
and period to the nearest value to 2 decimal places."

I believe you're making the assumption that units are indivisible and
that a whole unit must be assigned to a particular type of use. (I'm
making this assumption based on phrases such the last sentence of
yours I've quoted above). I don't think this is intended to be the
case.

If you do use 1GB peak, 100GB off-peak and 1TB (1000GB) night then
your numbers are correct. (Your line must be running continuously at
about 18Mbit/s to manage the latter).

However, if you used something like 1.2GB peak, 50GB off-peak + 250GB
night, I'd make that 1.2 + 0.5 + 0.25 = 1.95 units.

Assuming my interpretation is correct, it would useful if some of the
examples include partial units.

-- 
Andrew McDonald
Contact details: admcd.tel
http://www.mcdonald.org.uk/andrew/

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:07:43 퍝, Paul Jones wrote:

> If I am wrong about this then please make this 'interactive calculator> available. so I can see it for myself.

I think you have got the wrong end of a different stick.  B-)

As I understand it (and I could be wrong!) you buy at least two
units. These "units" are "worth" (on BT 20CN) 1GB peak time or 100GB
off peak or 1000GB night *in any combination of use*. 

So you could use zero peak/night and have 200GB off peak or use 2GB
peak and zero off peak/night and still pay the same amount and have
no "over use" carried forward.

As I understand it the current 1GB tarrif would translate to this on
the new system:

 New 'Unit' System:
 =============
 £10.17 - BT 20CN line.
  £5.10 - 2 x units @ 2.55 each
 ---------------------------------------
 £15.27 - Total excl VAT
  £2.29 - Vat @ 15%
 ------------
 £17.56 - TOTAL Monthly Usage

Pretty close to "£17.57  - Basic Broadband (50푠羚觭)" except now
you can trade peak/off peak/night useage. It's a very flexable system
the explanation of it leaves a little to be desired though...

I hope Adrian sees my post in the other tarrif thread, I believe
(well I would wouldn't I?) that that is a much clearer and simpler
explantion. It must be close as I had to be careful not to make my
comments circular.

-- 
Cheers
Dave.

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:33:32 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
 wrote:

>On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:07:43 +0100, Paul Jones wrote:
>
>> If I am wrong about this then please make this 'interactive calculator
>> available. so I can see it for myself.
>
>I think you have got the wrong end of a different stick.  B-)
>
>As I understand it (and I could be wrong!) you buy at least two
>units. These "units" are "worth" (on BT 20CN) 1GB peak time or 100GB
>off peak or 1000GB night *in any combination of use*. 
>
>So you could use zero peak/night and have 200GB off peak or use 2GB
>peak and zero off peak/night and still pay the same amount and have
>no "over use" carried forward.
>
>As I understand it the current 1GB tarrif would translate to this on
>the new system:
>
> New 'Unit' System:
> =============
> £10.17 - BT 20CN line.
>  £5.10 - 2 x units @ 2.55 each
> ---------------------------------------
> £15.27 - Total excl VAT
>  £2.29 - Vat @ 15%
> ------------
> £17.56 - TOTAL Monthly Usage
>
>Pretty close to "£17.57  - Basic Broadband (50+1GB/month)" except now
>you can trade peak/off peak/night useage. It's a very flexable system
>the explanation of it leaves a little to be desired though...
>
>I hope Adrian sees my post in the other tarrif thread, I believe
>(well I would wouldn't I?) that that is a much clearer and simpler
>explantion. It must be close as I had to be careful not to make my
>comments circular.

Thanks for this explanation (also thanks to Rodney and Andrew).
This now makes much more sense.
Two units will definitely be enough for me with my current levels.
So it has the advantage of when needing to topup, a separate topup for
peak and off peak does not need to be purchased (1 unit can be spilt
between all times, if needed). Though I doubt I would ever need an off
peak topup.

OK that is me sold on the new unit system (though only as I can pretty
much ignore it and just carry on as normal).
The 1p a month saving will come in useful too.

Graham Murray wrote:
> RevK  writes:
> 
>> Posted at 2009-10-09 17:36 BST by RevK
>> Update #0: 2009-10-09 17:38 BST
>>
>> We have had some negative comments on the proposed new billing system.
> 
> To counter the negative comments. I understood the new scheme and like
> the upcoming change to the  charging system.

Some people seem to assume that any billing change is a price increase. I 
suppose with most British companies it is ... maybe Adrian just isn't 
Machiavellian enough to become a billionaire.

At worst, the prices remain the same, apart from the reversion of VAT to 17.5% 
which isn't AA's fault, and only restores the VAT reduction last year. That 
would be for someone on 20CN who uses exactly all of their peak and off-peak 
allocation, no more and no less.

People on 20CN get a 33% increase in gigabytes allowed (1.5GB per unit instead 
of 1GB). This seems fairer than having different main tariff rates for 20CN and 
21CN users, since the BT infrastructure is beyond their control.

People who use up their peak allowance and would like a bit more will now be 
able to transfer unused credit from off-peak, so will be better off.

People who use up their off-peak allowance and would like a bit more will now 
be able to transfer unused credit from peak, so will be better off.

So, I like it as well. I wish I could understand what it was that Paul objects to.

In uk.net.providers.aaisp, on Fri, 9 Oct 2009 19:26:15, Rodney Pont 
wrote:

>This is why I'm not keen on the name 'unit' since it implies that you 
>can't split them whereas I can get my head around splitting a credit 
>and that credit having different values at different times.

Hear hear.

Perhaps it is purely the choice of word that has been misleading to the 
more technical types among us.

I too think of a 'unit' as being made up of just one type of 'substance' 
- but in this case it can be split into different measures (types) of 
data transfer.

'Credit' makes more sense to me.

-- 
Jim Crowther

On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 20:20:18 +0100, Jim Crowther
<Don't_bother@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:

>Perhaps it is purely the choice of word that has been misleading to the 
>more technical types among us.

 I like that. I was only confused because I am a smart technical type ;)

One question (forgive me if I missed it on the web page) ...

If there is a charge for over-usage at the end of the month, will this be 
rounded up to whole units or will it be pro rata (down to some reasonable 
fraction)?

In other words, if I over-run my carry forward usage by a tiny amount -- say 
10MB -- will I be billed a whole £2.55 for an extra unit, or maybe a tenth of a 
unit, or a hundredth?

This isn't really a big deal, as a £2.55 surcharge is only one less pint in the 
pub.

