Caps: Innovation Killer? - Paper: killing off power users not a great idea...
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
Caps: Innovation Killer?
Paper: killing off power users not a great idea...
04:08PM Tuesday Sep 30 2008 by Karl Bode
tags: bandwidth · cable · caps
With Comcast's new 250GB monthly cap going live tomorrow, industry journalist Om Malik drops us a line to note he's published a new white paper exploring how Comcast's decision will "become the symbol of a new Internet era." Malik is no friend to caps, previously arguing that a shift away from flat-rate pricing and toward caps and overages is the enemy of innovation. The white paper, co-written by former Bell Labs employee Muayyad Al-Chalabi, argues that carriers should spend more time improving their offerings, and less time making power users angry. Carriers are better off simplifying the pricing schemes based on value provided to customers; such value can be demonstrated through higher access speed, local availability of content, and consistent quality of service. The current path of shifting from unlimited usage to a usage-based pricing scheme is shortsighted since it does not account for the total value of content delivery. Today, it targets heavy users, while tomorrow it will affect all users. The gist? About the only thing caps and overage charges are going to provide is higher prices for consumers. Using Time Warner Cable's current trial in Beaumont, Texas as a starting point (40GB cap and $1 per GB overages on the fastest tier), the paper explores how their pricing quickly becomes unreasonable: If we take Cisco’s traffic usage numbers for an average household of 200 Gbytes per month by 2012, then the monthly household bill will be $214.95 ($54.95 fixed with limit of 40 Gbytes plus $1 per Gybte above the limit). Today’s high-speed Internet access ARPU is around $42 per month; 5X today’s plans Not only is today's power user tomorrow's average user, but, the paper argues, they're an essential part of the content innovation and delivery hub. It argues that ISPs are better off embracing these users, and potentially caching hot (and obviously legal) content on the ISP head end. The problem is a lot of the hot content is pirated, and caching legit content often runs afoul of Hollywood, as IP Democracy points out. Believe me, most broadband providers would love to do this. One tiny problem, however, is that copyright owners (in the case of, say, Hollywood films) or application providers (in the case of, say, Skype) would want their share of any revenues generated by the broadband providers that flow from the "increased value" offering. Of course the argument to cap or significantly reconfigure content distribution assumes that we can't just leave the existing flat-rate uncapped model in place. The current combination of flat-rate pricing, sensible upgrades and intelligent (and hopefully transparent) network management seems to be treating most ISPs' bottom lines rather well. But while carrier execs argue that looming congestion has made the current pricing paradigm irrelevant, others, like Andrew Odlyzko, argue said congestion is manageable with just a few modest capacity upgrades.
Related:- The Future Of American Cable Broadband
- Rogers Starts Billing For Overages in July
- Long Awaited Japanese Caps Arrive: 930GB Per Month
- Time Warner Cable: Caps 'Make Your Internet Experience Better'
- Comcast Flips, Flops Way Around Throttling Lawsuit
- Comcast Expands New Throttling Tests
- Monday Morning Links
- Tuesday Evening Links
|
Links: New Topic
Forums »
page: 1 · 2
majortom1029 @ 30th Sep 04:15PM:
hmm
Why is it that cablevision removed their capping and that comcast added some kind of caps.
Is comcasts network that much worse then cablevisions?
reply
trebzon @ 30th Sep 04:16PM:
Poppycock
It is all poppycock. Competition in this area is a myth. We need to eliminate franchises and allow and encourage multiple threads of service. I.E. Charter and Comcast in one town. Verizon and AT&T in one town. The current system is garbage and I resent my lack of choices or how little my voice or vote with my pocketbook matters.
reply
SilverSurfer @ 30th Sep 04:20PM:
Way To Go!
The U.S. has been well on its way to becoming a 3rd world, all things considered- subprime meltdown, unemployment, 50M and climbing people without health insurance, etc.- but present day caps and lack of any meaningful competition in the BB arena all but ensure that status technologically as well.
reply
Phil @ 30th Sep 04:21PM:
Where is the leadership in this country?
I'd really like to see a politician (Obama or McCain perhaps?) stand up for what is best for the consumer and spearhead a campaign for all out net neutrality. Capping on serves to stifle innovation and freedom in what people do with their broadband connection.
reply
Matt @ 30th Sep 04:22PM:
Money Grab
This is nothing but a money grab.
If we look at the cell phone industry as an example, we see that people know exactly how long and exactly what a minute is -- yet they still go over their monthly allotment. This is exactly what implementing a cap will accomplish. Ask your neighbor how much their monthly usage is and they'll have absolutely no idea. Much less so if they have children using the internet. So the cable companies can provide less for the same monthly fee and then pop you a few times a year for an extra $15 or $20 in overages.
Along with that, there are the online movie delivery services which are a threat to the bottom line of any of the big companies who also provide Video on Demand. This is a very easy way to nip that little problem called "competition" in the bud before it can gain a foothold. It's no coincidence Time Warner and Comcast - the two largest providers of VoD in this country - are rushing to implement this. The Netflix Roku, XBox Store, XBox/Netflix partnership, PS3 online store, DirecTV Internet Service, plus the Youtube's and Hulu's are not only eating into their VoD business, but driving up their cost of providing your cable modem.
While I think Comcast is being generous at the moment with their cap, as digital distribution of video - especially High Definition Video - becomes more mainstream, the caps need to be reviewed and raised on a regular basis.
Additionally, the prices need to be kept to a reasonable level. Time Warner's assertion that a GB of data needs to carry a 1500% premium over the actual cost of delivery is madness and monopolistic greed at its worst.
While I loathe to mention government regulation at the present time, here is a perfect example of how a little regulation would go a long way to provide assurances that competing video delivery services can sprout among the Comcast and Time Warner redwoods.
--
Linux Haters Unite!
reply
sturmvogel @ 30th Sep 04:32PM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
Here it is: »www.barackobama.com/issues/techn···internet
Deploy a Modern Communications Infrastructure
Deploy Next-Generation Broadband: Barack Obama believes that America should lead the world in broadband penetration and Internet access. As a country, we have ensured that every American has access to telephone service and electricity, regardless of economic status, and Obama will do likewise for broadband Internet access. Obama and Biden believe we can get true broadband to every community in America through a combination of reform of the Universal Service Fund, better use of the nation’s wireless spectrum, promotion of next-generation facilities, technologies and applications, and new tax and loan incentives.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.
reply
Lineage @ 30th Sep 04:33PM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
While getting rid of the other stuff.
Like free speech and all that.
No thanks, I don't need internet that badly.
reply
sturmvogel @ 30th Sep 04:34PM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
If you like Lawrence Lessig here's another great reason to support Obama's campaign: They went directly to Lessig with their technology policy to get his feedback. This strongly suggests that in an Obama administration, Lessig or Lessig-minded people would be in charge of federal technology policy. Us "Internet Culture" people have been wandering in the wilderness this whole time, and in 2009 we could be *running* federal policy. Now that's something to hope for!
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.
reply
sturmvogel @ 30th Sep 04:36PM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
Sure. Vote McCain and yet get no Internet and no free speech.
reply
trebzon @ 30th Sep 04:39PM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
Dude I don't believe a word Obama says. His pre-election statements will not mean diddly once he is in office. By the way I feel the same about McCain. Neither of them will do squat to "fix" anything.
reply
jmn1207 @ 30th Sep 04:41PM:
Power User?
What is it that a supposed power user is transferring at such a cap-breaking frenzy? If it's games, movies, TV, music, or software; I just don't see that transitioning in the future to the mainstream users amongst us. If Comcast has to send out warnings to 5% of their customers for exceeding the cap limit, maybe they need to increase the limits? If the infrastructure can't handle it, then they need to expand. As it stands now, a very small percentage of Comcast's customers are coming anywhere near the limits that have been set.
reply
trebzon @ 30th Sep 04:44PM:
Re: Money Grab
I don't generally agree with regulation but I agree that this is a classic case in our utility infrastructure (including internet, TV, etc) were deregulation has failed. We need some regulation to remind everyone that these are licenses for operation granted by the populace.
My issue is who will do this? Obama won't. He is interested in class warfare and the how is more important then the result. McCain won't as he and Republicans have shown they are no different then the republicans. We need policy that is driven by sound reason not the crap we hear from lobbyist our the two headed hydra that represent our two sorry excuses for political parties.
reply
anon @ 30th Sep 04:46PM:
People don't understand caps
Every time an ISP even mentions caps, the whole community goes nuts about how ridiculous the idea is in the first place. Maybe it's just because nobody explains WHY caps are necessary. I run a small ISP, and here's my explanation, which hopefully helps people understand the purpose of the caps.
