how-to block ads
|
|
view: topics flat text |
|
Comments on news posted 2009-04-21 10:19:23: As you may have noticed, carriers would like you to believe that metered billing is absolutely necessary because flat-rate billing is "not viable" in the face of heavy use (aka piracy, videos) -- even as hardware and bandwidth prices fall and revenue.. ..
|
 | | Markup is whatever people will pay What do you think the markup is on the bean juice from Starbucks? People pay it so the price remains the same. When they leave for greener pastures, deals will be offered. | |
| | | | Re: Markup is whatever people will pay That is the problem. Because of monopolies and duopolies, it's very easy to charge much more than is reasonable. For most people there is nowhere else to go. | |
| | | | | Re: Markup is whatever people will pay said by insomniac84:That is the problem. Because of monopolies and duopolies, it's very easy to charge much more than is reasonable. For most people there is nowhere else to go. Exactly. While people in a larger city may have a few more options, people in most suburbs and rural areas have 1 or no options and cannot switch except back to dial-up. Most do not want to do that, and have no other viable broadband offer.
Also, most Starbucks don't suddenly add $3.00 markup to a product that has already been on the market for years at $1.10 and is consistently getting cheaper as time passes.
In telecom that is what is going on. A product which has been offered unlimited for years is now in jeopardy of becoming marked-up as a luxury commodity after starting out as such and then becoming an average product that most could afford. Also, the cost is constantly coming down and they still want to start charging more and offering less!
I suppose one good thing can come of this: if companies start seriously pushing this it can give a serious boost to the idea of making broadband a utility. The companies that are looking to overcharge for the same or less service may actually cause their own downfall over the idea. Caps and limiting bandwidth is already showing signs of mass anger by the public.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
| | | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
1 edit | Avoid competition at all costs! said by jimbo2150:said by insomniac84:That is the problem. Because of monopolies and duopolies, it's very easy to charge much more than is reasonable. For most people there is nowhere else to go. I suppose one good thing can come of this: if companies start seriously pushing this it can give a serious boost to the idea of making broadband a utility. The companies that are looking to overcharge for the same or less service may actually cause their own downfall over the idea. Caps and limiting bandwidth is already showing signs of mass anger by the public. Why does TWC want overage charges, to avoid video competition and price gouge. Why is the U. S. broadband network beginning to suck compared to some other countries, because AT&T, Comcast, TWC, and the other Dinosaurs think they're entitled to make outrageous profits and excessive top executive pay without competition. These Dinosaurs and their heavily lobbied (bribed?) Congress and State Legislature critters make sure the cost of entry for any new competitor is outrageously high. | |
| | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Markup is whatever people will pay said by jimbo2150:Exactly. While people in a larger city may have a few more options, people in most suburbs and rural areas have 1 or no options and cannot switch except back to dial-up. Most do not want to do that, and have no other viable broadband offer. Also, most Starbucks don't suddenly add $3.00 markup to a product that has already been on the market for years at $1.10 and is consistently getting cheaper as time passes. Starbucks has been getting disruptive competitors, McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts "cheap latte" products being rolled out.
Now is there anything remotely on the horizon as being a disruptive technology to the duopoly other than BPL (LOL) and WiMAX (and Clear seems pretty dead by now, its only hope is business/govt contracts in the city it did manage to set up service, but many cities already have their own 4.9 ghz WiMAX or HSDPA networks). | |
| | | | | | | Re: Markup is whatever people will pay said by patcat88:Now is there anything remotely on the horizon as being a disruptive technology to the duopoly other than BPL (LOL) and WiMAX (and Clear seems pretty dead by now, its only hope is business/govt contracts in the city it did manage to set up service, but many cities already have their own 4.9 ghz WiMAX or HSDPA networks). Even those will be a joke. BPL will probably never see the light of day (for many reasons... it just isn't very feasible). WiMax will eventually come out and while a few cities are pushing their own networks, the rest will only see WiMax or any fixed wireless through the carriers that are already out there: AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile... That will not create competition, just a new way to get same internet (probably less speed).