Alfred E Neuman wrote:
> 
> This isn't really a big deal, as a £2.55 surcharge is only one less pint 
> in the pub.

Before someone else says it ... "one fewer pint in the pub" ... :)

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 20:42:49 +0100, Alfred E Neuman 
wrote:

>Alfred E Neuman wrote:
>> 
>> This isn't really a big deal, as a £2.55 surcharge is only one less pint 
>> in the pub.
>
>Before someone else says it ... "one fewer pint in the pub" ... :)

I think you will find an average pint of beer is 2 'units'.

<sorry>.

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:07:43 +0100, Paul Jones wrote:

> I have done the maths on this. To use the new 'Unit' system in an
> identical way to how I currently use the existing system will cost me
> more money.
> I download evening, night and weekends. Daytime use in the week is just
> a small amount of web browsing and email. Rare I go over 1GB in the
> daytime and when it is, it is only by a tiny amount. To date I have
> never been charged for this.
> I have never gone over the off-peak or night usage.
> 
> I choose to allow my downloads to continue throughout the night and do
> not wish to have to put a schedule in place to stop them at 2am. So I am
> going to need to pay the 'line cost' and 1 unit each of 'Peak, 'Off
> Peak' and 'Night'.

No, that's not how it works (AFAICS). You buy 2 units, and all your usage 
is charged in fractional units.

Think of it like a prepay electricity meter with three different rates at 
different times of day. You prepay 2 units. Assume you download at a 
constant rate. During the day, the meter runs fast. During the evening, 
it slows down. At night, it almost stops.

The '1 unit gets 1GB peak', '1 unit gets 100GB offpeak', etc. are just an 
expression of the charging rate.

If you use more units than you prepaid, you have to put more money in but 
the rate is a bit higher.

So:
 New 'Unit' System:
 =============
 £10.17 - BT 20CN line.
 £5.10   - 2 X Units.
 --------------------------------------- £15.27 - Total excl VAT
 £2.67   - Vat @ 17.5%    [it will be 17.5% by then]
 ------------
 £17.94 - TOTAL Monthly Usage

 Current System:
 ===========
 £17.95  - Basic Broadband (50+1GB/month) [but with 17.5% VAT]

So, a saving of 1p. But you'll get 100GB offpeak for that. And the GREAT 
advantage that if you go over 1GB a bit, it won't matter as long as you 
don't use a full 100GB offpeak.

That disregards the small charge for the night rate, but it'll hardly 
make a dent in the overall unit usage.

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

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 20:26:42 +0100, Alfred E Neuman wrote:

> People on 20CN get a 33% increase in gigabytes allowed (1.5GB per unit
> instead of 1GB). This seems fairer than having different main tariff
> rates for 20CN and 21CN users, since the BT infrastructure is beyond
> their control.

ITYM 'People on 21CN'...



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

On 2009-10-09, Bob Eager  wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 20:26:42 +0100, Alfred E Neuman wrote:
>
>> People on 20CN get a 33% increase in gigabytes allowed (1.5GB per unit
>> instead of 1GB). This seems fairer than having different main tariff
>> rates for 20CN and 21CN users, since the BT infrastructure is beyond
>> their control.
>
> ITYM 'People on 21CN'...

And '50%'...

-- 
David Taylor

David Taylor wrote:
> On 2009-10-09, Bob Eager  wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 20:26:42 +0100, Alfred E Neuman wrote:
>>
>>> People on 20CN get a 33% increase in gigabytes allowed (1.5GB per unit
>>> instead of 1GB). This seems fairer than having different main tariff
>>> rates for 20CN and 21CN users, since the BT infrastructure is beyond
>>> their control.
>> ITYM 'People on 21CN'...
> 
> And '50%'...

OK, I just fired my proof reader!

The first version said "33% reduction in cost", but I changed it in case 
someone objected that the monthly tariff would cost the same, but I forgot to 
correct the "tabloid percentage". Personally I would abolish percentages and 
say "a factor of 1.5" (which is what I should have written).

As for the 20CN/21CN, that was just negligence. :(

Oh, one more thing ...

One reason I'm on the 2GB tariff and not 1GB at the moment is that as far as I 
know the 1GB tariff does not include email and web space, and possibly DNS control.

Assuming I'm right about this (and correct me if not), will the new scheme have 
these features for all users, so I could downgrade to the minimum "2 unit" 
package and still keep all of the other features of the account?

Supposing I did select the lowest tariff available, would the top-up charges if 
I over-used bandwidth just be the same £2.55 per unit as in the difference 
between the tariff, or would it be charged at a higher rate as at the moment?

If the top-up is only £2.55 a unit, I can't see any reason not to do it this 
way, and simply regard it as a variable cost account where I get charged 
according to the bandwidth I use in the month (beyond the basic 2 units).

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:53:59 +0100, Alfred E Neuman 
wrote:

>Oh, one more thing ...
>
>One reason I'm on the 2GB tariff and not 1GB at the moment is that as far as I 
>know the 1GB tariff does not include email and web space, and possibly DNS control.

All I know is mine does.

Paul Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:53:59 +0100, Alfred E Neuman 
> wrote:
> 
>> Oh, one more thing ...
>>
>> One reason I'm on the 2GB tariff and not 1GB at the moment is that as far as I 
>> know the 1GB tariff does not include email and web space, and possibly DNS control.
> 
> All I know is mine does.

And are you on the basic 1GB+50GB tariff?

I just checked the web pages and they still say that the basic package does not 
include email or web space. Is this out of date?

http://www.aaisp.net.uk/broadband-basic.html

[quote]

This is a special entry level tariff. You cannot add additional features to 
this tariff but you can change to the professional tariff (£20.50 pcm†) to 
which you can add additional features (such as enhanced care, premium, or extra 
lines). There is no charge to change tariff which takes effect when your next 
regular bill is raised.

The service is only available with interleaving and maximum stability option 
(at the cost of slightly reduced sync speed). There is no domain, email or 
webspace included with this package (though customers migrated from Max-A can 
retain their free domain and associated services). This is only available on 
monthly Direct Debit. For fault repair you must have a new style master socket 
on your phone line and be prepared to connect the supplied router to the test 
point behind the faceplate. Customers that cannot yet get ADSL2+ will be on 
ADSL services. These have a maximum download sync rate of 8.128Mb/s and maximum 
upload sync rate of 448Kb/s.

[/quote]

Maybe I'd be OK for domain, email and web because I'd be migrating down from a 
tariff that includes these, but would I still have full DNS control for the domain?