First thing that people don't seem to understand is that every piece of equipment has limitations as to how much bandwidth it can handle. In some instances, you may have places where you can only get so much bandwidth to, and once it's used up, it's used up. For instance, say you have a DSLAM (the thing that everyone's DSL modems connect to on the other side of the copper, similar to a modem bank) which is only capable of 10 megabits. The ISP sells 1 megabit connections to 100 people on that DSLAM. That gives you a 10:1 "contention ratio" (see next point below). If you had 5 "power users" that kept torrents downloading 24x7, that only leaves 5 mbps for the other 95 users. Not really fair for them.
Second thing is that ISP's work on an oversubscription model where the assumption is that with "standard" usage, any give customer will only be using the connection so much each day. Like above, the ratio is 10:1. Some ISP's go as high as 50:1 or 100:1. I personally pay $200 per megabit for dedicated wholesale bandwidth, but I only charge $80 to my customers for a 1 megabit connection. If I didn't oversell, I would have to charge closer to $300 per month to cover my bandwidth, equipment, office, vehicle, insurance, and other expenses... otherwise I would go out of business. Obviously nobody wants to pay $300/mo, so we oversell... If we go back to 10:1, you can now see the problem... If one power user maxes out their connection 24x7, I LOSE $120/mo on bandwidth costs alone. This problem isn't quite as drastic for larger ISP's, but it still applies.
The third problem is that "standard" usage is changing over time. 5 years ago, it could be light browsing and email. 2 years ago it could be browsing, email, and streaming audio. Today it could be all of those plus VoIP, and video streams, and tomorrow it could add high def content.
With the current pricing models ISP's use, I think they would all go out of business in the next 5 years without starting to make some changes. So you now have a choice... Raise the price for EVERYONE so the ISP is still profitable, or use caps to limit the most demanding users and keep the service affordable for the other 95% of the population.
Which would you prefer?
reply
WiseOldNerd @ 30th Sep 04:48PM:
You Can Thank the Politicians
You can thank those who believe that unregulated predatory capitalism driven by simple greed is the right economic system for our poor republic. It is too bad that none of those persons elected to public office anywhere can be trusted to think first of the needs of all of us and not the swelling of their egos or their wallets. CITIZENS OF THE USA UNITE YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOUR POLITICAL CHAINS.
--
My perception is REALITY
reply
Corydon @ 30th Sep 04:56PM:
Caps aren't necessarily bad...
If we take Cisco’s traffic usage numbers for an average household of 200 Gbytes per month by 2012, then the monthly household bill will be $214.95 ($54.95 fixed with limit of 40 Gbytes plus $1 per Gybte above the limit). Today’s high-speed Internet access ARPU is around $42 per month; 5X today’s plans.
On the other hand, if we take Comcast's 250 GB monthly cap, then the ARPU stays at $42.95, where it is today and has been for years.
Whether or not I oppose caps largely revolves around where the cutoff is. If the cutoff is only catching the top 0.1% of the user population, then I think they will reform bad behavior (which I define as large-scale copyright infringement or packrats downloading and hoarding data that they are highly unlikely to ever use) without stifling innovation and while preserving what might as well be "all-you-can-eat" for 99.9% of users.
The critical element of this is whether the caps rise as new bandwidth intensive applications become mainstream and ISPs improve their infrastructure. 250 GB is eminently reasonable today, but in five years probably will be more like a 40 GB cap is today.
Comcast's cap is fine in my book as long as it has reasonable escalators that prevent it from ever impacting the 99.9% of its customers it doesn't affect today. In other words (to make an analogy with taxation law-am I geeky or what? :D), the cap should never end up like the AMT.
--
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too."
reply
pnh102 @ 30th Sep 04:58PM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
said by sturmvogel :
Sure. Vote McCain and yet get no Internet and no free speech.
Really?
You mean John McCain is going to turn off the Internet and put us in jail for disagreeing with him? Maybe he can borrow tactics from the Missouri branch of the Hussein Truth Squad.
»www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGL···th+squad
--
"At the moment of conception."
reply
chronoss2009 @ 30th Sep 04:58PM:
all that need be said is look at japan
ONE GIGABIT/SEC sychronous ( up and down )
FOR 56USD/month
even with a cap of 30GB download and NO CAP uploading
thats WAAAAAYYYY more for the value.
aka im paying 200 times more for my 5 megabit then the equivilent in japan.
reply
fiberguy @ 30th Sep 04:58PM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
This is to assume, as so many do, that the President of the United States is THE one that sets the laws as we live by. SOOO many people forget that the House and Senate are the ones that shape laws in this country, not the President; he simply signs them. Even void of his desire to sign them, with the right amount of votes, as we should know, laws can pass with out the President anyway.
So, when people come here and say "vote for this President because he or she will give us X" I just laugh... When I went to school, I was taught that there are 3 branches of government, not the 1 single one so many people look at.
I hope for an entire government that puts country first over personal agenda or party movements. When ever someone talks about "party".. they are talking about a portion of Americans, not all.
And personally, I don't want a "federal policy" when it comes to broadband.. I'd rather leave it up to the States, where most of "America's Business" needs to be in the first place.. or, simply get rid of the state borders and make this country a single state nation like so many politicians are trying to do.
reply
chronoss2009 @ 30th Sep 04:59PM:
Re: You Can Thank the Politicians
actually thank hollywood for intervention and threats to isps and them all saying hey why not get into bed together and GOUGE the crap out of customers MUAHAHAHHAHA
we can keep getitng fat YAAAAA
reply
fiberguy @ 30th Sep 05:00PM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
said by sturmvogel :
Sure. Vote McCain and yet get no Internet and no free speech.
FUD anyone?
Can we PLEASE keep politics where it belongs? I'm sure Obama would be very pleased to know you're bringing messages he wants hear to Broadband Report.com.
reply
ninjatutle @ 30th Sep 05:03PM:
Kill P2P, save the interweb
Capage in the states is a direct result of P2P. Stop the thievery, save the interweb...
reply
knightmb @ 30th Sep 05:06PM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
The fallacy with that argument is that everyone assumes that once whoever becomes president; has magical powers to do anything they want. On the contrary, the congress and senate is where the action takes place. The President has evolved into the complaints department in this country. So that's basically why everyone like to blame/complain to the President about anything and everything.
So at least it's better to have someone in a position to try than someone in position who just doesn't care or know anything about technology *cough Bush* :D
--
Fight NebuAD and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data
reply
anon @ 30th Sep 05:08PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
trebzon @ 30th Sep 05:10PM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
I hear what you say but you must have federal over-site for utility infrastructure from a standards and safety standpoint. I also agree with the states comments to some extent though. What we have now is a federally mandated policy of no policy. Either put a logical policy in place or abdicate and let the states step in.
reply
beaups @ 30th Sep 05:12PM:
Re: all that need be said is look at japan
so move to japan
reply
anon @ 30th Sep 05:22PM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
yea and vote obama and see him sell this country the rest of the way out,or worse eliminated
reply
splat1622 @ 30th Sep 05:19PM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
and how are you going to feel when your taxes go sky high to pay for all of his projects
reply
IM1811 @ 30th Sep 05:23PM:
It's all about the Competition
I couldn't agree more. Cable Companies, who became internet service provider’s simply because at the time they could bring a faster service to the users than DSL could, have argued that all of the Internet Based entertainment services like HULU, ROKU, SKYPE, XBox 360, PS3, and NETFLIX use much too much bandwidth and there is not enough to go around. They feel that if we continue to watch these programs on our computers, the Internet is going to run out. So, to keep all the Bandwidth Hogs from using up the Internet, they are going to charge by the Byte. The truth is, the Exaflood just isn’t happening.
In reality, Pay per Byte is just another trick they are using to keep you, the customer, from downloading content in direct competition to them, the cable companies. The scare tactic, the potential for a $200 bill from Comcast, will make many families vow never to download a movie, watch a TV show, or play an online game again for fear of going broke. The Cable Companies are hoping and praying they can kill the fledgling ‘on demand’ business by making it too expensive for the average family.
Thank god for Verizon.
--
»www.bartgordon.net
reply
trebzon @ 30th Sep 05:23PM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
I don't disagree at all about congress. The Republic Congress was a joke that turned its back on its principles and the Democrat one is no different.