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
| |  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
 ·T-Mobile US
| said by insomniac84:That is the problem. Because of monopolies and duopolies, it's very easy to charge much more than is reasonable. For most people there is nowhere else to go. And let's not forget the issue of collusion which may very well be taking place
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
| | | said by Swingerhead:What do you think the markup is on the bean juice from Starbucks? People pay it so the price remains the same. When they leave for greener pastures, deals will be offered. Maybe- but Starbuck's have been closing all over over the country, so what does that tell you? | |
| | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Markup is whatever people will pay said by jazzlady:Maybe- but Starbuck's have been closing all over over the country, so what does that tell you? That you can get just as tasty coffee for a lot cheaper somewhere else. Try getting just as fast broadband a lot cheaper somewhere else. There isn't a "somewhere else" nor is there "A lot cheaper" either.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
| | | | | | Re: Markup is whatever people will pay said by KrK:said by jazzlady:Maybe- but Starbuck's have been closing all over over the country, so what does that tell you? That you can get just as tasty coffee for a lot cheaper somewhere else. Try getting just as fast broadband a lot cheaper somewhere else. There isn't a "somewhere else" nor is there "A lot cheaper" either. LOL
You're right.
As far as coffee goes, nothing beats the coffee I make myself, at home. Grinding your own beans fresh for every pot makes a huge difference, believe me...
As far as getting cheaper broadband- you got me on that one. I have 2 choices where I live- cable modem at rip off prices, or dog slow overpriced Verizon 3 Mbps DSL.
I love the Verizon rep who called me last week trying to convince me that in actuality- their 3 Mbps DSL was "just as fast" as my 15 Mbps cable connection...
Uh...sorry- no. Last I checked, 3 was one fifth of 15. I can see he was at the top of his class in math....  | |
| | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Markup is whatever people will pay said by jazzlady:Uh...sorry- no. Last I checked, 3 was one fifth of 15. I can see he was at the top of his class in math.... It's that "new Math" where the answer is relative depending on what you need the outcome to be
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| |
| |  MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Metered Billing? Common sense? He's not making much sense to me at all.
He says that Time Warner was shouted down because they were transparent, but AT&T is moving forward without telling consumers -- and somehow that makes AT&T right? So let's get this straight, AT&T and TW exist to provide a service. When they want to change their service and their customers become outraged, they should simply not inform their customers of the coming changes and move forward with them anyway?
Then he goes on to say that they should be allowed to move to usage billing because it won't impact their customers, but it will encourage infrastructure improvements? Well, who is going to pay for those improvements if not the move to usage based billing which will significantly raise rates -- or cause rates to skyrocket a year or so from now as the average home users usage increases?
But wait, there is more. He then goes on to say that government regulation is needed?!? Although to be fair, it somewhat sounded like he meant for every industry but his, but I wasn't clear on that point.
I'm not sure this guy really has any coherent opinion of his own, much less one that is worthy of debate. CEO or not, he sounds like a crackpot. | |
| | | | The first article had no option, it was just a news report by the CEO about what is going on. The second article clearly showed him in support of metered billing, but didn't clarify any of his points... let me do so for him. Here is his points in support of metered billing:
quote:
- Networks would be more aggressively upgraded for new and advanced services
- ISPs could stop or reduce managing their networks during peak periods
- Online video would be more available and deliverable on upgraded networks
- Legal P2P services would be faster and more available
- Only a small percentage of customers would pay more (those who use the most bandwidth)
- Light users would pay less
- Most would see no change in their bill at all
Here it is again with my own clarification of these points:
- Networks would be more aggressively upgraded for new and advanced services
- In our good time... just as we have been doing. * How will this change anything?
- ISPs could stop or reduce managing their networks during peak periods
- Less for more! We stop protecting because we prevent you from using the service fully!
