 SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
| The author of this piece is not interested in fairness.... ...he's clearly interested in trying to get something for nothing. When metering is suggested, he complains about it. But when throttling without metering is suggested, he complains about that as well.
He also continues to repeat false statements about the "dropping cost" of providing broadband. In fact, backbone bandwidth is not going down in price, and the price of "middle mile" connections is going up. Providers' costs truly are going up, and it ought to be a bit embarrassing to DSL Reports that their most prolific writer (it would not be appropriate to call him a "reporter," because he does not do fact checking and his work is highly biased) has got this point wrong. | |
|
 | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | Re: The author of this piece is not interested in fairness.... It's nice to hear that you are saying that Karl is lying. It would be even nicer to have some information to substantiate that.
cw | |
|
| | |
| | | 
Pingmeister
| Re: The author of this piece is not interested in fairness.... said by espaeth  :said by wentlanc :It's nice to hear that you are saying that Karl is lying. It would be even nicer to have some information to substantiate that. A few minutes of getting quotes for circuits would verify SuperWISP 's statements. You'll notice a common theme in most of these articles: the people reporting the pricing are people who have never in their lives purchased wholesale bandwidth. The model for wholesale bandwidth is similar to how electricity is billed at the home. I don't remember the power company ever marketing electricity any other way. The model for residential internet connectivity is changing from "use what you will" to a usage based cost system, in a time when residential internet usage should be growing, and technology should be helping to lower the cost of data transmission. The cost of wholesale bandwidth goes down with the advancement of technology. A faster, better internet is marketed to residential internet consumers, while a higher level of usage is being discouraged. Something is wrong with this. I can understand why a residential internet consumer can feel like they're being baited, hooked and switched. | |
|
| | | | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| Re: The author of this piece is not interested in fairness.... You are correct that where the tier 1 ISPs have peering arrangements, they write off a LOT of those charges because they only really pay for differential charges.
AT&T and Level 3 peer to each other.
AT&T sends L3 100 terabits over a month.
L3 sends AT&T 110 terabits over the same month
The only charge is for L3 for 10 terabits. The rest is a trade. So it's not exactly the same as electricity to a residential user.
cw | |
|
| | | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| We used to pay $12K monthly for burstable DS3 DIA service billed at the 95th percentile. Our bills were consistently $16K per month because we exceeded that rate.
I can get an full rate OC3 DIA for about $8K monthly. No caps, no bursting.
You justify how that is not LESS expensive.
cw | |
|
mc5w
join:2002-06-14
Independence, OH
| Metering Back in the days when telegraph and telephone lines were extremely expensive to build, it did make sense to do metering of toll calls for long distance. Nowdays, the cost of Internet bandwidth is so low that about 99% of what could be collected extra with metering would have to go into building and administering the metering, except possibly for undersea fiber optic cables. I can see maybe metering of traffic over undersea fiber optic cables but we are also not seeing anywhere near 100% usage of those cables.
What was controversial back in the olden days was assessing of message units for calls from one central office to another in big cities. Once T1 carrier over copper took hold the cost came down to the point that the telephone companies were eventually forced to admit that about 75% of what they collected on message units was spent on keeping track of message units. The phone companies eventually admitted that businesses and heavier residential users would pay less if charged a flat monthly rate and light residential users could just pay a flat 5 or 7 cents per call.
When Internet was very young the CPU capacity and memory capacity on routers was so precious that metered usage was deemed too expensive. A Communist business model where each institution contributed its fair share of lines and equipment would work well. | |
|
|
AnonDOG
@kaballero.net
| ... not a problem ... As an ISP I have absolutely no problem with:
1) The user using any device any way they want so long as they are paying for the bandwidth they use.
2) Allowing the "gubmit" to check and verify the accuracy of my bandwidth measurement equipment.
3) Allowing the "gubmit" to periodically reaffirm the accuracy of my bandwidth measurement equipment.