A President leads. He doesn't make law but leads. Bush did some of that but many would argue poorly. I think McCain would do some of that too but I am uncomfortable how. I don't believe Obama will lead squat. He doesn't take a stand unless it is wildly popular. I don't see him leading at all.
Then again look at the choices. What a crappy year.
reply
nasadude @ 30th Sep 05:36PM:
Re: Way To Go!
my favorite phrase for what the U.S. is becoming is "banana republic with nukes".
reply
jmn1207 @ 30th Sep 05:37PM:
Re: People don't understand caps
When can US consumers expect to have an internet connection available that can keep up with potential changes at an affordable cost? What is the limiting factor? It seems that other countries and even some local technologies are already capable of handling an average usage many times greater than what is currently being used. (FiOS comes to mind, but I know there are others options to a select few)
Have we fallen so hopelessly behind the curve? Are many of us going to be using proverbial candles to light our way into the future?
reply
joe642 @ 30th Sep 05:39PM:
Re: all that need be said is look at japan
thats what I am doing but I am moving to downtown shanghai now I just need my mass army of zombie pcs lol :D
reply
elios @ 30th Sep 05:44PM:
Re: Kill P2P, save the interweb
said by ninjatutle :
Capage in the states is a direct result of P2P. Stop the thievery, save the interweb...
its just more visible here
it happens every were we just have more fail laws about it
and then else were and MPAA and RIAA are more anal about it here
reply
telcolackey @ 30th Sep 05:52PM:
Re: all that need be said is look at japan
said by beaups :
so move to japan
I'm too afraid of Godzilla and Rhodan.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik
reply
Phil @ 30th Sep 05:54PM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
Unfortunately, the backwardness of caps in particular isn't addressed.
reply
dynodb @ 30th Sep 05:54PM:
Re: all that need be said is look at japan
said by chronoss2009 :
ONE GIGABIT/SEC sychronous ( up and down )
FOR 56USD/month
even with a cap of 30GB download and NO CAP uploading
thats WAAAAAYYYY more for the value.
aka im paying 200 times more for my 5 megabit then the equivilent in japan.
And if we had 1Gb/1Gb services available, everyone on this website would be screaming bloody murder about a 30GB cap.
reply
Kearnstd @ 30th Sep 06:10PM:
Re: Kill P2P, save the interweb
because me running the blizzard patcher(which is torrent based aka P2P) means im stealing something.
P2P has legit uses. btw i wish atm it was the entire record industry crashing and not the banks. loosing the big record companies like we are banks atm wouldnt even blip the economy into a total reboot.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
reply
anon @ 30th Sep 06:11PM:
Physically impossible
When usage of a network causes additional deterioration of that network, that's when I'll believe more usage justifies a higher cost for that usage. Caps and metering are a money grab, pure and simple (so, nothing new).
reply
wxboss @ 30th Sep 06:26PM:
Swipe N Surf
So when is Comcast going to come out with cable modems that are integrated with credit card readers?
reply
funchords @ 30th Sep 06:40PM:
Re: Power User?
said by jmn1207 :
What is it that a supposed power user is transferring at such a cap-breaking frenzy? If it's games, movies, TV, music, or software; I just don't see that transitioning in the future to the mainstream users amongst us.
How old are you?
I'm 45. I'm no longer in the mainstream. I've never SMS'ed. I don't do much P2P. I'll probably be watching TEE-VEE for a long time. I never go over my wireless minutes.
My kids, however, are in the mainsteam. In 20 years, their kids will be.
We'll never understand, it won't be us.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
reply
pnh102 @ 30th Sep 06:40PM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
said by knightmb :
So at least it's better to have someone in a position to try than someone in position who just doesn't care or know anything about technology *cough Bush* :D
Broadband deployment is much more widespread now than it was in 2001.
--
"At the moment of conception."
reply
anon @ 30th Sep 06:59PM:
Re: hmm
that answer would be know. the funny thing is cisco say people will use 200 gb per month by 2012. well if comcast cap is 250gb. there should not be anything to worry about right?
reply
Skippy25 @ 30th Sep 07:00PM:
Re: People don't understand caps
You need to consider that the companies we are speaking of (AT&T, Comcast, Cox, etc) cost for bandwidth is no where close to what you pay.
You didn't say, but I would imagine by the price you are paying that you are probably a 3rd or 4th tier provider. I get 4x the bandwidth you get for slightly more money so it is all relevant to the market and how much they want to rape you.
Someone like you capping may be needed but capping is not necessary by a tier 1 provider like the ones we are speaking of. It is simply a money grab.
reply
devnuller @ 30th Sep 07:01PM:
Re: Physically impossible
said by meh37 :
When usage of a network causes additional deterioration of that network, that's when I'll believe more usage justifies a higher cost for that usage. Caps and metering are a money grab, pure and simple (so, nothing new).
Umm... doesn't usage of a network inherently take capacity from that network? Unlimited network does not have flat costs, hence unlimited usage has costs associated with it. Networks are upgraded every year to account for increase usage. These upgrades have costs.
The innovation card has some merit, but plenty of technology advancements have come while "caps" have existed (albeit invisible). Also innovation can be driven by limits and costs e.g. hybrid cars, mpeg4, alternative energy sources, p2p (at least for the content companies) ;-)
reply
anon @ 30th Sep 07:11PM:
As long as were talking about Comcast.....
They're not imposing caps to impede power users, they've got the 'DSL speed' throttling coming to take care of that. They're going to continue to do what they have done now for a while- lop off the top 1,000 users, which will likely be way over 250GB.
Eventually they may ease into enforcing the 250GB cap. But not until VOD, and especially HD VOD becomes a credible threat to their core business.
reply
devnuller @ 30th Sep 07:11PM:
Re: It's all about the Competition
said by IM1811 :
I couldn't agree more. Cable Companies, who became internet service provider’s simply because at the time they could bring a faster service to the users than DSL could, have argued that all of the Internet Based entertainment services like HULU, ROKU, SKYPE, XBox 360, PS3, and NETFLIX use much too much bandwidth and there is not enough to go around.
Although this may be what you believe, it is far from the truth. Have you seen »www.fancast.com? This is a Comcast site that is Hulu based.
Some limits are too low, but others are fairly reasonable and way, way, way, way above even the heavy user. Comcast limits are pretty reasonable IMNSHO. The "limits" are really for the extreme users that cost more than they pay.
said by IM1811 :
Thank god for Verizon.
I really love this statement. Verizon has a long history of nickel and diming consumers. The cost to deliver cell service is peanuts and they charge people through the nose for it. FiOS is a loss leader and the goal is to get subs at all costs... This will change. Enjoy it while it lasts, but don't think Verizon can't wait to change the cost models.
reply
jmn1207 @ 30th Sep 07:13PM:
Re: Power User?
I understand too well what you are saying with respect to the changing of the generation guard, but I just don't believe the applications are currently out there that would drive most of us to max out our internet connection 12 hours a day every day of the week. Because a few people need or choose to eat 12000 calories a day makes them power eaters in a similar sense. It is certainly not for the mainstream person as things stand right now. The internet is the same for most people, regardless of their age, at least for now.
reply
dvd536 @ 30th Sep 07:55PM:
The thought of this:
"If we take Cisco’s traffic usage numbers for an average household of 200 Gbytes per month by 2012, then the monthly household bill will be $214.95" has providers creaming their jeans.
-
Just like a drug dealer. get 'em hooked then sock it to em!!!
and theres no where to go because everyones in for the big cash grab.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee
reply
zod5000 @ 30th Sep 07:57PM:
Re: Kill P2P, save the interweb
Even discarding whether or not p2p is theivery. Its a very inneficient system of distrubution. It consumes about twice as much bandwidth as necessary, as on average every person who downloads, has to upload at least once as well. Usenet is way more efficient.. as one person ups it, many people can download it. Also why things like rapid share or server hosts are better too. I don't care if p2p content is illegal, but it sure is a bandwidth hog, as it doubles bandwitdh consumption.
reply
dvd536 @ 30th Sep 08:02PM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
said by sturmvogel :
Sure. Vote McCain and yet get no Internet and no free speech.
McCain has same views as bush. we don't need four more years of that. that said i'm not for obama either.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee
reply
Combat Chuck @ 30th Sep 08:06PM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
said by pnh102 :
Broadband deployment is much more widespread now than it was in 2001.