- Online video would be more available and deliverable on upgraded networks
- As long as you get it from US (not HULU or YouTube) and PAY PREMIUMS FOR IT! If you choose to go with outside video sources all we ask you to do is PAY US PREMIUMS FOR IT! Innovation at work!
- Legal P2P services would be faster and more available
- As long as you use OUR SOFTWARE (on OSes we feel like supporting -- hear that mac, linux users?), OUR NETWORK, and have LESS CHOICE! Want to use our apps to download video or programs? Want to use a third-party P2P program? See the dollar signs in our eyes?
- Only a small percentage of customers would pay more (those who use the most bandwidth)
- Because the internet will never innovate when users are limited in what they can an cannot do without paying premiums for it.
- Light users would pay less
- No different then now. The package that today STARTS at $30/month will still START at $30/month... as long as you continue to only check your email. For the rest of users using P2P, youTube, Hulu, or any other innovative sites: PAY US MORE!
- Most would see no change in their bill at all
- Actually, we should say 'SOME' cause more and more are using services like CBS video, Hulu, youTube, etc.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
| | | | | Re: Metered Billing? His first statement about the upgrades is false. TW made money last year with only selective plans for upgrades. Why would anybody trust what TW says when thier own COO states that they won't upgrade consumers in non-competitive markets?
On sept.9, 2008 TWC chief operating officer Landel Hobbs said at a conference in California that his company's strategy will be to deploy DOCSIS 3.0 "surgically" in markets where it is most needed, but not in markets where the company is finding support for its tiered broadband services.
»www.fiercetelecom.com/story/twc-···08-09-09
--
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone | |
| | | | | | Re: Metered Billing? said by S_engineer:On sept.9, 2008 TWC chief operating officer Landel Hobbs said at a conference in California that his company's strategy will be to deploy DOCSIS 3.0 "surgically" in markets where it is most needed, but not in markets where the company is finding support for its tiered broadband services. » www.fiercetelecom.com/story/twc-···08-09-09 THAT is ridiculous! Some of these companies are looking more and more like greedy scammers than anything else. Amazing what lack of competition will do to the industry.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
| | | | andre2
join:2005-08-24
Brookline, MA | said by S_engineer:On sept.9, 2008 TWC chief operating officer Landel Hobbs said at a conference in California that his company's strategy will be to deploy DOCSIS 3.0 "surgically" in markets where it is most needed, but not in markets where the company is finding support for its tiered broadband services. » www.fiercetelecom.com/story/twc-···08-09-09 So in a nutshell, the people who pay for the upgrades will be the ones who support caps/metering, but the ones who actually get them will be the ones who don't. | |
|
 major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | The sequel is coming to an ISP near you very soon Don't worry, As we speak, I'm sure TWC et al. are furiously assembling astroturf groups and are otherwise in the process of creating industry think tanks to underscore the myth of bandwidth scarcity. They'll have some stats soon that will appear to the average, dumbfuck Congressional representative as legitimate. And just as Schumer et al. get their cut of campaign re-election funds, TWC will be right back in the business of metering.
--
The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
| |
|
approval from:
fAcEtIOUs 
| Guy got simple facts WRONG This guy can't even get the simple stuff right (Hanging CMTSs from poles? what is he smoking?). Why should I believe anything he wrote?
How about he come up with simple data like the average amount of data consumers use? Wouldn't that a BASIC and NEEDED FACT for any USAGE argument? | |
| | | | Re: Guy got simple facts WRONG said by Shmo :
This guy can't even get the simple stuff right (Hanging CMTSs from poles? what is he smoking?). The device he's referring to hanging off a pole (where the "high-capacity fiber cable" switches over to "cable TV... wires") isn't a CMTS, it's an HFC node. Which can be pole-mounted or even hung on the cable strand.