The argument that users are not going to want to pay for the bandwidth that ads use is specious. You don't want the ads, complain to the people that are sending them to you. If you don't want me to monitor your traffic or shape your traffic how the hell am I going to limit ads? Some web pages simply will not load if you do not pull the ads. You don't want ads... bitch to the people sending you the ads. | |
|
| axiomatic
join:2006-08-23
Tomball, TX
| Re: ... not a problem ... Wow that's not realistic at all. You know good and well that when you send that "stop eating up my bandwidth with your flash advertisements" email to whatever page owners site you are reading they are going to say "whatever" and move on to something that doesn't infringe on the careful balance the site needs to stay profitable.
You used the term specious. How is it that our argument is specious yet the ISP's pure greed on metering it not specious as well?
Beyond that, any credibility you had as a consumer was lost the minute you wrote "As an ISP I have absolutely no problem with." With that one sentence, anything you may have had as a point is moot. You're not on the consumers side, you're an ISP. | |
|
| |
AnonDOG
@kaballero.net
| Re: ... not a problem ... said by axiomatic :Wow that's not realistic at all. You know good and well that when you send that "stop eating up my bandwidth with your flash advertisements" email to whatever page owners site you are reading they are going to say "whatever" and move on to something that doesn't infringe on the careful balance the site needs to stay profitable. So you want me to make sure that DSLR does not send you advertizements.
said by axiomatic :You used the term specious. How is it that our argument is specious yet the ISP's pure greed on metering it not specious as well? My argument is not specious because if I charge you 0.000001 cents per byte, I also charge any other customer I have exactly the same amount per byte. I argue for a level playing field, you want some users to get a free ride.
said by axiomatic :Beyond that, any credibility you had as a consumer was lost the minute you wrote "As an ISP I have absolutely no problem with." With that one sentence, anything you may have had as a point is moot. You're not on the consumers side, you're an ISP. I see. I am the evil boogie man and anything I say can and will be held against me in the court of public opinion *BECAUSE* I provide a service for a fee. This kind of thinking is why we eventually had to break up AT&T, but I am SURE that was well before you were born birth, so never mind. | |
|
| axiomatic
join:2006-08-23
Tomball, TX | Ya know what. You're the ISP. If you want metered usage, then it just became YOUR job to block all bandwidth hog advertisements.
See what I did there? | |
|
| |
AnonDOG
@kaballero.net
| Re: ... not a problem ... said by axiomatic :Ya know what. You're the ISP. If you want metered usage, then it just became YOUR job to block all bandwidth hog advertisements. See what I did there? Yep, I saw exactly what you did. So I guess Cablevision has to block TV commercials and DirecTV needs to do the same.
SEE what I did there? No? Well let me explain it for you. You want me to do deep packet inspection and limit what comes to you AND you want me to READ YOUR MIND because IF I block an advert that you want, I am sure I am going to hear from you....
.... BUT .... You also DO NOT want me to filter, monitor, shape or in any other way diddle with your traffic ....
Do you see what I did there? Yep, I pulled a reality check.
Get real. | |
|
MemeandIohu
@comcast.net
| No different than....... The airlines charging 5 dollars for a pillow and a blanket. Or charging for the extra bag. And then charging even more for the third bag. Then charging even more if a bag is over 50 pounds.
Ever rent a car? How about those fees and charges for tires, washing the car after it's returned? Oh and my favorite.... an extra 50 cents stadium tax or arena tax or local transit taxt. What's that for you ask? Because they are building a new stadium in town and are offsetting the cost by bilking car rental customers.
So why impose metered billing? It's for the extra money and because they can. That's why. | |
|
dontmeterme
@rr.com
| unwanted trafic I use TW and get about 2 gb of traffic a month in scans.
Dont want to pay for it and wont, as it is unwanted and possibly malicious traffic. TW should clean up their
network(s), particularly if they are going to give up their 'common carrier' status. Otherwise: lawsuit waiting to happen. Dont know about the common carrier agreements?
educate yourself! | |
|
|
RR User
@rr.com
| Re: unwanted trafic said by dontmeterme :
TW should clean up their
network(s), particularly if they are going to give up their 'common carrier' status. TWC doesn't have Common Carrier status. Their internet service is regulated as a "entertainment service" not Common Carrier.