If anyone wants some indirect proof of that try going dial-up for a couple days. All these new AJAX like technologies that most websites use suck over dial up.
reply
Combat Chuck @ 30th Sep 08:08PM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
said by knightmb :
So at least it's better to have someone in a position to try than someone in position who just doesn't care or know anything about technology *cough Bush* :D
Like Obama tried when he was in Congress...you know all those times he tried by voting "present".
reply
KrK @ 30th Sep 08:20PM:
Re: People don't understand caps
said by jcremin :
For instance, say you have a DSLAM (the thing that everyone's DSL modems connect to on the other side of the copper, similar to a modem bank) which is only capable of 10 megabits. The ISP sells 1 megabit connections to 100 people on that DSLAM. That gives you a 10:1 "contention ratio" (see next point below). If you had 5 "power users" that kept torrents downloading 24x7, that only leaves 5 mbps for the other 95 users. Not really fair for them.
Uh, the problwm here isn't the 5% using their connection--- It's the ISP for thinking that a 10:1 oversell ratio is acceptable!
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
reply
KrK @ 30th Sep 08:21PM:
Re: all that need be said is look at japan
said by chronoss2009 :
ONE GIGABIT/SEC sychronous ( up and down )
FOR 56USD/month
even with a cap of 30GB download and NO CAP uploading
It's actually 30GB upload cap, unlimited downloading.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
reply
anon @ 30th Sep 08:22PM:
Re: People don't understand caps
Skippy25,
You are correct that I am a 3rd tier provider. Keep in mind that while I used my $200/mb buying cost vs $80/mb selling, that a company like Comcast is also selling 15mb for $40/mo. So while their cost is no doubt only a fraction of mine, they're also selling their bandwidth for $2.66/mb. I'm sure that if you add their cost of bandwidth with the rest of the expenses they have, that $2.66/mb doesn't even come close to covering it.
I also think that Comcast is being extremely fair with their caps. 250 GB is a ton of data for the average user. I agree that in the coming years it will become a problem for more and more people. I will agree wtih you that the ISP's putting 5 gig caps on thier users are simply going for the "money grab" as you put it.
With our current infrastructure and the rate data usage is growing, the only alternatives to caps that I can think of would be 1) usage based pricing, which would raise the cost for the power users, 2) simply raising the price of bandwidth for everyone, or 3) lowering speeds..
I still stand behind any ISP who tries to implement something that helps the majority of their users, as long as it doesn't hurt more than 5% or so.
reply
knightmb @ 30th Sep 08:28PM:
Re: People don't understand caps
said by jcremin :
First thing that people don't seem to understand is that every piece of equipment has limitations as to how much bandwidth it can handle. In some instances, you may have places where you can only get so much bandwidth to, and once it's used up, it's used up. For instance, say you have a DSLAM (the thing that everyone's DSL modems connect to on the other side of the copper, similar to a modem bank) which is only capable of 10 megabits. The ISP sells 1 megabit connections to 100 people on that DSLAM. That gives you a 10:1 "contention ratio" (see next point below). If you had 5 "power users" that kept torrents downloading 24x7, that only leaves 5 mbps for the other 95 users. Not really fair for them.
That's a perfect example of dynamic pipe management. You don't care how many connections users 1 through 5 are using, their entire pipe is shaped based on load. So if 5 users are using all 10 Megabits (10 / 5 = 2 megabits per user), and then user 6 jumps in to watch a streaming movie you are saying the equipment won't divide the bandwidth out evenly? That would be 10 / 6 = 1.6 megabits per user. If you have any kind of traffic shaping, the 6th user would probably get even more bandwidth due to priority, but not a single one of your customers would have their connections dropped off completely.
I run a small ISP as well. I get wholesale bandwidth that isn't capped. So while that's great and expensive as hell at the same time, as you said, there are still limitations to the equipment.
We don't have caps, you can download 24/7 if you want (some users do, BT heavy), but the difference I'm seeing is technology and embrace.
The ISP was designed from the ground up to be bandwidth managed based on priority and customer feedback. So we have customers that want to use BT 24/7, hey that's fine. All the tech head power users we setup specific ports and let them know how to use them. So someone running BT knows that they can have "all you can eat" up to what is available as long as it doesn't affect everyone else. Once the bandwidth squeeze happens, BT takes a ride on the low priority express while other customers can serve up their web pages or e-mails or video quicker.
If we have a customer that wants to ignore us and just use BT on any ole' port, that's fine, it's automatically limited on priority as well. So no one gets capped, they only get their pipe size dynamically adjusted based on load. So it's no secret that not every single customer can get full speed at exactly the same time, the equipment and setup is still managed properly to provide that even at times of high traffic, everyone is still getting a fair share of the bandwidth.
It doesn't matter if a BT user is using 1 or 10,000 connections at the full rate, their entire pipe is affected during traffic load and that's the big difference between trying to managed based on available resources vs. complex or complicated systems trying to figure out who would be cut off on traffic, etc.
Whenever I read the "BT users eating up all the bandwidth" I just shake my head and know that some ISP get it and some don't. Fight your customers and they fight back. Embrace your customers and they will embrace your policies if you are upfront about them.
I've attached some screen shots so you all can see what I'm talking about. I'm just a small wireless ISP, imagine what kind of stats the big boys have for their network?
My service is basically a 3.0 Mbps / 448 Kbps service for $9.99 a month. It only covers one medium sized city.
--
Fight NebuAD and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data
Usage Stats |
Service Stats |
anon @ 30th Sep 08:30PM:
Re: People don't understand caps
said by KrK :
Uh, the problwm here isn't the 5% using their connection--- It's the ISP for thinking that a 10:1 oversell ratio is acceptable!
You'd be lucky to find an ISP using less than 10:1 ratio. Most use many times that, as I mentioned, some even in the 100:1. I would say you are lucky if your ISP only has a 10:1 ratio.
reply
KrK @ 30th Sep 08:38PM:
Re: People don't understand caps
said by jcremin :
You'd be lucky to find an ISP using less than 10:1 ratio. Most use many times that, as I mentioned, some even in the 100:1. I would say you are lucky if your ISP only has a 10:1 ratio.
Which really is the problem in a nutshell, then isn't it? It's not that we MUST have caps to "protect" the "normal users" from the "Hogs" but the fact that the ISP's are overselling or not willing to maintain the capacity needed to properly serve their customers. They want to sell it to you but not deliver it.
/sigh
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
reply
funchords @ 30th Sep 08:42PM:
Re: Power User?
To hit Comcast's 250 GB target with its basic 6 Mbps service, you need only run "full blast" for 3 hours every day. But that doesn't change the fact that 6 Mbps is fast or that 250 GB is a lot.
There was a real fight against large web pages back 12-13 years ago. If the page didn't load within 10 seconds on a dial-up connection, marketers believed that surfers lost interest in it. 34K was the 10-second page size limit back then, graphics included, otherwise you'd leave customers in the World-Wide-Wait. Flash wasn't even around.
In 1997, the average page size was 44 KB
In 2000, it was 60 KB
In 2003, it was 97 KB
In 2008, it was 312 KB
(»www.pantos.org/atw/35654.html, »www.websiteoptimization.com/spee···eb-page/)
The 312 KB web page would take 90 seconds to load in dial-up.
We had no clue. We still have no clue. But this is progress, and we'd be fools to resist it.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
reply
anon @ 30th Sep 08:47PM:
Re: Physically impossible
Ummm, I was referring to physical deterioration, not performance deterioration. All well-used networks have periodic congestion (though the ISPs have not proven yet that congestion is a problem on their networks), but that doesn't cause the network infrastructure to become "used up". The point: it doesn't cost them any more to deliver 100 GB than it does to deliver 1 GB and the traffic, no matter how much there is, doesn't cause the cables/interfaces/routers/switches any more wear and tear than if there were no traffic at all.
reply
anon @ 30th Sep 09:05PM:
Re: People don't understand caps
said by KrK :
ISP's are overselling or not willing to maintain the capacity needed to properly serve their customers. They want to sell it to you but not deliver it.
Well when speed sells, people are buying into the very thing that is causing the problem. When you're selling bandwidth for a couple bucks per Mb, you have to oversell big time to ever make a profit. That is why my "standard" package is still a 512k connection for $40/mo. If you want more speed (aka the ability to download more) you have to pay more.
reply
beaups @ 30th Sep 09:06PM:
whiners
"Big Cash Grab"....TW has been making 5% profit, Comcast 10%. Hardly a big cash grab.
reply
beaups @ 30th Sep 09:10PM:
Re: As long as were talking about Comcast.....