If you're going to call someone an idiot, it's best to not be yourself an idiot. | |
| | |
approval from:
AVD
| Re: Guy got simple facts WRONG said by DGLewis:said by Shmo :
This guy can't even get the simple stuff right (Hanging CMTSs from poles? what is he smoking?). The device he's referring to hanging off a pole (where the "high-capacity fiber cable" switches over to "cable TV... wires") isn't a CMTS, it's an HFC node. Which can be pole-mounted or even hung on the cable strand. If you're going to call someone an idiot, it's best to not be yourself an idiot. Did YOU READ the article?
said by NY Times :
If the company needs to add a new Cable Modem Termination System, the device that connects cable wires to the Internet, it will pay $6,000 if the device is in one of its existing facilities. And if Comcast needs install a new C.M.T.S. on a pole, stringing a new fiber optic cable to it, the cost is $20,000.
Take your own advice about idiots. | |
|
|  jsz0Premium
join:2008-01-23
Jewett City, CT
2 edits | You're absolutely right. This guys facts and numbers are flat out wrong. $6k for a CMTS? That's pure fantasy. The actual cost is at bare minimum 10x more and realistically more like 15x more. A single card for a UBR10k costs 4-5x more than the price he's quoting. It's not that hard to call up a Cisco reseller and find these facts out. Makes me wonder if this guy just made up these numbers without any fact checking at all.
EDIT: Apparently he's confusing the term CMTS with node. High quality journalism. Splitting nodes doesn't solve bandwidth contention at the HFC level unless you spend the money on more capacity on the CMTS side also. That's the expensive part. | |
| | | AJR
join:2009-03-18
Alabaster, AL | Re: Guy got simple facts WRONG said by jsz0:This guys facts and numbers are flat out wrong. $6k for a CMTS? That's pure fantasy. The actual cost is at bare minimum 10x more and realistically more like 15x more. A single card for a UBR10k costs 4-5x more than the price he's quoting. Splitting nodes doesn't solve bandwidth contention at the HFC level unless you spend the money on more capacity on the CMTS side also. That's the expensive part. jsz0,
You are right on the money. A fully loaded Cisco CMTS will cost Hundreds of Thousands of dollars. | |
| | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Guy got simple facts WRONG said by AJR:said by jsz0:This guys facts and numbers are flat out wrong. $6k for a CMTS? That's pure fantasy. The actual cost is at bare minimum 10x more and realistically more like 15x more. A single card for a UBR10k costs 4-5x more than the price he's quoting. Splitting nodes doesn't solve bandwidth contention at the HFC level unless you spend the money on more capacity on the CMTS side also. That's the expensive part. jsz0, You are right on the money. A fully loaded Cisco CMTS will cost Hundreds of Thousands of dollars. How much does a Chinese CMTS cost without the brand name? | |
|
DesdinovaPremium
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | Hmmm... The hard data to support metered billing should be EASY to find: it's next to the pot of gold over the rainbow beside the magic wishing unicorn... | |
| |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Hmmm... Right - and bring it over to Wall Street. AIG, former Bear Stearns, Madoff are all waiting for it.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
 SSX4lifeHello WorldPremium
join:2004-02-13
kudos:2
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | Fail train There is no hard data that they need to charge by the bit / bite / etc.
They are trying to categorize the fact if something is in lean supply they can make changes to the methods of how to regulate it.
For example, lets look at gas / fuel charges by airlines.
If gas was 4 bucks a gallon airlines added additional fees left and right to things and cut corners. What they should have done was make smarter planes that took less fuel (a.k.a. not do what airbus was doing with their A380).
Now that prices have come down, why are the fees still in place?
Companies need to stop shafting their customers, build a smarter business model, and be more fluid. Get with the 21st century and start building better equipment to handle the needs of your customers (data / video / etc. is only going to grow, stop trying to make excuses for not implementing better methods and policies)
Need I also remind you that in the early 90's the US Government gave the companies TONS of money to upgrade their systems and they did jack sh!t with. The last thing these companies need to do is NOT upgrade their systems, let the USA fall even FURTHER behind other countries in development, and charge MORE for having a monopoly over a market.