(The last sentence seems to be wrong, as ADSL1 on 21CN is not capped at 448K 
upload speed.)

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:02:44 +0100, Paul Jones wrote:

>On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:53:59 +0100, Alfred E Neuman 
>wrote:
>
>>Oh, one more thing ...
>>
>>One reason I'm on the 2GB tariff and not 1GB at the moment is that as far as I 
>>know the 1GB tariff does not include email and web space, and possibly DNS control.
>
>All I know is mine does.

As does mine. It depends on when the package was signed up to.
Originally even the basic package included free DNS, web space and
email for one domain. If you had those when the changes happened you
kept them but if you signed up afterwards they were œ1 each per month
but included with the pro packages.

-- 
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 22:22:20 +0100, Alfred E Neuman 
wrote:

>Paul Jones wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:53:59 +0100, Alfred E Neuman 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Oh, one more thing ...
>>>
>>> One reason I'm on the 2GB tariff and not 1GB at the moment is that as far as I 
>>> know the 1GB tariff does not include email and web space, and possibly DNS control.
>> 
>> All I know is mine does.
>
>And are you on the basic 1GB+50GB tariff?

Yes, I did switch to it from a higher level package.

>I just checked the web pages and they still say that the basic package does not 
>include email or web space. Is this out of date?
>
>http://www.aaisp.net.uk/broadband-basic.html
>
>[quote]
>
>This is a special entry level tariff. You cannot add additional features to 
>this tariff but you can change to the professional tariff (£20.50 pcm†) to 
>which you can add additional features (such as enhanced care, premium, or extra 
>lines). There is no charge to change tariff which takes effect when your next 
>regular bill is raised.
>
>The service is only available with interleaving and maximum stability option 
>(at the cost of slightly reduced sync speed). There is no domain, email or 
>webspace included with this package (though customers migrated from Max-A can 
>retain their free domain and associated services). This is only available on 
>monthly Direct Debit. For fault repair you must have a new style master socket 
>on your phone line and be prepared to connect the supplied router to the test 
>point behind the faceplate. Customers that cannot yet get ADSL2+ will be on 
>ADSL services. These have a maximum download sync rate of 8.128Mb/s and maximum 
>upload sync rate of 448Kb/s.
>
>[/quote]
>
>Maybe I'd be OK for domain, email and web because I'd be migrating down from a 
>tariff that includes these, but would I still have full DNS control for the domain?

I reckon so but maybe check with support/sales. I have full DNS, web
space, full email and they also turned off interleaving when I asked.

I do have another couple of domains with AAISP (just DNS and email) but
these are billed for individually.

I just checked my latest statement:
--------------------
Basic Broadband (50+1GB/mon)
£17.57

Domain: Services (inc DNS, email, WWW), free with ADSL
£0.00
--------------------

In message <hanp19$j23$1@news.eternal-september.org>, RevK 
 writes
>I can only assume I am failing to explain it. The new system is better!

Any change requires your customers to think about their usage and spend 
time trying to understand the new billing and invoicing model.

I want a simple life.  I want to know I can pay a fixed amount a month 
and get something I understand in return.  I don't want to spend ages 
trying to understand an ever changing billing system.

In this world most "improvements" in billing turn out to benefit the 
vendor rather than the individual: a cynical view but true with most of 
my supplier relationships.  Hence I feel compelled to analyse any change 
and I'm naturally distrustful of any corporate entity telling me that 
they are making something "simpler".

I'm glad you recognise some of your customers don't like change.  Please 
also consider new prospects.  Will they really understand a billing 
system that's based on charging for variable units?  It's hardly 
standard industry practice and I'm not convinced it'll win you any 
market share.

So far *every* change A&A has made to billing since I became a customer 
has increased the level of metering on my account.  Okay, I accept I pay 
less but the problem with all of this metering is that it forces me to 
alter may behaviour (that's the point right?), in ways that make my A&A 
service less useful to me.  Does this make me a happier and more 
fulfilled customer as you might expect (because I'm paying less)? 
Probably not...

Best regards,
-- 
Mark A. R. Knight                                finger: spam@knigma.org
Tel: +44 7973 410732                             http://www.knigma.org/
                                                  s/spam/markk/g

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:22:20 +0100, Alfred E Neuman wrote:

>>> One reason I'm on the 2GB tariff and not 1GB at the moment is
that as 
>>> far as I know the 1GB tariff does not include email and web
space, and 
>>> possibly DNS control.
>> 
>> All I know is mine does.
> 
> And are you on the basic 1GB+50GB tariff?
> 
> I just checked the web pages and they still say that the basic package 
> does not include email or web space. Is this out of date?

No, the web pages give details of the current tariffs, thus what
people will get now if they sign up. Older 1GB tariffs *did* have
email, web space and a domain name and these were carried forward
when the the current tariff structure was introduced.

> (though customers migrated from Max-A can retain their free domain and 
> associated services). 

See...

-- 
Cheers
Dave.

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 20:41:10 퍝, Paul Jones wrote:

>> Perhaps it is purely the choice of word that has been misleading
to the 
>> more technical types among us.
> 
> I like that. I was only confused because I am a smart technical type ;I agree, we read what is written not what the author thought they
wrote.  B-)

Back to the topic, I like "credits" and instead of "units". The word
has more association with a monetary amount and is more in keeping
with normal terminology. You get some "credit", by either paying in
advance or in arrears, that you can then "spend" on things like
downloads at £2.55/GB or downloads at £0.0255/GB etc.

-- 
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
> 
>> (though customers migrated from Max-A can retain their free domain and 
>> associated services). 

I'm not sure what Max-A is. So, would I retain domain, email and web services 
if I downgraded from my current "Pro" 2+100GB tariff to the "Basic" 1+50GB tariff.

Or, since I don't plan to do that until the new billing comes in, would I 
retain domain, email and web services if I opted for the minimum 2-unit tariff 
when that happened. And if I did that, and I over-used my monthly allocation, 
how much would I pay for each unit of top-up?

I can understand if top-up units cost more than pre-paid units. ISPs generally 
rely on the "mustard people leave on their plate" principle to keep average 
costs low, so it that's the way it will work I have no problems about it.

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:02:31 +0100, Alfred E Neuman wrote:

> I'm not sure what Max-A is. 

Max-A was the 1GB tarrif introduced when ADSL-Max was launched. It no
longer exist for new supply and customesr on Max-A have been migrated
to the Broaband Basic (1GB) tariff but retain the services associated
with Max-A that are not available on Broadband Basic.