Please demonstrate how many hd on demand movies one needs to watch in order to hit 250GB. Then, please cite the service that provides these movies and also the cost per moview to watch. after you are done doing that, please explain how much a customer saved by watching these movies through a third party service vs. the cable company's own service.
Until I see some actual #'s, I don't believe ANY of these caps have ANYTHING to do with competing video service. It's a move against p2p users, plain and simple.
reply
pandora @ 30th Sep 09:13PM:
Re: Poppycock
I agree with you! It is time to stop the artificial monopoly cable and phone companies have enjoyed. We are now in a media and internet age, a town or city should have as many providers as can find profit running cable. Within the limits of the cable infrastructure to support it.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
reply
pandora @ 30th Sep 09:15PM:
Re: hmm
To get around the Comcast caps, we need to purchase a Comcast business account which costs about $60 a month for a starter plan. This is close to what the unbundled price for residential Comcast internet service is. It is about $20 more per month than bundled basic Comcast HSI.
Any user who needs more than 250GB per month, has the option of paying $20 additional or less every month.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
reply
Mr Matt @ 30th Sep 10:08PM:
All pricing for Internet access should be regulated.
:mad: Pricing for internet access should be regulated. If students are required to get their homework assignments via the internet, Pricing for internet access must be regulated otherwise the children or their families will not be able to afford the service.
reply
TheMG @ 30th Sep 10:10PM:
GET OVER IT!!!
250GB is plenty. Need more? Get a business account.
reply
anon @ 30th Sep 10:14PM:
Re: People don't understand caps
But the ISPs--Comcast, for one--keep raising the tier speeds for an increasing customer base but not upgrading infrastructure in any significant way. The ratio gets bigger, and bigger, and bigger. Basically, they make the situation worse, and then blame customers for using the access that they're paying for while allocating them each a smaller share of the "pie". 512 @ $40? might as well have dial-up.
reply
La Luna @ 30th Sep 10:27PM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
said by Phil :Unfortunately, the backwardness of caps in particular isn't addressed.
Ahh, I was wondering when someone would actually say that Obama's bloviating had nothing to do with this news article.
--
11,970 DEADLY TERROR ATTACKS SINCE 9/11~~SARAH BRIGHTMAN SYMPHONY WORLD TOUR
reply
redhatnation @ 30th Sep 10:59PM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
said by Lineage :
While getting rid of the other stuff.
Like free speech and all that.
No thanks, I don't need internet that badly.
Where are you reading that?
reply
telcolackey @ 30th Sep 11:28PM:
Re: Physically impossible
Huh? |
anon @ 30th Sep 11:29PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
telcolackey @ 30th Sep 11:30PM:
Re: All pricing for Internet access should be regulated.
By that logic
Prices for gas should be regulated
Prices for food should be regulated
Prices for water should be regulated
There is a name for this »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik
reply
mrvid @ 1st Oct 12:19AM:
would it be better to just add $15/mo to everyone's cost...
Comcast says metering is not the answer cause, if I understand them correctly, it dosen't address excess use pushing the capacity of their networks to high congestion but the truth is, and again, my feeling, if Comcast sold the full triple play package to all their customers, they would have plenty of leftover do-ra-me to increase the capacity of their system to handle it.
Whatever the case, it should be understood that the cost of the whole line is concrete. Whether 10 or 50,000 services are sent over a coax or fiber line, that line still costs the same thing to maintain.
My point is, I see the internet going up if voip & iptv services are going to draw revenue away that normally help to justify the cost of maintaining it.
Example: suppose I were a provider and I extend a line to you, the cost of the line and all the services I can give you whether you take it or not cost me $75/mo/cust. If you take all my services, ill give you just about every innovation in the world cause I am going to make at least $90/mo (assuming $30/mo ea) from you giving me a $15 profit/cust. but if a voip service comes along and takes away my phone service to you, well now I am only making $60/mo/cust (that doesn't make the line to you any cheaper) and now i'm losing $15/mo/cust.
Well, I provide the line and I am not about to lose $15/mo/cust so what do i do.. hmmm, doesn't take a genious, raise the price of the net $25/mo (now ill make $10/mo/cust). You have to realize that line in this example costs $75/mo/cust to me no matter what. Dont want my phone service, fine ill just move the cost over to the net. I'm not going to deliver a service that I am going to lose money on.
Fact is, though, its not fair to raise every customers price, they don't all use the net to the same degree. Comcast has a different issue, they need a way to manage their network to keep it from getting congested but business sense wise- Time Warner has it right -- metered. People are charged by their usage on top of a base price, then forgiven it to encourage use of the net if Time Warner knows customers will take their triple play package. Time Warner's plan as far as I see is only to meter the net, I don't know if they would lift it upon customers taking all their services but I would hope so.
Is this why Time Warner wants to meter the net, maybe, maybe not but to me, it might as well be; someone has to pay for that line to keep it on & the same services still available to all.
So what is the answer -- well how about this - metering and caps but in the long run, my thoughts, Comcast, better dump the caps or they will lose all the bandwidth hungrier customers (remember, those are usually the ones to take the larger speed packages), do they really want to send them running.
The logical choice to me if the net has to go up -- metering, the logical choice to keep congestion down -- caps unless you would rather your provider just raise the net $15/mo for everyone to absorb the additional cost.. metering is a much more fair approach.
One thing to note here: This is just my logical impression of why I think it might be used, I am not saying it is definately needed nor am I saying it is meant to discourage viop or iptv. In fact, both services can still be fluently used. Metering to me is just a fair way to raise the price of the internet & caps like a faucet, a means to control network congestion during peak periods.
reply
anon @ 1st Oct 12:21AM:
Re: Poppycock
Competition is already allowed in most states, towns, cities, and counties.
The problem is, there already exists the incumbents.
So who is going to spend their money to come in, build CO's and headends of their own, run their own new fiber and copper infrastructure, just to get a handful of the customers that are willing to switch?
So in a couple of years, they'll find it unprofitable, and sell off their assets to the incumbent that wants it.
There is a reason that it usually comes down to just 2 providers in any given area. And that reason is money.
If there is no money to be made by coming in as the 3rd provider. Why would anyone do it?
reply
anon @ 1st Oct 01:28AM:
Re: People don't understand caps
said by meh37 :
But the ISPs--Comcast, for one--keep raising the tier speeds for an increasing customer base but not upgrading infrastructure in any significant way. The ratio gets bigger, and bigger, and bigger. Basically, they make the situation worse, and then blame customers for using the access that they're paying for while allocating them each a smaller share of the "pie".
I agree, but that's what customers are demanding.... Does anyone really NEED a 15 meg connection? If they kept it at 5 megs, (or 3 megs where it was when I was last on a Comcast connection) they wouldn't have the potential for as much "abuse" by thier users. But then the next ISP would raise their speeds and everyone would switch, thinking that more speed = better service. It's a plain stupid war for who can provide the fastest service.
said by meh37 :
512 @ $40? might as well have dial-up.
I bet if Comcast switched every person to 512k, 75% would never notice the difference. Obviously anyone on the DSLR site is at least a step or two above the most basic user, but really, for basic web browsing and some email, 512 is just fine. Yes, I understand that it won't accomodate HD streaming, but we'll tackle that one soon enough.
Also, I should mention that I live in a very rural area. No comcast, quest, at&t, verizon or anything like that here. There are only 2 companies in neighboring areas who offer faster speeds for the same price. One is a local telco which advertises 2 megs @ 45/mo... real speeds average 600k... The other one is CenturyTel, and they offer 1.5 megs for around $35 or so. Speeds are all over the board.
I find that by offering a solid 512k connection, which always performs at 512k, the perception is that it is fater than those who oversell so much that the speed varies depending on the time of day.
P.S. I personally think that broadband is a horrible delivery mechanism for HD streams, but that's another topic for another day. Any opinions?
reply
NetAdmin @ 1st Oct 01:32AM:
Re: People don't understand caps
The third problem is that "standard" usage is changing over time. 5 years ago, it could be light browsing and email. 2 years ago it could be browsing, email, and streaming audio. Today it could be all of those plus VoIP, and video streams, and tomorrow it could add high def content.
In other words, and this is the main problem - ISPs assumptions on customer usage have not kept up with the times.
--
---
Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab.
reply
NetAdmin @ 1st Oct 01:50AM:
Re: As long as were talking about Comcast.....
said by beaups :
Please demonstrate how many hd on demand movies one needs to watch in order to hit 250GB.
