dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2011-02-24 12:39:19: For years we've discussed how the arguments put forward by wired carriers looking to implement usage-based billing don't hold water. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · next


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

2 recommendations

Not a fossil fuel

Bandwidth is not a fossil fuel.

Caps due nothing to help "crunch time" congestion, for example 6-7 pm on my garbage Time Warner cable node.

Throttles can help with congestion. But the end came is to create Forced Artificial Scarcity to prevent TV and Voice distribution.


cchhat01
Dr. Zoidberg

join:2001-05-01
Elmhurst, NY

That really hit the spot...

I think this is the best analogy I've come across in dealing with UBB... Nothing to add to it really he completely dissolved Usage based billing in my opinion.
--
Chirag's Website

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

1 recommendation

Helping Grandmothers

EVERY grandmother I know would have fared better - much better - under Time Warner Cable's metered use proposal.

I can't speak to other carriers, but thanks to you and yours, those grandmothers continue to overpay today.


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13

Canadians are used to be nickeled and dimed

We get nickeled and dimed in so many areas, I'm actually quite surprised this produced that outrage that it did!


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to elray

Re: Helping Grandmothers

said by elray:

EVERY grandmother I know would have fared better - much better - under Time Warner Cable's metered use proposal.

I can't speak to other carriers, but thanks to you and yours, those grandmothers continue to overpay today.

WRONG. You're a fool if you think ISPs would actually LOWER prices. Yes they're for losing MILLIONS or even BILLIONS in revenue.

dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

Physics fail

There have been many attempts, including by the CRTC, to equate internet usage to a utility such as electricity or gas. Very simply put: it is not. The electrons that make up the data that passes to and fro over the internet are limitless and are not consumed and destroyed every time a YouTube video is watched.
Yeah, and the electrons don't get "destroyed" when you turn on your blender, either. Idiot.


en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

companies want it as a commodity

So that they can have it adjusted purely by supply and demand.
As there are limits on how many providers will exist (how many will want to wire your place?), and consumption on the rise, having bandwidth as a commodity will allow for huge profits.

BlueC

join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Integra Telecom
reply to elray

Re: Helping Grandmothers

said by elray:

EVERY grandmother I know would have fared better - much better - under Time Warner Cable's metered use proposal.

I can't speak to other carriers, but thanks to you and yours, those grandmothers continue to overpay today.

The honest truth is that those who use their connections less, are probably going to go with a lower tier, as they won't be dealing with much applications that demand higher throughput.

Same can be said with heavy users and higher tiers.

Tiers work, metered use does not.


JackKane

@covad.net
reply to dynodb

Re: Physics fail

But the coal burnt to generate them is lost when the blender is used. Hydro power is a different beast, but in the same category. That cat doesn't suddenly expire when you watch it on youtube. Learn to abstract.

With that said, if ISPs want to charge for the minuscule amount of electricity required to deliver the bytes instead of the bytes themselves, ie a delivery charge, that would be acceptable. Except we're already paying that, of course... It doesn't take more electricity to push the bytes, which is what is meant by "electrons aren't destroyed", not the actual physical fact involved.

amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·KCH Cable

1 edit
reply to elray

Re: Helping Grandmothers

Um, there are cheaper plans... tell those you believe are overpaying to go with a lower tier of service...

Cox, for example, has 4 tiers. Prices are VERY reasonable for the lower two.

edit: DSL pricing is generally "tiered" as well. AT&T, for example, has some dirt cheap options.

I don't see anything wrong with the current pricing setup, other than lack of deployment/real competition in various areas.
If you can't afford "turbo" internet, there are still options that allow fast enough access to get by with (compared to dial up internet speeds).

UBB is a sham, plain as can be. There are no obvious benefits to customers, otherwise we'd have seen it years ago without any backlash. Instead, providers offered faster and faster speeds, and where available, have usually provided slower tiers at dirt cheap prices...

Randall_Lind

join:2004-01-24
Saint Petersburg, FL

It's all about greed really

Bright House sells their lighting package as a means to download movies etc in secs. So if you actually follow that and do it and they get upset because of all the bandwidth you use it's their fault.

Oxymoron way of selling high speed by telling us to download movies etc then get upset when we do.

If cable companies wants less use then stop hyping the service and complaining we we use it as we were told.


dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

2 recommendations

reply to JackKane

Re: Physics fail

Having read his article, the point is that Nowak is an intellectually dishonest hack.