I think as a Common Carrier they'd have even less ability to cleanup the traffic on their network because at that point they'd be the dumb pipe provider with hands off the data passing through it.
said by dontmeterme :
Dont know about the common carrier agreements?
educate yourself! Take your own advise first. | |
|
| | margaf77
join:2000-12-22
Bayonne, NJ
 ·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FIOS
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: unwanted trafic said by RR User :said by dontmeterme :
TW should clean up their
network(s), particularly if they are going to give up their 'common carrier' status. TWC doesn't have Common Carrier status. Their internet service is regulated as a "entertainment service" not Common Carrier. I think as a Common Carrier they'd have even less ability to cleanup the traffic on their network because at that point they'd be the dumb pipe provider with hands off the data passing through it. said by dontmeterme :
Dont know about the common carrier agreements?
educate yourself! Take your own advise first. He heard a buzzword and tried to use it and you ruined it for him.  | |
|
|
RR User
@rr.com
| BTW, here's a link to the case where the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES rules that cable services do not meet Common Carrier status:
»www.techlawjournal.com/topstorie···627b.asp
I made a mistake earlier when I wrote that it's deemed a "entertainment service", actually it's legally called a "telecommunication service". Either way it's not protected by Common Carrier status. | |
|
|
RR User
@rr.com
| BTW, here's a link to the case where the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES rules that cable services do not meet Common Carrier status:
»www.techlawjournal.com/topstorie···627b.asp
I made a mistake earlier when I wrote that it's deemed a "entertainment service", actually it's legally called a "information service". Either way it's not protected by Common Carrier status. | |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| Low Caps, High Overage Charges are Antitrust & Anti-Consumer We all know what they really want is low caps and outrageously high overage charges and not true metered billing. It's about restricting competition to their TV services and price gouging. To prevent consumers from being ripped off metered billing must be highly regulated. | |
|
|
AnonDOG
@kaballero.net
| Re: Low Caps, High Overage Charges are Antitrust & Anti-Consumer said by Sammer :We all know what they really want is low caps and outrageously high overage charges and not true metered billing. It's about restricting competition to their TV services and price gouging. To prevent consumers from being ripped off metered billing must be highly regulated. I don't know what "they" want. I know what *I* want and I have been selling bandwidth since 1994. I *want* absolute flat rate billing. I advocate for treating bandwidth as a commodity exactly the same as if it were gasoline, electricity, or water. I want to charge you *exactly* the same as I charge myself (yep, I charge myself) for one byte of traffic.
I don't want *you* to pay for my buddy (yep, my friend) who downloads five thousand songs while he is in college. I don't want *you* to pay for the bandwidth that my buddy uses to download a thousand movies, and not watch them.
I simply want you to pay for what you use, me to pay for what I use, and my mother (76) to pay for what she uses.
In the world where I grew up, we called that equality. I don't know what you kids are calling it these days but I *do* know that there is equality, and there is this other thing which we see today that has absolutely nothing to do with balance, equality, or honesty. The way you can spot is is by asking who pays how much for what. If you and I and Joe the plumber don't all have to pay the same thing for the same amount of some product, well that *IS NOT* equality.
Trust me on that one. | |
|
DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Metairie, LA
clubs: | the shills are out in force Look at all the anon's posting. Sore spot indeed. | |
|
benfromlouisiana
@cmaaccess.com
| Why? What are they paying for? Circuits that they own and some small companies buy from them.
Like At&t they charge over 10 grand a month for a Ds3. At&t is making a killing wouldn't you think? The people who provide the circuits don't have to pay for Gigabyte used why should the consumer?
If they don't have he pipe for the bandwidth wouldn't it be their responsibility to add the fiber?
Most people don't understand how the internet works... it's just a big matrix of data lines owned by various companies. It's just another way of gouging money... just like the government did with oil and now they want to do it with the internet. | |
|
| 
swanboy
join:2001-01-22
Hollywood, FL | Re: Why? i dont understand the question. what do you mean who monitors the meters. who the hell verifies the authenticity of power company meters. For all I know, ive been over paying for a decade on my power bill. | |
|
| |
G W Carver
@rr.com
| Re: Why? I was going to download a Network monitoring program till it occurred to me just who is going to calibrate the ISPs mettering program...Answer the ISP, the Metter can be configured 100/1000 different ways. Any of which will probably be in the ISP favor. Unless some agency is appointed to regulate such monitoring. | |
|
|
|
|
·
·
Hello, Mister Fox...