Pocket calculators are your friend.
~111 - 2 hour HD movies at 2.5Mbps
250,000MB / (.3125MB * 3600 secs in an hour * 2 hours)
~55 - 2 hour HD movies at 5Mbps
250,000MB / (.625MB * 3600 * 2)
~28 - 2 hour HD movies at 10Mbps
250,000MB / (1.25MB * 3600 * 2)
--
---
Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab.
reply
NetAdmin @ 1st Oct 01:53AM:
Re: whiners
said by beaups :
"Big Cash Grab"....TW has been making 5% profit, Comcast 10%. Hardly a big cash grab.
5% of what? 10% of what?
$1,000,000? $10,000,000? $100,000,000? $1,000,000,000? $10,000,000,000?
It makes a huge difference! :uhh:
--
---
Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab.
reply
NetAdmin @ 1st Oct 01:57AM:
Re: Way To Go!
said by SilverSurfer :
...but present day caps and lack of any meaningful competition in the BB arena all but ensure that status technologically as well.
Let's not forget to mention that the kids today demonstrate a slimmer and slimmer grasp on mathematics and science concepts. Hell, many of them don't even know how to speak proper English.
[ sarcasm on ]
Y'a know, dog?
[ sarcasm off ]
The movie "Idiocracy" is proving to be frighteningly accurate.
--
---
Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab.
reply
I pos rep @ 1st Oct 04:28AM:
Re: hmm
said by pandora :
To get around the Comcast caps, we need to purchase a Comcast business account which costs about $60 a month for a starter plan. This is close to what the unbundled price for residential Comcast internet service is. It is about $20 more per month than bundled basic Comcast HSI.
Any user who needs more than 250GB per month, has the option of paying $20 additional or less every month.
Wrong, an official Comcast representative or some official guy from Comcast.net either way has said that it all applies to Business accounts as well. Either way, his credibility on stuff about Comcast is clearly above yours and he says you are wrong.
reply
I pos rep @ 1st Oct 04:36AM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
said by splat1622 :
and how are you going to feel when your taxes go sky high to pay for all of his projects
Sadly everyone of his tax hikes is in the millionaire bracket. I'm not that rich so I'm fine with tax decrease. If I was a millionaire or billionaire then I would worry about his tax hike. Learn where the hike is. McCain is lowering taxes for everyone but did anyone notice his massive DECREASE in the millionaire bracket while a 1% for poor ass people. Yeah, I sure think his policy is better. I do not believe Obama will get everything he says done but I do believe he has more incentive to change anything that McCain.
McCain:
War Monger
Tax Decrease for the rich and a puny ass one for everyone else
Old and out of touch with the current world. His way of thinking clearly shows that.
Obama:
Gives some damn about new technology
Tax INCREASE for the RICH and Tax decrease for the NOT RICH(aka everyone not in the top two brackets making at least half a million a year or more).
I think I like the second choice better than McCain.
reply
I pos rep @ 1st Oct 04:48AM:
Re: People don't understand caps
said by jcremin :
Every time an ISP even mentions caps, the whole community goes nuts about how ridiculous the idea is in the first place. Maybe it's just because nobody explains WHY caps are necessary. I run a small ISP, and here's my explanation, which hopefully helps people understand the purpose of the caps.
First thing that people don't seem to understand is that every piece of equipment has limitations as to how much bandwidth it can handle. In some instances, you may have places where you can only get so much bandwidth to, and once it's used up, it's used up. For instance, say you have a DSLAM (the thing that everyone's DSL modems connect to on the other side of the copper, similar to a modem bank) which is only capable of 10 megabits. The ISP sells 1 megabit connections to 100 people on that DSLAM. That gives you a 10:1 "contention ratio" (see next point below). If you had 5 "power users" that kept torrents downloading 24x7, that only leaves 5 mbps for the other 95 users. Not really fair for them.
Second thing is that ISP's work on an oversubscription model where the assumption is that with "standard" usage, any give customer will only be using the connection so much each day. Like above, the ratio is 10:1. Some ISP's go as high as 50:1 or 100:1. I personally pay $200 per megabit for dedicated wholesale bandwidth, but I only charge $80 to my customers for a 1 megabit connection. If I didn't oversell, I would have to charge closer to $300 per month to cover my bandwidth, equipment, office, vehicle, insurance, and other expenses... otherwise I would go out of business. Obviously nobody wants to pay $300/mo, so we oversell... If we go back to 10:1, you can now see the problem... If one power user maxes out their connection 24x7, I LOSE $120/mo on bandwidth costs alone. This problem isn't quite as drastic for larger ISP's, but it still applies.
The third problem is that "standard" usage is changing over time. 5 years ago, it could be light browsing and email. 2 years ago it could be browsing, email, and streaming audio. Today it could be all of those plus VoIP, and video streams, and tomorrow it could add high def content.
With the current pricing models ISP's use, I think they would all go out of business in the next 5 years without starting to make some changes. So you now have a choice... Raise the price for EVERYONE so the ISP is still profitable, or use caps to limit the most demanding users and keep the service affordable for the other 95% of the population.
Which would you prefer?
I'm sure we can upgrade half the equipment and buy all that with a couple of more million dollars a year. Maybe that CEO should stop getting 50 mil bonus checks for Christmas and get a 5 mil bonus check. No offense, but until I see the MASSIVE EXCESSIVE bonus checks pay drop by a huge percentage and we still have a problem then I will concede. But I know Economics and I know MONOPOLIES and DUOPOLIES ARE HELL OF A PROFITABLE business.
Like the guy below said. You are not a tier one provider. Comcast's cost for bandwidth is probably 50x cheaper than yours and I don't think you sign hundreds of multi million dollar bonuses. That is the difference. There is profit, and then there is RAPE UP THE CONSUMER UP THE ASS HARD profit.
I have nothing against profit in businesses. I do have a problem with them butt raping the consumer though for more bonus checks.
reply
Core0000 @ 1st Oct 06:20AM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
That's one thing about presidential candidates, they talk the talk, but never walk it. They say anything to get elected, and that's that...
Obama talks about broadband, But I doubt he will follow through on it.
Of course, if he is elected, I hope he does follow through on the broadband plan. ;)
reply
pnh102 @ 1st Oct 06:34AM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
said by I pos rep :
Tax INCREASE for the RICH and Tax decrease for the NOT RICH(aka everyone not in the top two brackets making at least half a million a year or more).
Ahhh. You must not remember the early Clinton years. He made the exact same promise. He'd only tax those evil rich people that steal their money from the poor and then eat them alive.
Turned out that everyone making over $30k a year was not only considered "rich" but they also had to pay Clinton's retroactive tax hike as well.
If Hussein does win and passes his promised tax hikes on everyone, the rich won't pay. They will simply move their money out of the country. Offshoring of jobs will increase too.
--
"At the moment of conception."
reply
Core0000 @ 1st Oct 06:55AM:
Caps an Innovation Killer?
I'd say it will be hit and miss as far as killing innovation.
It's more likely to control who innovates. The people that have the money to pay for the Internet service, and do anything with it they want these will be the people, or business that do the innovation.
Its like with my Cell Phone. I have internet access and what have you. And I have so many minute allotted for each month w/roll over plan. To my knowledge I have not went over my minutes more than once, if that. It cost to much to do so.
Basically I am saying it's inhibitive to some degree. I use the basic service, but I don't use any of the extras.
Gas prices for example, it borders on luxury/requirement for me. High gas prices, keep me from just going out on joy rides. I try to plan my trips better than I used to. (While I would like to think positively, in the sense of "How can I afford to drive around more" it just ain't happening. I have a budget that is very unforgiving and unchanging.)
I stay at my home alot unless its for college(full time) or work.(I work full time) So again high prices deter if nothing else.
Taxes are another good example. Why work harder, when I just get taxed more? Its silly to work more if someone else is getting your money. It deters you from trying harder.
I sum it up with this. While I don't think its going to kill innovations, It will control who innovates.
reply
wentlanc @ 1st Oct 07:04AM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
You defend the rich who come to this country and suck up all of the wealth for themselves, just because they can. And yet you will renounce heavy broadband users for fundamentally doing the same thing. Using the system for what it can give them.
Cry me a river. Take your money and go someplace else. The world will keep spinning without you.
cw
reply
wentlanc @ 1st Oct 07:14AM:
Re: People don't understand caps
Many on this site have contended that increasing speeds actually reduces the load. If users can get their content delivered faster, then the capacity is freed up more quickly.