He doesn't believe that there are congestion issues caused by heavy users because it's not been "proved"? REALLY? He's not seen the complaints from users of poor performance during peak hours? Either he's an imbecile or intentionally dishonest.

The proposed Canadian model was too harsh, but there's a very real incentive for ISPs to try and slow the ever-increasing bandwidth per user consumption that has nothing to do with trying to limit competition. Constant upgrades and capacity expansion aren't cheap, and the simplistic "they make a profit, so they should just keep throwing money at the problem" isn't very convincing.

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
reply to elray

Re: Helping Grandmothers

Translation: Your grandmother is better off without internet.

UBB is only a benefit to people who rarely use anything at all. ("the few") And an expensive burden to everyone else. ("the many") Charging people *less* money is not how you increase profits.

Neither of my grandparents ever had internet access, but they also never owned a computer, or ever had cable TV. (or touchtone phones for that matter -- Bellsouth charged extra for TT for something like 20 f'ing YEARS. Their rotary phones worked just fine -- and still do to this day.)


kamm

join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
reply to elray
And just WTF has metered billing to do with your grandma's paying for the wrong package?


kamm

join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY

1 edit
reply to dynodb

Re: Physics fail

Except it DOES, that's why we have to keep supplying them, you bum, unlike YT videos which are there forever.

dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
said by kamm:

Except it DOES, you moron - that's why we have to keep supplying them, you bum, unlike YT videos which are there forever.

And here's someone else who didn't pay attention in science class.


kamm

join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY

1 edit
reply to dynodb
said by dynodb:

Having read his article, the point is that Nowak is an intellectually dishonest hack.

No, it's you who is doing a classic cablecorp astroturfing here.

He doesn't believe that there are congestion issues caused by heavy users because it's not been "proved"? REALLY? He's not seen the complaints from users of poor performance during peak hours? Either he's an imbecile or intentionally dishonest.

again: since when internet congestion have to do with your masters pocketing profits instead of re-investing?

There is no blackout, congestion etc on the internet, there is PLENTY of bandwidth at DIRT CHEAP prices - brownout is possible when your masters at Time Warner will shit into their pants that no more ripoff profits, they *have* to start pulling out the fiber they are postponing for almost a decade now.

The proposed Canadian model was too harsh, but there's a very real incentive for ISPs to try and slow the ever-increasing bandwidth per user consumption that has nothing to do with trying to limit competition. Constant upgrades and capacity expansion aren't cheap, and the simplistic "they make a profit, so they should just keep throwing money at the problem" isn't very convincing.

Abslute and utter BS, straight out of Time Warner's 'BS-book' - your cable masters are raping 1000-1500% (yes, that's 1000-1500 PERCENT!) PROFIT on EVERY BIT OF BANDWIDTH they deliver.
--
said by bicker:

Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.



r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44

I hope this educates...

I really hope this educates the many newer users on this site that seem to think metered billing makes sense.
Maybe since Karl says the truth they will listen.
--
Your behavior is inconsistent with your desire to be treated like everyone else.

dutenhnj

join:2002-01-29
Monroe, WI

1 recommendation

reply to dynodb

Re: Physics fail

A minor mistake in wording, confusing the electrons(or the energy) with the data. Energy cannot be destroyed, but it also cannot be created. Data doesn't follow those rules, it can be created and destroyed.

Your electric company cant just *make* more energy.
But an internet server can just *make* more data.

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9

1 recommendation

reply to dynodb
The key difference being power is produced to match load. If no one is using it, they don't produce it. If they make it and no one uses it, it's generally gone. It takes real work to produce power.

Bits on the other hand are far more transitive. An OC3 is 155Mbps. Either idle pattern or user traffic, it's always moving 155mil bits per second. You cannot store them, or use them later. And by contrast, it takes almost no effort to "create" bits.

dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
reply to Randall_Lind

Re: It's all about greed really

said by Randall_Lind:

Bright House sells their lighting package as a means to download movies etc in secs. So if you actually follow that and do it and they get upset because of all the bandwidth you use it's their fault.

Oxymoron way of selling high speed by telling us to download movies etc then get upset when we do.

If cable companies wants less use then stop hyping the service and complaining we we use it as we were told.

When a car manufacture advertises a 0-60mph time of 5 seconds, it doesn't mean they expect you to burn rubber at every stop light.