This whole idea is full of fail. | |
| |  DarkLogixPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
1 edit | Re: Fail train delete post please (the image wouldn't post due to where it was hosted) | |
| |  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | said by SSX4life:For example, lets look at gas / fuel charges by airlines. If gas was 4 bucks a gallon airlines added additional fees left and right to things and cut corners. What they should have done was make smarter planes that took less fuel (a.k.a. not do what airbus was doing with their A380). The lead time to purchase/build a new plane (assuming that a more fuel efficent plane model is in production) is about 1-2 years. Thus the need for fuel surcharges is the only way to go (ignoring the cost of purchasing it if it was available "Right Now" and how long it would take to pay back from the fuel savings).
Now that prices have come down, why are the fees still in place?
This is double set of books method that is used for pricing gas. If your costs go up you bump your price while waiting to drop your price when the costs go down. | |
|
 DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 | Justification I am all against meter billing, but if they are going to push it. They should offer a significantly reduce ppu price. Overall I think they as not making any sense for metered, unless the price is alot less. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
 Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | I have an answer.. It's GREED.. Yep. They're noticing that alot more traffic is going through their pipes and they're looking for a way to profit off of it.
They didn't expect that newer generation technologies would take advantage of the bandwidth people are PAYING for. Instead, they whine about it and on top of the connection speed the customer is paying for, they want to limit the amount transferred.
It's like having a new car, driving it for 500 miles, then having to pay for each additional mile or miles.
--
Bresnan 15M/1M|MyWS[P4HT@4.01GHz,2GB RAM,2x1TB HDDs,WinXP]|WifeWS[P4@2.4GHz,1GB RAM,60GB HDD,WinXP]|Router[2xP3@1GHz,640MB RAM,18GB HDD,Allied Telesyn AT-2560FX,Kingston KNE100TX,2xDigital DE504,Compaq NC3131,iPro/1000DP,Blitz BWI715,Gentoo Linux] | |
| | Reviews:
·SureWest Internet
·AT&T Yahoo
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: I have an answer.. It's GREED.. said by Simba7:Yep. They're noticing that alot more traffic is going through their pipes and they're looking for a way to profit off of it. They didn't expect that newer generation technologies would take advantage of the bandwidth people are PAYING for. Instead, they whine about it and on top of the connection speed the customer is paying for, they want to limit the amount transferred. It's like having a new car, driving it for 500 miles, then having to pay for each additional mile or miles. Its like paying for every mile you drive at 1 dollar per mile...
does that make more sense?
they will boast that a mile is a lot, it will take you half an hour to walk a mile... it like saying you can only drive 1 mile a day, anything over is going to be overage charges... this of course makes obsolutely no sense
this is just plain robbery at gun point...
the japanese, korean, netherland has 100mbit pipe and has no limit in usage. they are getting more for the same price that most american paid for these lousy dsl, cable crap 
what a sad sad world we live in where corporate greed are all that matters... we the consumer are sucker for these scum bag...
correction, they notice that they can make even more profits by charging extra on usage without having to subscribe more user... all they need is some bs excuses or statistic to convince we the consumer into buying into their metered nonesense... | |
|
| | Cash grab... While I appreciate Saul Hansell's efforts to get to the "truth," in this case I'm afraid to say that it is just a cash grab by the ever-greedy and anti-competitive cable companies.
What interests me more is that Saul Hansell even considered that the cable companies plight was altruistic in nature. He apparently see's "moral fiber" where we consumers only see monopolistic greed. | |
| | |
| | Misleading costs... There are more costs than just buying a GigE for $10k/mo. What about the costs of labor, maintainance, and equipment?
I would say that the totals still do not justify metered billing unless it's a High Cap + metered billing. Something like a 300Gb cap and then the metered kicks in. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | No data? If the give no data I will not support a phail meter billing system. If it were a real metered bill(PAYG) system I think it would work better ten people would pay for what they use. $10 for a 5m connection and what ever it cost the ISP for a GB of data we would pay 2x that. If 1Gb cost them $0.20 we would pay $0.40, I do not know what it cost I am just using numbers that are easy to double. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
1 edit | Here is the money shot! "The most logical reason for the desire to shift to this overage model remains a fear that Internet TV will erode carrier television revenues. By monetizing third party video delivery by the gigabyte (be it via Netflix or DirecTV's "VOD"), carriers can ensure their relevance in the face of television's evolution. As a perk, consumers pay more money for the same product -- one that consistently costs less to provide."