> So, would I retain domain, email and web services if I downgraded from 
> my current "Pro" 2+100GB tariff to the "Basic" 1+50GB tariff.

Donno, you'll have ask sales...

-- 
Cheers
Dave.

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:38:04 +0100, RevK  wrote:

>Posted at 2009-10-09 17:36 BST by RevK
>Update #0: 2009-10-09 17:38 BST
>
>We have had some negative comments on the proposed new billing system.
>
>I can only assume I am failing to explain it. The new system is better!
>
>I'll see if I can make pages to explain it better. An interactive
>calculator is one suggestion.
>
>However, if we really do get negative comments I am sure we can make a
>system that retains the existing system for those that want it. They
>will be worse off, but if that really is what people want we can do
>that I am sure.
>
>I'll bear it in mind.[IMAGE]
>
>URL: http://aaisp.blogspot.com/2009/10/info-not-liking-change.html
>
Can someone in authority tell me the reason for changing the pricing
system? Has something in particular happened that caused a need to
radically change the system?

I think prospective customers will take one look at the pricing system
and run a mile.

To get to my stats pages I have to login, yet you use the same
terminology meaning something completely different in the new pricing
system. 
--
to email replace HYPHEN with -

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:22:20 +0100, Alfred E Neuman wrote:

>http://www.aaisp.net.uk/broadband-basic.html
>
>[quote]
>
>This is a special entry level tariff. You cannot add additional features to 
>this tariff but you can change to the professional tariff ( 20.50 pcm ) to 
>which you can add additional features (such as enhanced care, premium, or extra 
>lines). There is no charge to change tariff which takes effect when your next 
>regular bill is raised.

I didn't realise that you couldn't add DNS, web space and email to the
basic package. It doesn't make sense to do so really since it would be
slightly more expensive than the 2GB pro package.



-- 
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 23:02:31 +0100, Alfred E Neuman wrote:

>I'm not sure what Max-A is. So, would I retain domain, email and web services 
>if I downgraded from my current "Pro" 2+100GB tariff to the "Basic" 1+50GB tariff.
>
>Or, since I don't plan to do that until the new billing comes in, would I 
>retain domain, email and web services if I opted for the minimum 2-unit tariff 
>when that happened. And if I did that, and I over-used my monthly allocation, 
>how much would I pay for each unit of top-up?
>
>I can understand if top-up units cost more than pre-paid units. ISPs generally 
>rely on the "mustard people leave on their plate" principle to keep average 
>costs low, so it that's the way it will work I have no problems about it.

Being allowed to keep the extras was a concession to those of us who
were already using them when the new pricing structure came in. You
wouldn't be allowed to keep them if you changed now.

Top ups and prepaid are the same price as far as I understand it. It
doesn't cost AAISP any more whichever way you do it since they have it
all automated now and they are not a company who do the '"mustard
people leave on their plate" principle' to their customers. I doubt if
Adrian even considered a different price for prepay and top up.

-- 
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 Sat, 10 Oct 2009 01:25:18 +0100, v wrote:

>Can someone in authority tell me the reason for changing the pricing
>system? Has something in particular happened that caused a need to
>radically change the system?
>
>I think prospective customers will take one look at the pricing system
>and run a mile.
>
>To get to my stats pages I have to login, yet you use the same
>terminology meaning something completely different in the new pricing
>system. 

I'm not in authority over anything but I think I can answer those
questions.

AAISP take network connections to their customers from both BT and BE.
Be charge more for the line but less for the data (10 times less). Also
BT are lowering the charges for data to customers connected to the 21CN
network in January (I think). Instead of having some customers
subsidize others Adrian is proposing to charge for the line and then a
'unit' of data.

This 'unit' of data varies depending on what type of connection you
have and the time of day (that's why I prefer to call if a credit). You
are right in that the complexity may put off some potential customers
and the proposed usage calculator should help here. Other ISPs have had
light users subsidizing the heavy users but it's a pricing model that
AAISP have never used and I like the idea of each customer paying what
they cost.

The login really means the same thing. Some customers have more than
one line under one login and this way of allocating credits simply
means that the credits you have are spread over all of your lines.
Perhaps the word 'account' would be better but I don't know if an
account can have more than one login, perhaps it can if someone has
several properties they have ADSL at and a different login for each
one. I can't remember but don't you use the same login and password to
access the stats as the modem uses to connect to AAISP? If they can be
different it really means the ADSL modem login. Perhaps it should say
that somewhere.

Does that help or has it just confused the issue even more?

-- 
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 Sat, 10 Oct 2009 06:34:30 +0100 (BST), "Rodney Pont"
 wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 01:25:18 +0100, v wrote:
>
>>Can someone in authority tell me the reason for changing the pricing
>>system? Has something in particular happened that caused a need to
>>radically change the system?
>>
>>I think prospective customers will take one look at the pricing system
>>and run a mile.
>>
>>To get to my stats pages I have to login, yet you use the same
>>terminology meaning something completely different in the new pricing
>>system. 
>
>I'm not in authority over anything but I think I can answer those
>questions.
>
>AAISP take network connections to their customers from both BT and BE.
>Be charge more for the line but less for the data (10 times less). Also
>BT are lowering the charges for data to customers connected to the 21CN
>network in January (I think). Instead of having some customers
>subsidize others Adrian is proposing to charge for the line and then a
>'unit' of data.
>
>This 'unit' of data varies depending on what type of connection you
>have and the time of day (that's why I prefer to call if a credit). You
>are right in that the complexity may put off some potential customers
>and the proposed usage calculator should help here. Other ISPs have had
>light users subsidizing the heavy users but it's a pricing model that
>AAISP have never used and I like the idea of each customer paying what
>they cost.
>
>The login really means the same thing. Some customers have more than
>one line under one login and this way of allocating credits simply
>means that the credits you have are spread over all of your lines.
>Perhaps the word 'account' would be better but I don't know if an
>account can have more than one login, perhaps it can if someone has
>several properties they have ADSL at and a different login for each
>one. I can't remember but don't you use the same login and password to
>access the stats as the modem uses to connect to AAISP? If they can be
>different it really means the ADSL modem login. Perhaps it should say
>that somewhere.
>
>Does that help or has it just confused the issue even more?
>
Thanks for taking the trouble to reply - are you basically saying that
it is because BE has come into the equation that a change is proposed?
If so would it not have been more straightforward to have two seperate
rates using the same methology as currently used which is more
straightforward and understandable?

It still seems to be terribly complex and not well explained,
particularly bringing in "new" units called units (if you'll pardon
the pun). 