We're already seeing bandwidth caps (both hard and soft) becoming common. Done right, I don't see a problem with metered billing. Charging for greater than 5Gb/mo is a bit extreme, but something along the lines of 150Gb/mo and $.25 per additional GB doesn't seem terribly unreasonable.

dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

1 recommendation

reply to kamm

Re: Physics fail

You have absolutely no clue as to what you're talking about. Zero.


kamm

join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
reply to dynodb
Or perhaps someone simply didn't understand WTF he was hearing there?

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9

1 recommendation

reply to dynodb
Nobody is saying there aren't any congestion issues. (there are.) The problem is not with congestion but with operators who aren't investing *anything* in upgrading systems/technology to elminiate congestion.

I'd have congestion in my home network(s) if I were still using 10Mbps hubs from decades ago. I've upgraded my shit (several times) over the years. The major operators are much more willing to shovel money in their pockets than spend anything on modernization. As an ISP, they should know damned well their equipment is going to need upgrading over time.
Expand your moderator at work


Anon39183

@mchsi.com

1 recommendation

reply to dynodb

Re: Physics fail

While the electrons are not destroyed, power is dissipated by your blender while it makes your margarita and that power must be replaced (generated) by your electric company via coal burning, hydro, or nuke. So it appears you are the one who didn't pay attention in science class as you believe your blender is a perpetual motion machine.


kamm

join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
reply to cramer
said by cramer:

Nobody is saying there aren't any congestion issues. (there are.) The problem is not with congestion but with operators who aren't investing *anything* in upgrading systems/technology to elminiate congestion.

I'd have congestion in my home network(s) if I were still using 10Mbps hubs from decades ago. I've upgraded my shit (several times) over the years. The major operators are much more willing to shovel money in their pockets than spend anything on modernization. As an ISP, they should know damned well their equipment is going to need upgrading over time.

Exactly - it's a very typical, primitive astroturfer trick to exact the "congestion" caused by parasitic monopoly (=cablecorp) on its own network and shortage of backbone bandwidth.
It's also the most cynical PoS argument: it's artifically generated by the very cablecorp to cause distress thus prepare for their push for metered billing while, as a nice side effect, it saves money that goes out the window as profit.
Scum of the Earth, all of them.
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE]

dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

1 recommendation

reply to cramer
said by cramer:

The key difference being power is produced to match load. If no one is using it, they don't produce it. If they make it and no one uses it, it's generally gone. It takes real work to produce power.

Bits on the other hand are far more transitive. An OC3 is 155Mbps. Either idle pattern or user traffic, it's always moving 155mil bits per second. You cannot store them, or use them later. And by contrast, it takes almost no effort to "create" bits.

That's true, but as consumption increases it requires more and more of OC3's (or other such trunks), routers, etc to deliver the bandwidth even if the actual number of customers served remains static. While more indirect, the costs of increased bandwith consumption per user are quite real.

To continue the analogy, many power companies provide incentives to customers to reduce power consumption, especially during peak hours.

Why would a company want you to buy less of their product? The reason is that the cost to build a new power plant or expand the current one is so high, they don't want power consumption to exceed their current capacity to deliver it.

WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
reply to dynodb

Re: It's all about greed really

said by dynodb:

said by Randall_Lind:

When a car manufacture advertises a 0-60mph time of 5 seconds, it doesn't mean they expect you to burn rubber at every stop light.

Oh, my favourite analogy. Would you not be pissed if the Maserati SpA that sold you the Maserati that could do 0-60 in 5 sec would put a governor that would disable your engine if you burned rubber once a month and that would be disclosed AFTER you bought the car AND have the brazennes to have rude "abuse reps" call you and threaten you for using your own car ?

WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
reply to dynodb
said by dynodb:

said by Randall_Lind:

Bright House sells their lighting package as a means to download movies etc in secs. So if you actually follow that and do it and they get upset because of all the bandwidth you use it's their fault.

Oxymoron way of selling high speed by telling us to download movies etc then get upset when we do.

If cable companies wants less use then stop hyping the service and complaining we we use it as we were told.

When a car manufacture advertises a 0-60mph time of 5 seconds, it doesn't mean they expect you to burn rubber at every stop light.

We're already seeing bandwidth caps (both hard and soft) becoming common. Done right, I don't see a problem with metered billing. Charging for greater than 5Gb/mo is a bit extreme, but something along the lines of 150Gb/mo and $.25 per additional GB doesn't seem terribly unreasonable.

Bullshit end to end. What seems "reasonable" to you is quite crappy to many heavy users. The fact that you do not "see" a problem shows only your shortsightedness. Do you "see" radiation ? No, but would still be quite a "problem" for you.