I can speak that anyone around my age and younger values the Internet a lot more than the television. Only the old people really care about the TV. Out with the old in with the new.
I still think 1 dollar a GB is monstrously outrageous. If it was 10 cents a GB I might say they are just trying to run a nice business model to make extra cash but at their price gouging I can only say that they like to exploit the consumer's ignorance to the max.
Here we go
Money talks
Here comes the money
Money money
Money money
Money money
Money money
Money
Dolla dolla
Dolla dolla
Ching ching
Bling Bling
At the check out
If you ain't talkin' money
Then your talkin' don't matter | |
| |
See 14 replies to this post | |
 screavic4Premium
join:2006-08-11
Paron, AR
kudos:1 | Most Carriers... Most carriers saw that it was alright for wireless data to be limited to 5GB and people still obtained it. Why, because these carriers havn't grown to these areas and people need something BESIDES dialup. I have Alltel Axcess, granted I have spent alot of $$ for ways to get a better signal than 1x, I am on a "unlimited but fair" plan. Meaning it's truly unlimited as long as I don't abuse the system by downloading a ton of information every month.
Not only do most wireless carriers limit you to 5gb, they claim they have unlimited internet, and they charge more for MUCH MUCH less.
I thought the wave of wireless "was supposed to be cheaper" because of the lack of line maintenance etc. Of course this would be true if there wasn't a demand for broadband in rural areas. Do I think this government sponsored broadband bill is going to work... NO
Now I wait to be attacked... | |
| | | | Re: Most Carriers... I honestly believe ISPs want the wireless model on their wired networks. | |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
·Clear Wireless
1 edit | Vast difference in colo / wide-area network CapEx and OpEx Does anybody do investigative journalism anymore?
The operational costs at the head-end where cross-connects are contained to the same building is a vastly different case from operating and maintaining miles of infrastructure.
I highlighted the elements I had direct costs for here:
»Re: I think we are seeing how TWC will try to "educate" people
If the gains were really 2500% (as Karl Bode suggests), you couldn't beat venture capitalists off with a stick if you expressed interest in starting up a new service provider.
I'm not saying there is no profit in the system, but to argue it's 2500% is absurd. If that were the case all of these muni-ISPs wouldn't be having financial troubles. | |
| |  hitachi369Embrace Your RightsPremium
join:2001-10-03
Grand Rapids, MI
kudos:4
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Vast difference in colo / wide-area network CapEx and OpEx said by espaeth:Does anybody do investigative journalism anymore? The operational costs at the head-end where cross-connects are contained to the same building is a vastly different case from operating and maintaining miles of infrastructure. I highlighted the elements I had direct costs for here: » Re: I think we are seeing how TWC will try to "educate" peopleIf the gains were really 2500% (as Karl Bode suggests), you couldn't beat venture capitalists off with a stick if you expressed interest in starting up a new service provider. I'm not saying there is no profit in the system, but to argue it's 2500% is absurd. If that were the case all of these muni-ISPs wouldn't be having financial troubles. are they charging overages? | |
| | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: Vast difference in colo / wide-area network CapEx and OpEx I'm not sure I understand which "they" you are asking about? | |
|
| DarkLogixPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | After the hardware has reached ROI then it will use roughly the same power day and night and the fees become fairly static month to month
a large number of people start downloading well the power usage might go up a little but at that point they are paying pennies on the gig (or might have a peering agrement and have not cost
the 2500% would of course cause ROI to be reached faster but then its loads of profit (unless the upgrade their equ) | |
| | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: Vast difference in colo / wide-area network CapEx and OpEx said by DarkLogix:After the hardware has reached ROI then it will use roughly the same power day and night and the fees become fairly static month to month Not quite.
