What's the "Best" Way to Charge for Bandwidth?

Comcast recently reiterated that it has no current interest in usage-based billing for consumer broadband access. Time Warner Cable has tended to support the notion. Telco executives tend to favor usage-based billing, as that is the industry legacy and mainstay.


But there are differences. Tier one service providers tend to be much more strongly favor in favor of charging customers for data on a usage basis than tier two and tier three service providers.

In large part, such discussion of retail packaging is happening because volume growth for broadband access services, especially on mobile networks, threatens to outstrip supply.


That's one compelling reason why mobile service providers might like to manage peak-hour traffic more gracefully, possibly by using charging mechanisms to create incentives for off-peak consumption.

In principle, one might argue that capacity upgrades “solve” the problem. That might be true, but only to the extent that capital investment is offset by revenue gains. If not, service providers ultimately will fail. And consumers have proven highly resistant to price hikes. 


Mobile service providers almost universally are moving to data usage caps, as one immediate step.
If data caps do not work to manage mobile network peak hour traffic loads, what does? The answers will vary from country to country, and are different on mobile and fixed networks.

U.S. mobile operators have different tools, including Wi-Fi and small-cell offload, policy, content optimization and QoS-based tiering. Those tools are not available to fixed-network operators, at least if current “network neutrality” rules survive legal challenge.

In some markets, “transparency” is required, but traffic management, including traffic shaping, can be employed. Ofcom rules

In Canada, both fixed line and mobile service providers have more freedom than U.S. ISPs. Though regulators say “the best remedy for network congestion is investment in new infrastructure,” the second choice is economic incentives.


Internet traffic management practices such as charging more for higher speeds, are one way to generate incremental revenue to support incremental investment, says Konrad von Finckenstein, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission chairman. But other tools likely will be required, as well.

Eventually, to fully benefit from traffic management tools, mobile operators will have to move to real-time, cell-level traffic management in the radio access network, Monica Paolini of Senza Fili Consulting argues. Policy-based management will be needed

U.S. network neutrality rules do not absolutely prohibit such measures in the mobile network, though fixed-line operators basically are stuck with rules that mandate complete “best effort only” access.

Paolini argues that mobile operators will need to actually act ahead of time, using predictive data to prevent congestion, especially when due to unexpected traffic spikes. That sounds appealing in principle, but adds new cost and complexity to carrier operations

“Most mobile operators I talked to would rather avoid this and reasonably so,” she says. “Tracking and acting traffic in real-time at the cell level inevitably adds complexity.”

Such are the tensions between the desire for operational simplicity, consumer friendly pricing and packaging, and the desire for more-sophisticated end-user features. Likewise, there is a tension between the ability to manage networks simply, and the desire to manage them with greater sophistication.

In truth, consumers, regulators and service providers are “conflicted” to some degree about balancing simplicity and variety. Users want understandable plans, fair pricing and clear billing statements. But they also might want differentiated experiences.

Service providers want simpler operations, but also greater sophistication in terms of ability to create and package new and existing products. The tension probably cannot be eliminated.