I will probably be no worse off although I am one of those users who
regularly does unmetered downloads between 2am and 6 am - a real bonus
to me, and it seems that I will have to keep monitor my usage more
carefully whereas monitoring is currently done by AAISP with reminders
if I look like going beyond my limit.

The Login bit I understood and was really just making a comment about
it but I am sure there are many others who would not understand the
way the term is used in the proposal.

I'm on 21CN ADSL2+ 4Gb/100Gb.

Thanks a

On 2009-10-10, v  wrote:
>
> Thanks for taking the trouble to reply - are you basically saying that
> it is because BE has come into the equation that a change is proposed?
> If so would it not have been more straightforward to have two seperate
> rates using the same methology as currently used which is more
> straightforward and understandable?

It is possible, even desirable (for resilliancy), to have lines from
both BT and Be on the same login.  They have to share the available
usage allowance, but have different costs to AAISP.

-- 
David Taylor

On Saturday 10 October 2009 09:22, v wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 06:34:30 +0100 (BST), "Rodney Pont"
>  wrote:
> 
>>Does that help or has it just confused the issue even more?
>>
> Thanks for taking the trouble to reply - are you basically saying that
> it is because BE has come into the equation that a change is proposed?
> If so would it not have been more straightforward to have two seperate
> rates using the same methology as currently used which is more
> straightforward and understandable?
> 
It's not just BE that's causing the change; just as AAISP were getting close 
to having a dual-rate tariff system, one for BE lines, one for BT lines, BT 
announced a price reduction for usage on 21CN lines but not 20CN lines.

So, AAISP have three sets of costs to handle:
 * BE lines (expensive - on the order of 3 times BT lines), and BE usage 
(very, very cheap, to the point where usage costs are dominated by transit)
 * BT 20CN lines (cheap) and BT 20CN usage (expensive - the most expensive 
usage AAISP can buy)
 * BT 21CN lines (cheap) and BT 21CN usage (cheaper than 20CN, more 
expensive than BE).

One solution would be to offer three different sets of tariffs; 20CN at 
today's prices. 21CN, with an extra 50% included peak usage, and BE, with 8 
times the included peak usage. Indeed, you can interpret the new prices this 
way, if you only have one line, and just ignore the new ability to move 
"spare" off-peak usage to peak and vice-versa.

Another would be to offer BT tariffs and BE tariffs, and just pocket the 
reduction in 21CN prices as more profit; this runs the risk of AAISP 
becoming uncompetitive against other providers, but simplifies the tariffs. 

Both of these options have disadvantages for people who wish to mix-and-
match line types; I can get 21CN and BE lines here, and would like to have 
one of each, so that in the event of a major outage of one provider, I can 
still get through to AAISP to shout at support. If I had to have a separate 
tariff on each line, I couldn't reuse the same IPs on each; my home network 
would need reconfiguring each time I lost a provider.

The new tariff system's complexity largely comes from allowing for my sort 
of situation; I have two types of lines, and I just get charged lots more 
for usage when I'm using the BT line than when I'm using the BE line.

I'm the wrong person to suggest simpler systems, as I understand and like 
the proposed change, but if you can suggest a simpler system that works for 
me as well as for you, I'd hope AAISP would listen.

-- 
Simon

On 10/10/09 01:25, v wrote:
> Can someone in authority tell me the reason for changing the pricing
> system? Has something in particular happened that caused a need to
> radically change the system?

See <h9ectu$id8$1@news.eternal-september.org> posted by RevK in this
very group, or
http://aaisp.blogspot.com/2009/09/info-price-reductions-in-new-year.html

Roger

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:25:22 +0100, Roger Lynn 
wrote:

>On 10/10/09 01:25, v wrote:
>> Can someone in authority tell me the reason for changing the pricing
>> system? Has something in particular happened that caused a need to
>> radically change the system?
>
>See <h9ectu$id8$1@news.eternal-september.org> posted by RevK in this
>very group, or
>http://aaisp.blogspot.com/2009/09/info-price-reductions-in-new-year.html
>
>Roger
>
Not really - both those basically say that we should expect a
reduction of prices in the New Year because BT are reducing their
prices. Nothing like what is proposed. In fact I seen no mention in
the new scheme relating directly to your quotes. However I could have
missed something.
--
to email replace HYPHEN with -

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:25:19 +0100, Simon Farnsworth
 wrote:

>On Saturday 10 October 2009 09:22, v wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 06:34:30 +0100 (BST), "Rodney Pont"
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>>Does that help or has it just confused the issue even more?
>>>
>> Thanks for taking the trouble to reply - are you basically saying that
>> it is because BE has come into the equation that a change is proposed?
>> If so would it not have been more straightforward to have two seperate
>> rates using the same methology as currently used which is more
>> straightforward and understandable?
>> 
>It's not just BE that's causing the change; just as AAISP were getting close 
>to having a dual-rate tariff system, one for BE lines, one for BT lines, BT 
>announced a price reduction for usage on 21CN lines but not 20CN lines.
>
>So, AAISP have three sets of costs to handle:
> * BE lines (expensive - on the order of 3 times BT lines), and BE usage 
>(very, very cheap, to the point where usage costs are dominated by transit)
> * BT 20CN lines (cheap) and BT 20CN usage (expensive - the most expensive 
>usage AAISP can buy)
> * BT 21CN lines (cheap) and BT 21CN usage (cheaper than 20CN, more 
>expensive than BE).
>
>One solution would be to offer three different sets of tariffs; 20CN at 
>today's prices. 21CN, with an extra 50% included peak usage, and BE, with 8 
>times the included peak usage. Indeed, you can interpret the new prices this 
>way, if you only have one line, and just ignore the new ability to move 
>"spare" off-peak usage to peak and vice-versa.
>
This sounds like me but I'm still not sure as to why there is a need
to alter the 2am-6am slot as in the proposed system the wording seems
to be saying to me "OK we're stopping the freeby during the night but
don't worry as it only affects very heavy downloaders (what is a heavy
downloader?) and even then it only counts some small patt." If my
interpretation is correct then why do it, or perhaps it is being
played down.
>
>Another would be to offer BT tariffs and BE tariffs, and just pocket the 
>reduction in 21CN prices as more profit; this runs the risk of AAISP 
>becoming uncompetitive against other providers, but simplifies the tariffs. 
>
I can't see that it would make them less competitive than at the
moment as they are currently comparatively quite expensive, and worth
as far as I am concerned.
>
>Both of these options have disadvantages for people who wish to mix-and-
>match line types; I can get 21CN and BE lines here, and would like to have 
>one of each, so that in the event of a major outage of one provider, I can 
>still get through to AAISP to shout at support. If I had to have a separate 
>tariff on each line, I couldn't reuse the same IPs on each; my home network 
>would need reconfiguring each time I lost a provider.
>
Of course you could phone support! Unfortunately the rest of the
paragraph is a little bit lost on me.
>
>The new tariff system's complexity largely comes from allowing for my sort 
>of situation; I have two types of lines, and I just get charged lots more 
>for usage when I'm using the BT line than when I'm using the BE line.
>
Therein lies the rub. What is better for your sort of situation may
not be better for my situation and vice versa of course, but it seems
that the introduction of BE into the equation has meant that the
system is easing over towards people in your situation. Not that that
is necessarily a bad thing.
>
>I'm the wrong person to suggest simpler systems, as I understand and like 
>the proposed change, but if you can suggest a simpler system that works for 
>me as well as for you, I'd hope AAISP would listen.
>
Let me keep my 2am-6am unlimited slot and I'll be happy.

