[asterisk-biz] Unlimited DID

[Joe Antkowiak]

 >On a slight tangent, I just wish that carriers who
 >didnt offer real unlimited would stop advertising it as such, * or not
 >to indicate some obscure definition of "unlimited"...

marketing = psychology...  even if you're getting the same amount and level of 
service, people will buy what they feel is more.  Which is "unlimited"


Trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 09:47 -0700, Jai Rangi wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> I want to take community opinion on this. 
>> Would there be enough interest if I can offer Unlimited channels, non
>> metered DID at $8-$11 (Depending on the volume commitment) per month.
>> Target is to sell atleast 10000 DIDs in one to 2 months of time
>> frame.  
>>
>> Any comment would be appreciated. 
>>
>> Thank you,
>> -Jai
>>
> 
> I think people would like it, but there would be some apprehension about
> it.  The pstn carrier has a finite amount of channels available for that
> exchange.  You only have so much bandwidth, even if you never touched
> the media the provider only has so much bandwidth.  Then there is the
> CDR processing, route processing, etc - cpu resources are finite,
> although you can add more just like you can add more pstn and inet
> capacity.
> 
> So would $8-11 cover all of those costs and allow you to really do
> unlimited service?  What if someone ran some application that generated
> hundreds of thousands of calls?  Or even a few that just did hundreds?  
> 
> Granted if you did 10k DIDs at $8 that is $80k/mo.  And lets say that
> 10% did above average traffic of say 150 average channels, that is still
> 15,000 channels that would have to be maintained give or take (I really
> am just pulling numbers out of thin air).  You would certainly be able
> to afford the cpu and bandwidth costs, which will require more than
> 1Gbps (I always discount bandwidth both because of atm padding and
> because you never want it 100%), but the carrier may not be able to
> handle that channel load, and some of the call centers I have seen
> traffic on, 150 channels is low, some do thousands at a time, which
> would skew that slightly (even though its an average over the top 10%
> users).  
> 
> In general from what I have seen, most "unlimited" plans have some type
> of limit burried somewhere in their user agreement/tos, this is because
> capacity is finite and they do not want to go overboard with capacity
> and lose money.  On a slight tangent, I just wish that carriers who
> didnt offer real unlimited would stop advertising it as such, * or not
> to indicate some obscure definition of "unlimited"...
>