Even assuming the oversubscription ratios remained the same (ie, the portion of low:high users is fixed), network utilization is growing at 50-60% per year. So let's assume that D1.1/D2.0 providers are finally starting to bump up against the limits of single 38mbps channels after being deployed for a decade. DOCSIS 3.0 deployments are currently bonding 4 channels, so they get a 400% increase in capacity.
If you model that as: 4.00 = 1.50^(t) (ie, 50% growth with utilization equals 1 is (1*1.5), do that year after year leading to t in years)
If you solve for that you get 3.4 years. So, a 400% increase with a DOCSIS 3.0 rollout buys them 3.4 years of time before they are in the same capacity crunch needing to upgrade again.
said by DarkLogix:a large number of people start downloading well the power usage might go up a little but at that point they are paying pennies on the gig (or might have a peering agrement and have not cost Look at my link again. We're not talking about the CapEx costs of a company like Level(3) who, ironically enough, just turned their first quarterly profit in 6 years after firing a bunch of people. The pennies per GB is the cost to deliver that bandwidth within the confines of a "lit" building, the expansion building block is 10GigE interfaces, and the effort involved to expand capacity is often a matter of installing a line card and some patch cables.
On the DOCSIS side you need to free frequency space, potentially run new fiber / place nodes, adjust amps, etc which requires not just the capital outlay to upgrade but involves a considerable amount of manpower to accomplish.
Hardware is cheap, people are expensive. The number of people required to perform even minor upgrades in the DSL/DOCSIS space is much greater than the number of people required to perform massive bandwidth upgrades in a carrier facility. | |
|
| | cost looks like this is the question of the hour day whatever.
what is the actual cost of data transmission and how exactly is it quantified? like most things i'd imagine that the cost is relative to scale. but what is the cost? | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
| | Can an ISP still make money If Time Warner makes good money splitting a 38 Mbps line between 500 or even just 250 users can they still make money if they have to reduce that to say 5 or 10 users?
A $10,000 per month 1 GB connection starts to get real thin in the face of just a hundred users that want to sit down to a little HD after dinner.
Seems like a big change to me. And, of course, it all depends on how widely HD streaming gets adopted. | |
| | | | Re: Can an ISP still make money That $10,000/gbit isn't completely accurate... In downtown LA you can get a 1Gbit connection for ~3,000-5,000/month. | |
| | | | I see your point, but, if people using such bandwidth-intensive apps is the problem, then why are these ISP's offering such insane speeds? Comcast around here was offering 8 Mbps down a while back, and they may have increased it since the last time I checked. What do they think people will do with that? Surf and read mail? I can do that just fine on a 1.5 Mbps connection. Anything much faster than that shifts the bottleneck from my end of the connection to the server. So either you pay for tons of bandwidth you won't use, or you use it with services that can take full advantage of it, such as HD video.
If someone gives me a Ferrari, they shouldn't expect me to drive it like a Chevy. | |
| | | | said by Millenniumle:If Time Warner makes good money splitting a 38 Mbps line between 500 or even just 250 users can they still make money if they have to reduce that to say 5 or 10 users? A $10,000 per month 1 GB connection starts to get real thin in the face of just a hundred users that want to sit down to a little HD after dinner. Seems like a big change to me. And, of course, it all depends on how widely HD streaming gets adopted. Exactly... The software is outpacing the hardware. The kiddies don't get that. Too bad, when a resource becomes precious due to whatever pressure, it is then a precious resource. If the ISPs can not deliver ninety million video streams at 8 PM every day because the bandwidth is simply not available, then the heavy user simply has to be the one to pay the cost of haulin' the bits...
Nothing complicated there...
Now, let me see ninety million video streams, is what? 90,000,000 times 1,500,000. That is about 16,875,000,000,000 bytes/sec. That is a big number. That number is 16.9 terabytes. Yep, bytes, not bits. That is *A REALLY BIG NUMBER* and delivering that kind of bandwidth is *REALLY EXPENSIVE*. Really expensive...