Thanks for all the info - I think I'm in danger of overload.
--
to email replace HYPHEN with -

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:07:43 +0100, v wrote:

> Let me keep my 2am-6am unlimited slot and I'll be happy.

Well there is a meter but the rate is so low 0.255p/GB that it still
is effectively unlimited. 

How much can you actually download in that 4 hour x 31 days (max)
window? 

124 hrs at the national average of 4Mbps:

124 x 60 = 7440 min
7440 x 60  = 446400 sec
446400 x 4 = 1785600 Mb
1785600 / 8 = 223200 MB
223200 / 1024 = 218 GB
218 x 0.255 = 56p

Is it really worth worrying about unless you have a very fast
connection *and* download *HUGE* amounts of data every night?

-- 
Cheers
Dave.

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 17:22:55 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
 wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:07:43 +0100, v wrote:
>
>> Let me keep my 2am-6am unlimited slot and I'll be happy.
>
>Well there is a meter but the rate is so low 0.255p/GB that it still
>is effectively unlimited. 
>
>How much can you actually download in that 4 hour x 31 days (max)
>window? 
>
>124 hrs at the national average of 4Mbps:
>
>124 x 60 = 7440 min
>7440 x 60  = 446400 sec
>446400 x 4 = 1785600 Mb
>1785600 / 8 = 223200 MB
>223200 / 1024 = 218 GB
>218 x 0.255 = 56p
>
>Is it really worth worrying about unless you have a very fast
>connection *and* download *HUGE* amounts of data every night?
>
What is *HUGE* and what is very fast?

My question remains - if it is going to have such a negligble effect
and is effectively unlimited then why introduce it?
--
to email replace HYPHEN with -

On 9 Oct 2009, Graham Murray said:

> RevK  writes:
>
>> Posted at 2009-10-09 17:36 BST by RevK
>> Update #0: 2009-10-09 17:38 BST
>>
>> We have had some negative comments on the proposed new billing system.
>
> To counter the negative comments. I understood the new scheme and like
> the upcoming change to the  charging system.

So do I. As far as I can tell as a 20CN user my prices will go *down*.

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:29:27 +0100, v wrote:

>> 223200 / 1024 = 218 GB
>>
>> Is it really worth worrying about unless you have a very fast
>> connection *and* download *HUGE* amounts of data every night?
>
> What is *HUGE* and what is very fast?

Well 218GB is *HUGE* in my book, that's an awful lot of iPlayer and
massive amounts of music. Very roughly 350hrs of iPlayer or 350+
complete CDs in raw PCM, not compressed MP3.

Very fast would be the top end of what ADSL2+ can provide, 16Mbps+

> My question remains - if it is going to have such a negligble effect
> and is effectively unlimited then why introduce it?

Why not? The proposals are a major change to the charging structure
it makes sense to me to bring in the flexabilty of being bale to
charge for all useage. OK A&A could have brought in the night rate at
0.0p/GB but then people would have whinged about adding it for no
effect. Lose/lose.

-- 
Cheers
Dave.

Rodney Pont wrote:
> 
> Top ups and prepaid are the same price as far as I understand it. It
> doesn't cost AAISP any more whichever way you do it since they have it
> all automated now and they are not a company who do the '"mustard
> people leave on their plate" principle' to their customers. I doubt if
> Adrian even considered a different price for prepay and top up.

Odd you should say that, since that is the way it works with the current 
tariffs. Pre-paid extra is £5.86 per 2GB (£2.93 per GB) but top-up if you 
over-run your allowance is £4.89 per GB.

http://www.aaisp.net.uk/broadband-pro.html

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:40:13 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
 wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:29:27 +0100, v wrote:
>
>>> 223200 / 1024 = 218 GB
>>>
>>> Is it really worth worrying about unless you have a very fast
>>> connection *and* download *HUGE* amounts of data every night?
>>
>> What is *HUGE* and what is very fast?
>
>Well 218GB is *HUGE* in my book, that's an awful lot of iPlayer and
>massive amounts of music. Very roughly 350hrs of iPlayer or 350+
>complete CDs in raw PCM, not compressed MP3.
>
>Very fast would be the top end of what ADSL2+ can provide, 16Mbps+
>
>> My question remains - if it is going to have such a negligble effect
>> and is effectively unlimited then why introduce it?
>
>Why not?
>
Why not is hardly a useful response.

Because as you say, it will have negligible effect and will have
administrative costs attached to it.
>
> The proposals are a major change to the charging structure
>it makes sense to me to bring in the flexabilty of being bale to
>charge for all useage. 
>
Again the question remains, why if the effect is so negligible, or do
you see this as a part of the tariff that will in the future not be
such a negligible part?
>
>OK A&A could have brought in the night rate at
>0.0p/GB but then people would have whinged about adding it for no
>effect.
> Lose/lose.
For whom?
Or not even entered it into the equation. Win/win for me.

--
to email replace HYPHEN with -

On 10/10/09 18:29, v wrote:
> My question remains - if it is going to have such a nkhjkegligble effect
> and is effectively unlimited then why introduce it?

Surely it makes sense for those who have very fast connections and are
downloading huge amounts of data every night to be charged something for
the privilege? It will still be costing A&A something, even overnight.

I was going to send another post pointing out a blog post from RevK
discussing the possibilities for new charging regimes, only to find that
it was you who posted it here in the first place.