I fully support oversubscribing. I also fully support having an oversubscription model that is adhered to. When you add enough customers to fill a node, it is managed until it can be split. Most companies will get away with what they can before adding capacity.
cw
reply
moonpuppy @ 1st Oct 07:56AM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
You are correct, the President of the United States cannot make laws.
HOWEVER, in this day of partisan politics, he can get a few sympathetic members of either the House or Senate to introduce a law he would like to have.
Another thing to look at is the polls. Most of this country thinks the President is doing a bad job. (Whether or not you agree with this is another matter altogether.) Congress has an even lower approval rating right now. Now, the President is a single person. Congress is an entity of about 535 people so they get to spread that blame and point fingers.
As for broadband policies, while there should be SOME controls, I think providers should be allowed to build in areas that are already serviced by others.
reply
beaups @ 1st Oct 08:10AM:
Re: As long as were talking about Comcast.....
where do these movies come from? let's go with your 5mbps calculation since we really don't see anything out there higher (actually I don't see 5 either, but we'll use this for arguments sake)
55 HD movies...seems like a lot. so, where would one get this content from and how much does it cost per movie?
reply
beaups @ 1st Oct 08:12AM:
Re: whiners
I don't see the difference. my point is, if they lowered their pricing by just 5-10%, effectively just breaking even, and still had all the network management stuff...would you be happy?
reply
pnh102 @ 1st Oct 09:04AM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
said by wentlanc :
You defend the rich who come to this country and suck up all of the wealth for themselves, just because they can.
To quote an old economic axiom, when was the last time a poor person offered you a job? And as for this ridiculous assertion, why would the rich suck money from the poor, who by definition have little money to begin with?
said by wentlanc :
And yet you will renounce heavy broadband users for fundamentally doing the same thing.
Ahh. You clearly have not read my own posting history regarding my opposition to caps. My suggestion is you learn the positions taken by your opponent prior to arguing with him.
--
"At the moment of conception."
reply
boast @ 1st Oct 09:06AM:
backups
It will suck for companies who have online backup services. Can't back up your hard drive online anymore with a cap.
reply
NetAdmin @ 1st Oct 10:42AM:
Re: whiners
I was taking issue with your statement about the big cash grab. 5-10% is a pretty meaningless number when you don't know how much cash is coming in.
--
---
Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab.
reply
NetAdmin @ 1st Oct 10:45AM:
Re: As long as were talking about Comcast.....
said by beaups :
55 HD movies...seems like a lot. so, where would one get this content from and how much does it cost per movie?
Right now, no one is offering 5Mbps quality HD video yet. Netflix streaming is the closest you get to that and that's between 800kbps - 2Mbps (depending on your connection).
However, what caps will do its create a barrier to content providers putting high quality HD content out there because subscribers would be discouraged from watching it by the caps.
As for what an online HD movie would cost, you would probably see Netflix offer them via streams first since they are already doing SD movies. You probably would be able to watch them as part of your monthly plan.
--
---
Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab.
reply
DaMaGeINC @ 1st Oct 11:55AM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
Pure speculation.
reply
pandora @ 1st Oct 12:09PM:
Re: hmm
said by I pos rep :
Wrong, an official Comcast representative or some official guy from Comcast.net either way has said that it all applies to Business accounts as well. Either way, his credibility on stuff about Comcast is clearly above yours and he says you are wrong.
Here is the problem, I have heard from "comcast representatives" who tell me business accounts aren't covered by the residential cap. When I read the Comcast new TOS, it refers to residential accounts.
Now, you and I have heard different things from "comcast representatives". Should I call you wrong, as you have called me? Or should I be smarter than you and indicate we have heard different things from Comcast representatives?
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
reply
anon @ 1st Oct 12:35PM:
Re: People don't understand caps
Absolutely. It's not that they oversubscribe; it's the degree to which they oversubscribe before "splitting nodes". It's also true that if everyone were allowed to go full speed (no speed caps), then traffic management could be a non-issue; you'd just need to prioritize users based on their usage: the more you use, the lower your priority. Instead of speed tiers, though, they could sell "priority" tiers (no, I don't mean metering--it would be more like priority package delivery: if you want it sooner when things are busy, then you'd pay more to ensure faster delivery... which means nothing if things aren't busy).
reply
anon @ 1st Oct 12:50PM:
Re: Physically impossible
Some things wear out with use--the more you use them, the more wear and tear... you have to repair or replace them, which costs money. Some things don't wear out with use; use them as much as you want--there is no wear and tear. Network traffic doesn't increase the wear and tear on network equipment; the only thing that "damages" network equipment during normal operation is the electrical power used to keep it up and running in the first place--at some point this will cause failure, but likely not before something is scheduled to be replaced due to upgrades (to provide faster equipment). So, the point is that no matter how much bandwidth you're using, the cost to the ISP for delivery is the same.
reply
telcolackey @ 1st Oct 01:17PM:
Re: Physically impossible
Wow... Can't argue with that "logic"
/sarcasm
reply
badtrip @ 1st Oct 01:24PM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
said by sturmvogel :
Sure. Vote McCain and yet get no Internet and no free speech.
Don't fall for the manufactured and false dichotomy. Neither dem or repub candidate is qualified to be president AFAIC. I'm voting 3rd party this year.
Plus, other than my district 9 rep (I believe she is still "for the people"), I am voting all incumbents out of state and federal legislature.
Want proof our "2 party" system doesn't work? Go to google news right now and read about the massive clusterfuck that is going on in congress as we speak.
reply
bcoleman71 @ 1st Oct 04:06PM:
Re: People don't understand caps
said by KrK :said by jcremin :
You'd be lucky to find an ISP using less than 10:1 ratio. Most use many times that, as I mentioned, some even in the 100:1. I would say you are lucky if your ISP only has a 10:1 ratio.
Which really is the problem in a nutshell, then isn't it? It's not that we MUST have caps to "protect" the "normal users" from the "Hogs" but the fact that the ISP's are overselling or not willing to maintain the capacity needed to properly serve their customers. They want to sell it to you but not deliver it.
/sigh
DING!! DING!! DING!! DING!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!
Dead on assessment as to what the REAL ISSUE is!!
reply
bcoleman71 @ 1st Oct 04:45PM:
Re: Caps an Innovation Killer?
A hit or miss thing, yes, I'm with you there, but sometimes people with the best ideas are not always the ones with the most money - so without a doubt caps may not kill innovation entirely, but it will definitely put a strain on innovation. Many innovators in this country will definitely be at a disadvantage. And generally speaking, the United States will be at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to the ability to compete with other countries that have much more liberal caps or no caps at all.
reply
beaups @ 1st Oct 06:20PM:
Re: whiners
Fair enough, but my point is if, at the end of the day, these companies are only posting profits of 5-10% of revenue...how can we claim it's a "big cash grab"?
reply
anon @ 2nd Oct 06:01PM:
Re: Physically impossible
When you continue to miss the point, why bother. Try saying something relevant, or just say nothing at all.
reply
telcolackey @ 2nd Oct 09:17PM:
Re: Physically impossible
The point is irrelevant. Physical degradation has nothing to do with networks. This is like saying if the water pipe or electrical wire degrades when I use it excessively, then I should pay more.
Usage and capacity degradation is the issue.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik
reply
anon @ 3rd Oct 01:00AM:
Re: Where is the leadership in this country?
obama considers 50,000 a year rich because that is where his increased tax plan starts.you need to learn where the tax hike starts yourself
reply
anon @ 3rd Oct 01:01AM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 3rd Oct 02:51PM:
Re: Physically impossible
No, the issue is money. (As I said... twice**, there is no physical degradation.)
My point is that (and I'll use Comcast as the example ISP) Comcast designs and builds a network segment to support, for example, 1,000 customers. The cost of maintaining equipment (failures and upgrades) is built-in to the pricing (the "cost of doing business"). Comcast increases the customer base and the tier speeds such that the segment is no longer supporting 1,000 customers but 5,000 or even 10,000 (over-subscribing to the max). Naturally, this will tend to slow down each and every customer (during "heavy traffic" periods, when everyone is "on"), preventing them from getting the service that they're paying for. So, instead of upgrading the network to support the larger number of users at the higher speeds (introduced for nothing more than as advertising to get new customers), they implement ways to get more money from their customers and/or ways to slow down usage (contrary to what they sold their customers originally). There's nothing wrong with the network--it works just as well as it ever has (according to how it was designed); it doesn't cost any more to run it now than it did when it was built. Enterprise class routers (and other network hardware) are designed to run at 100%, 24/7--they don't fail because they have to handle more traffic than they used to when they were installed. It doesn't cost Comcast any more to deliver 1 GB than it does to deliver 1 byte--the cost of running a network is not dependent on how much traffic there is. You turn it on, or you don't; of course, there's no point to having it if you don't turn it on. (Yes, there is an increase in electrical power usage for additional traffic, but it's negligible as far as cost goes.)
If Comcast starts charging you more based on your using the network more (metered billing, which is, no doubt, next on their list of things to do), then they're charging you for something that you've already paid for, aka "rip-off". And it's not like they're going to charge you less if you use it less, giving you a break for having modest needs. They simply want more money in their pockets and less in yours, without having to actually do anything to justify your having to pay them more.
(** And, now, three times.)
reply
JimF @ 3rd Oct 07:00PM:
Useless outside advice
It is amusing to hear an outside party tell a company that providing more free service is necessary for innovation. It sounds to me that someone wants to get something they don't otherwise deserve in the market place. Comcast, or any other company, can best run their own business. They don't need unsolicited advice from people wanting freebies. And government regulation to require "free" service will cost far more than letting the market place decide. That will really kill innovation.
reply
techygeek @ 4th Oct 12:31AM:
metering may not be so bad, caps will hurt comcast I feel..
Its interesting, as I read this thread I wanted to address metering because it was another means to control excess bandwidth use much like caps. I do think caps will hurt Comcast badly, especially if they are up against Verizon's FIOS. Unlike AT&T's U-Verse, Verizon's FIOS has got the kind of system that can handle an abundance of internet bandwidth and people who post there say they basically can download and upload at whim with no argument about reaching any specific limit. If Comcast goes through with caps, it could cause customers to flock to Verizon like someone offering something away for free. On the other hand, I read that there are claims AT&T is throttling with U-Verse. I am not 100% sure but does that mean some form of cap or bandwidth control measure cause if so, they may not have to worry about AT&T, at least in that respect. Metering on the other hand treats everyone who takes a given internet package the same way.
I would like to say that I have read part of a news article about it being painfully disingenuous for any large, incumbent provider to argue they're not making enough money...
"With the plethora of new revenue streams ISPs are embracing on top of monthly triple-play income (advertising via webmail, BVAS, selling your clickstream data, DNS Redirection revenue, charging to get around spam filters, targeted behavioral advertising) it's painfully disingenuous for any large, incumbent provider to argue they're not making enough money to sufficiently upgrade their networks under the current flat-rate pricing model."
see this article for the full details..
»Comcast: Metered Billing Is Not The Answer
With that, I would like to say I feel much of these revenue streams are mix and match, probably for every stream from these I can find another cost a provider has that may offset it plus these arrangements come and go; voip is the only concern, iptv can be as well. Also, the idea of metering, apart from helping to contain excess use of bandwidth for any given set of users would not necessarily just be about squeezing out additonal voip or iptv competitors for the quick buck. Fact is, people can benefit when one carrier offers all the services as there may be some innovative cross-platform features. I am not sure how many or of what type but one thing that comes to mind is videoconferencing (talking to someone on the phone while they see you on tv, maybe while sharing a video, pictures of the family pix in pix). Ok, it can be done using the PC but I don't want to have to boot up my PC everytime I want to use features and it would be difficult, maybe even impractical to offer cross-platform features if your phone service came from another voip company. As indicated in elsewhere on another thread though i'm not sure which, metering does not wipe out voip or iptv companies in itself, it simply makes it that the customer has to decide if it still pays to stay with it.
Competition can be a good thing but an abundance of competition could be a bad thing.
reply
telcolackey @ 4th Oct 06:47AM:
Re: Physically impossible
You forget two critical points to network design and usage.
1 - The over subscription model that every ISP uses at the metro, core and edge. There is no such thing as "dedicated bandwidth"
2 - The ever increasing bandwidth / customer that happens year over year with richer content, increased speed tiers (many times without an increase in bill), and more applications.
You are correct that it does not cost more now than when it was built, but the fact that you are missing is it is constantly being built to keep up with not only new customer growth, but existing customer usage growth.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik
reply
anon @ 4th Oct 01:35PM:
Re: Physically impossible
Actually, I haven't forgotten either of those 2 points. The first I've already covered elsewhere in this thread (as have others--your statement is correct, by the way). The second is what every customer is already paying for when they pay their monthly bill now.
I've said this before, too, but let's say it again (since it doesn't seem to be clear yet): the only justification (as far as I'm concerned) for charging more based on higher usage is if there is physical deterioration of the network due to more usage of the network. Simply using more bandwidth does not justify higher pricing. Customers don't pay for bandwidth; they pay for time, as in, it takes less time to complete a task if your speed is higher. Customers pay for access. Metering works for electricity--the ISPs' favorite comparison to justify metering, because electricity gets used up and has to be generated, which costs more--we don't pay simply for the delivery of electricity, we pay for the production of electricity by way of what we use. This doesn't work for Internet access except as a means for charging customers more for something they've already paid for, namely, the network and its maintenance. If ISPs want to "manage" users who consume more than others, then they should go to a priority model: the more you use, the lower your priority. If the network isn't busy, then it won't matter; if the network is busy, then it matters--you wait longer for your tasks (downloads, uploads, page loads, whatever) to complete if your priority is lower (because you've been a "hog"... whatever that means). And if the ISPs truly wanted a well-managed network, then they would abandon speed tiers (aka speed caps), too, and simply sell higher priorities to those who are concerned about faster deliveries (when the network is "congested"). The longer it takes for a user's task to complete, the more likely it is to interfere with another user's task(s) which starts later. But I think ISPs see this approach as meaning less profit, which I don't think is the case--they could spend less money on upgrades because the network would be seen as performing adequately over a longer time-frame (less revenue, maybe, but less expenditure, too).
The issue is money... more of it for the ISPs while they do nothing to improve their service for the customers who are paying for that service.
reply
telcolackey @ 5th Oct 04:38PM:
Re: Physically impossible
Glad we agree on point 1. There are still people in this world that think DSL is "dedicated Internet bandwidth".
On the second point, yes we pay for over subscription, but we also expect the network capacity to be there when we want it. When Mb/Sub usage increases the oversubscription ratio needs to be lowered to address capacity. This is where the cost increases to upgrade the network to lower the oversubscription ratios.
Usage does = cost... And why ISPs charge / Mb in the commercial world. Broadband speeds these days are much more than commercial speeds were when the major carriers switch to the 95%ile billing model.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik
reply
anon @ 8th Oct 12:58PM:
Re: Physically impossible
It's interesting... on the one hand we all acknowledge that our Internet access (from our chosen ISP) is a shared resource--we each pay our (over-)subscription for our portion and use whatever is available as needed/desired (first come, first served), so we're all effectively subsidizing each other's access. We, the customers, pay for the network. Companies and investors may pay to get a network started, but the customers pay many times over whatever was used to start-up the network. One would expect the company to actually take whatever amount of funds is needed from those payments to keep the network maintained and upgraded so as to provide the customer experience that they advertise: such and such a speed to enable such and such activities for everyone in their ever increasing customer base. (I'll ignore the fact that the advertised speed increases are little more than a ploy to make an ISP's network look "better" than the competition's as opposed to being based on any real need of the customer to go 20mbps instead of only 10mbps--though, yes, there are some who do "need" that.)
Then, someone--usually a representative, or several, of some ISP--comes along and says, "Gee, metering is the future."
These are 2 diametrically opposed ideas. We already pay for the network to be there and available such that it offer a certain level of performance on a shared basis, and then someone wants to charge more on the basis that it isn't really shared at all. Some will agree that those who use more should pay more, but the ISP seems to ignore that those who use less should pay less. Where's the "economy" tier? Where's the $9.95/mo for using less than 5 GB (or whatever reasonable amount for "low" usage)? The ISPs aren't interested in saving customers money; they just want more money for their coffers, and not so they can improve and upgrade the network, but to buy into bigger and fancier headquarters (a la Comcast) and give themselves bigger bonuses. We pay for it, so we should get some benefit from those payments. They're making a good profit as is... better than just "good" actually. Metered Internet access, as conceived by ISPs, is a rip-off.
Yes, their networks need to be upgraded periodically... and we've already paid for it.
reply
Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2008 silver matrix LLC