... and you want Mable, the 75 year old widow who checks her E-Mail once per day to help you pay for your part of it ...
You should be ashamed...
(Mind you that was not aimed at Millenniumle) | |
|
| | Text message rates for broadband? I'm waiting for the day when we're all charged a dollar to check our email, or worse. I'm sure they'd charge text message rates for broadband internet if they thought they could get away with it. Ten cents a byte would be pretty sweet for the ISPs. I'm sure they could whip up an astroturf group to prove they're non-viable without charging by the byte.
Buy 10 bytes, get one free - just like the grocery store! Such a deal! | |
|  SSidlovOther Things On My MindPremium
join:2000-03-03
Pompton Lakes, NJ
·Optimum Online
| Just applying SMS profitability to ISP Everyone is looking to get something as profitable as SMS text plans on an ISP. Even if it is a very low cost of a few dollars to upgrade per customer, when you have millions of them, it becomes (as they say) 'real money' when added up. So, the companies are looking for an acceptable scapegoat to create a new revenue stream, such as 'heavy users' or P2P. There's no plans for 'light users' since that would/could mean a loss of revenue per household. The meager competition that some ISPs have has been holding the billing prices down for years now without increases. Systems such as CV are very successful with 75% of homes passed using the services. Income is static. (Though in CV's case they dropped $5 of the $15 discount (only if you signed up for the discount, that is.) that they used to give to customers with all three services.) How do you generate more income when your general customer base is not growing anymore and competition light as it is, prevents you from increasing the pricing for existing services? Upgrade your systems more (in a bad ecomomy) and allow them to pay for additional service levels - risky and without a guarantee of 'take-up' or rework the existing billing to make more money?
CV has announced that they are almost complete with their Docsis 3 upgrade at a cost of $300 mill. They also rolled out free wi-fi for their customers at the same time. Since they CAN NOT put their wifi in Manhattan (not their service area), for the most part this is to support the commuters who will mostly find the wifi at their bus/train stations and along the route to NYC and their kids who will use the local shops/community zones that are covered by the service (hopefully saving the parents money on cell phone data plans). Most malls now have free wifi too. Hopefully, for CV this extra service may keep some people from switching to FIOS as it rolls out in the CV footprint, and may in time be a revenue stream, too for non-CV customers.
Metered Internet and computer usage billing isn't new, it's OLD. VERY OLD. When I was in college (70's) I had metered computer time based on the computer class I was taking. We used punch cards and teletypes back then Someone remembered that back in the days of 1200-2400 baud BBS systems like the Source and the original CompUserve (the original system that ran on PDP-10s), that people used to have accounts and pay upwards of $5,000 a year to connect at $25.95 an hour during peak times. That was back in the mid 80's-early 90's, and would be like paying (off the top of my head), $20,000 a year after adjusting for inflation today.
There used to be truism: The Internet (or Compuserve) was only 'fast/responsive' when Monday Night Football or StarTrek was on TV.
--
»www.Warpstock.org
| |
| | | Metered billing, caps, etc. Whahhhhhh!!!!! That is what I hear from the internet providers these days. And thing of it is if I keep hearing it I will cancel my service.
I am tired of "we are bleeding" mentality of AT&T, Comcast, Charter, Time Warner, etc. They don't deserve my business if they think that lieing to me and then acting like a broken, wounded down on their luck company is going to garner the slightest sympathies.
Mark my words! They will destroy themselves ala GM, Chrysler, Wachovia, Bear Stears, Lehman Brothers, AIG, Enron, Worldcom, etc. They will self implode from pure greed. And I won't shed a tear. | |
| | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Re: Metered billing, caps, etc. said by jkeelsnc:Whahhhhhh!!!!! That is what I hear from the internet providers these days. They sure are a bunch of whiners and the consumers are the ones that pay for all their crying. If only they had real competition we could replace them and really give them something to whine about. | |
|
 ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN | There is none That is the answer. | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post |
| |
|