Roger

In article , 
Dave Liquorice wrote:
> How much can you actually download in that 4 hour x 31 days (max)
> window? 
> 
> 124 hrs at the national average of 4Mbps:
> 
> 124 x 60 = 7440 min
> 7440 x 60  = 446400 sec
> 446400 x 4 = 1785600 Mb
> 1785600 / 8 = 223200 MB
> 223200 / 1024 = 218 GB
> 218 x 0.255 = 56p
> 
> Is it really worth worrying about unless you have a very fast
> connection *and* download *HUGE* amounts of data every night?

Hmm. Let's do a slightly different sum ...

..
446400 x 24 = 10713600 Mb
10713600 / 8 = 1339200 MB
1339200 / 1024 = 1308 GB (roughly)
1308 x 0.255 = 334p

So even someone who manages to max out a 24Mb connection -- the fastest 
on offer at the prices under discussion -- from 02:00 to 06:00 every 
day won't pay more than £3.34 a month for the privilege. The basic 2-
unit tariff would include all that and still have 0.69 units available 
which could cover (say) 0.3GB peak time and almost 40GB off-peak.

So, I agree: It's not worth worrying about.

Another calculation of interest would be the cost of keeping servers 
(say) in sync (as far as possible) over ADSL lines between 2 and 6 
every day. There you'd be limited by the upload speed (uploading is 
free, but the rate of the download at the other end would be limited to 
the speed of the upload) so wouldn't be able to spend more than about 
13p a month.

In fact, the 2-6 band is SO cheap that it can hardly be worth the 
bother of charging for it (but I'm sure Adrian will have done the 
sums...)

Cheers,
 Daniel.

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:56:13 +0100, Roger Lynn 
wrote:

>On 10/10/09 18:29, v wrote:
>> My question remains - if it is going to have such a nkhjkegligble effect
>> and is effectively unlimited then why introduce it?
>
>Surely it makes sense for those who have very fast connections and are
>downloading huge amounts of data every night to be charged something for
>the privilege? It will still be costing A&A something, even overnight.
>
Then why has it not been charged for before and yet again and again
and again the comments here, elsewhere and the official view suggest
that it will have negligible impact (see maths by Dave Liquorice and
Daniel James here <VA.00000017.015cd15d@me.invalid> so why introduce
it? 

I can understand the reason for the other bits that are being
introduced even if I feel the implementation and explanation clumsy,
but I have still not yet seen a credible reason to introduce overnight
payment at this point.
>
>I was going to send another post pointing out a blog post from RevK
>discussing the possibilities for new charging regimes, only to find that
>it was you who posted it here in the first place.
>
So I did, primarily because no mention had been made of it in this
group nor on the official blogspot by AAISP. It is difficult to keep
track of the various bits of information as much discussion is carried
on in IRC and here,  information is also available from the RevK
personal blog and also from what I would see as the "official" means
of communication on the status pages at aaisp.blogspot.com.

Why make an announcement of importance to your customers in a personal
blog?

Where is the "official" place to comment, I assume I would have to
sign up for something to comment on the RevK personal blog?

Mind you the AAISP service is brilliant!
--
to email replace HYPHEN with -

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:57:26 퍝, v wrote:

> ... the comments here, elsewhere and the official view suggest that it> will have negligible impact (see maths by Dave Liquorice and Daniel 
> James here <VA.00000017.015cd15d@me.invalid> so why introduce
> it? 

Well this is a major change to the billing system, so no doubt means
a rewrite if not fairly hefty overhaul of the billing software. One
may as well bring in the abilty to charge at all times of day with
that major rewrite/overhaul. 

Of course the rate could have been £0.00/GB at night but as A&A have
choosen to use these funny GB/£ "units" you have a "divide by zero"
or "infinity" problem (ICBA to work out which) with a "no charge
unit" priced as GB/£.

Apart from, presumably, making the billing software more consistent
it also enables easy tweaking of prices to reflect what BT/Be charge
for data. Slowly but surely telcoms is moving from useage based
charging to everything you can eat (within limits) for a fixed fee.
The actual costs of moving a packet of data from A to B is not
measureable, just tiddly bit of power. But there is quite a bit of
fixed cost overhead of the routers/fibre etc but that costs all the
time whether any data is being moved or not.

> Why make an announcement of importance to your customers in a personal> blog?

Quite, a personal blog is just for some ones personal rants and raves
that, IIRC, is what RevK said it was going to be when he announced
it. As such I hadn't bothered wandering off to look for it, though I
do like his comments regarding BT and the industry.

-- 
Cheers
Dave.

Maybe one reason for "units" rather than a direct conversion from money is so 
that in future the £ to unit rate could be changed independently from the unit 
to GB rates. The £ to unit rate will change (hopefully downwards) as AA's 
general costs change. It could also go up, e.g. as with the change back to 
17.5% VAT later this year. There is also the question (still unresolved unless 
I've missed something) of whether a top-up unit will cost more than a pre-paid 
unit. The unit to GB rate only needs to be changed if AA's cost of bandwidth 
goes up or down (hopefully down), and this might happen by different amounts at 
different times of day. This way, if overall costs change, AA does not need to 
advertise three different price changes for the £ to GB rate.

I agree with the comment about announcing this in media such as the blog and 
this newsgroup. What about users who don't read newsgroups and blogs? I know AA 
don't like to send loads of emails to customers, and I like that policy, but 
surely announcements like this warrant an email to all customers. I have all 
email notifications ticked in my preferences except for survey calls, yet I 
have received nothing. I assume/hope that there will be a letter attached to 
the next invoice, but even then that sort of thing is usually put in as a 
second page to the PDF invoice, and the accounts departments in a lot of 
offices will probably bin everything that prints except for the actual invoice.

On 11/10/2009 16:56, Roger Lynn wrote:
>
> Surely it makes sense for those who have very fast connections and are
> downloading huge amounts of data every night to be charged something for
> the privilege? It will still be costing A&A something, even overnight.
> ..
> Roger

Not really. AAisp need to buy enough bandwidth (gbps) to cover their 
busiest period. That is the main cost. During periods of 
under-utilization the prime concern is maximize income during those 
times, and that usually means providing incentives to download more, not 
less.

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:20:51 퍝, Alfred E Neuman wrote:

> Maybe one reason for "units" rather than a direct conversion from money 
> is so that in future the £ to unit rate could be changed independently 
> from the unit to GB rates. The £ to unit rate will change (hopefully> downwards) as AA's general costs change. 

True but that assumes that any cost changes are uniform across all
lines. I don't think that is very likely especially as there are two
different suppliers involved and one of those is BT.  B-)

> It could also go up, e.g. as with the change back to 17.5% VAT later 
> this year. 

Not relevant to the £2.55 as that is an ex VAT price. VAT is added to
the total nett costs on a given bill.

> The unit to GB rate only needs to be changed if AA's cost of bandwidth> goes up or down (hopefully down), and this might happen by different 
> amounts at different times of day. 

Confused by "unit to GB" but I think I know what you mean.  B-) 
Rates from suppliers could also change by supplier or by line from a
supplier.

> This way, if overall costs change, AA does not need to advertise three> different price changes for the £ to GB rate.

True enough but you end up with silly numbers for the amount you buy.
Like 1.9125GB/£2.55 should 1.5GB on BT 21CN start costing A&A £2
instead of £2.55... (ignoring any mark up).

-- 
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
> Well 218GB is *HUGE* in my book, that's an awful lot of iPlayer and
> massive amounts of music. Very roughly 350hrs of iPlayer or 350+
> complete CDs in raw PCM, not compressed MP3.

I run a Linux webserver at work, and I'm responsible for its survival of 
any conceivable disaster. There was a time when I downloaded every new 
and changed data file to my home PC every night, and that frequently 
exceeded 218Gb.

I ceased this when I moved to AAISP (from a company funded ADSL).

-- 
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:08:40 +0100, Swifty wrote:

> There was a time when I downloaded every new and changed data file to my 
> home PC every night, and that frequently exceeded 218Gb.

Giga bits or Giga Bytes?

Even so something still doesn't add up. That 218GB was @ 4Mbps over
124 hrs. Even if you had 24MBps throughput your are still looking at
20hrs to shift that much data noy quite overnight. Also ISTR that
your ADSL was a bit iffy and ADSL2 not 2+ so to shift 218GB would be
60hrs plus...

-- 
Cheers
Dave.

On 2009-10-13, Dave Liquorice  wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:08:40 +0100, Swifty wrote:
>
>> There was a time when I downloaded every new and changed data file to my 
>> home PC every night, and that frequently exceeded 218Gb.
>
> Giga bits or Giga Bytes?
>
> Even so something still doesn't add up. That 218GB was @ 4Mbps over
> 124 hrs. Even if you had 24MBps throughput your are still looking at
> 20hrs to shift that much data noy quite overnight. Also ISTR that
> your ADSL was a bit iffy and ADSL2 not 2+ so to shift 218GB would be
> 60hrs plus...

I assumed that it was 218GB / month...

-- 
David TAylor

Dave Liquorice wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:08:40 +0100, Swifty wrote:
> 
>> There was a time when I downloaded every new and changed data file to my 
>> home PC every night, and that frequently exceeded 218Gb.
> 
> Giga bits or Giga Bytes?
> 
> Even so something still doesn't add up. That 218GB was @ 4Mbps over
> 124 hrs. Even if you had 24MBps throughput your are still looking at
> 20hrs to shift that much data noy quite overnight. Also ISTR that
> your ADSL was a bit iffy and ADSL2 not 2+ so to shift 218GB would be
> 60hrs plus...

As my maths master once said when caught reasoning in a circle: "There's 
madness in my method".

My total backup may have been around 218G bytes, but the initial backup 
did run for days on end. After that it was touch and go if the 
incrementals finished overnight.

-- 
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk

On 13 Oct 2009, Swifty told this:

> Dave Liquorice wrote:
>> Well 218GB is *HUGE* in my book, that's an awful lot of iPlayer and
>> massive amounts of music. Very roughly 350hrs of iPlayer or 350+
>> complete CDs in raw PCM, not compressed MP3.
>
> I run a Linux webserver at work, and I'm responsible for its survival
> of any conceivable disaster.

Wow. Every *conceivable* disaster? You have a recovery plan for
meteorite impact, global thermonuclear war, the return of the Black
Death, and the collapse of the false vacuum? Simultaneously?

Impressive!

(This post seems apposite:
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2004-11/msg00107.html>)

(I can conceive of a lot of disasters having read Langford & Grant's
_Earthdoom!_, which doesn't bother with such *pedestrian* doomsday
scenarios as the ones above.)


(why yes I am feeling even more pedantic than usual)

On 2009-10-15, Nix  wrote:
> On 13 Oct 2009, Swifty told this:
>
>> Dave Liquorice wrote:
>>> Well 218GB is *HUGE* in my book, that's an awful lot of iPlayer and
>>> massive amounts of music. Very roughly 350hrs of iPlayer or 350+
>>> complete CDs in raw PCM, not compressed MP3.
>>
>> I run a Linux webserver at work, and I'm responsible for its survival
>> of any conceivable disaster.
>
> Wow. Every *conceivable* disaster? You have a recovery plan for
> meteorite impact, global thermonuclear war, the return of the Black
> Death, and the collapse of the false vacuum? Simultaneously?
>
> Impressive!

He didn't say that -- he just said he was _responsible_ for its survival.

-- 
David Taylor

On 15 Oct 2009, David Taylor uttered the following:

> On 2009-10-15, Nix  wrote:
>> On 13 Oct 2009, Swifty told this:
>>
>>> Dave Liquorice wrote:
>>>> Well 218GB is *HUGE* in my book, that's an awful lot of iPlayer and
>>>> massive amounts of music. Very roughly 350hrs of iPlayer or 350+
>>>> complete CDs in raw PCM, not compressed MP3.
>>>
>>> I run a Linux webserver at work, and I'm responsible for its survival
>>> of any conceivable disaster.
>>
>> Wow. Every *conceivable* disaster? You have a recovery plan for
>> meteorite impact, global thermonuclear war, the return of the Black
>> Death, and the collapse of the false vacuum? Simultaneously?
>>
>> Impressive!
>
> He didn't say that -- he just said he was _responsible_ for its survival.

That's tough. All the responsibility but none of the power, 'cos in order
to have enough power to satisfy *that* he'd need to be God. I hope he's
paid suitably. ;)

Nix wrote:
> That's tough. All the responsibility but none of the power, 'cos in order
> to have enough power to satisfy *that* he'd need to be God. I hope he's
> paid suitably. ;)

Throughout my career I've had responsibility like that. I was set the 
target of reaching 99.9% availability whatever the causes. It was 
interesting as a system administrator to take an active part in power 
supply and air conditioning arrangements; those could easily have 
affected my result. As it happened, I nearly always met the target.

-- 
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk