dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
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. ..

prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · next

annonymiss
@comcast.net

annonymiss

Anon

Google?

Google is a perfect example.

They have $26 B I L L I O N dollars in the bank that they made by using infrasructure they paid NOTHING for.

There are tens of thousands of potential GOOGLE's out there. Why aren't the guys that actually BUILD THE HARDWIRE PIPES allowed to make a profit?

If you're going to bitch about ISPs wanting to make money, you surely MUST be OUTRAGED at what Google has made on the backs of others?

Of course you're not, because you just "hate the man". You don't have a clue about busness and how there are tons of companies that make far far more profit then the ISPs do, yet somehow they are the hittler companies of the world.

Sorry you don't like it Karl. In the end even YOU are making money off the backs of ISPs. When's the last time you paid to get your packets all the way to the reader?

There's a seachange about to happen, bits are going to be paid for at every cross connect, and that WILL be aggrigated to YOU, the subscriber. And you will cry for the day when you had what you have now and wish people like Karl had NEVER convinced you that what you have now is somehow immoral or unfair.
dynodb
Premium Member
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

1 edit

dynodb to Anon

Premium Member

to Anon

Re: Physics fail


You provided nothing remotely close to a "fact". Ranting about make-believe 1500% profit margins is not fact.

My opinions are my own. They're also more valid than those of someone like yourself who has no idea what they're talking about.
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
Westell 6100
Cisco PIX 501

cramer to dynodb

Premium Member

to dynodb
While the costs are real, they are also rather trivially low. Sure, it might be a rather large check to sign, but as a function of revenue and functional lifetime, it's peanuts.

Power production, however, is a VERY expensive process. The power companies ask people to reduce PEAK consumption to reduce their need to build facilities to produce power for peak usage -- facilities that would go mostly unused. They don't want you to use less power as much as they want everyone to use a relatively constant level.

annonymiss
@comcast.net

annonymiss to kamm

Anon

to kamm
Hmm, 1000 percent huh?

So you're trying to say TW had the biggest profit of any telcom ever in history huh?

Guess you should have bought some TW stock huh?

Spewing hyperbole's and junk numbers won't win your argument.
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

BlueC to dynodb

Member

to dynodb
said by dynodb:

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.

I think the important thing to mention is the differences between technologies (ADSL/VDSL vs. DOCSIS vs. Wireless vs. Ethernet).

Upgrading capacity on any of these choices is going to vary, but you have to understand that there is a difference between capacity to the core, capacity to the node, and capacity to the end user.

Any of these links can be oversubscribed. How do we know certain ISPs aren't oversubscribing things beyond a reasonable level? Since residential service pretty much comes with no guarantee, they can do whatever they want regarding dedicating a specific capacity to a node (or core network).

Maybe we should ask, "why would they?". Reduced costs.

So, when it comes to upgrading capacity, it can be very easy to do (cost-wise) depending on the technology being used.

Comparing power to bandwidth is foolish. Two completely different services, with VERY different variables.

annonymiss
@comcast.net

annonymiss to cramer

Anon

to cramer
Tell you what.

You point to 1, ANY 1 major ISP that spent ZERO on Infrastructure upgrades and I'll pay your internet bill for the rest of your life.

Why is it people like you have to spew a bunch of BS and just make the argument look stupid from your end?

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList to dynodb

Premium Member

to dynodb
he said that the only reason there are any "congestion problems is because of a lack of investment by the ISP. Which is absolutely true.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

1 recommendation

Karl Bode to annonymiss

News Guy

to annonymiss

Re: Google?

You do realize that Google has spent billions on network infrastructure including undersea fiber routes, and that the "free ride" argument is a bunch of nonsense made up in telco meeting rooms to justify efforts to get content companies to fund network builds so they don't have to upset myopic investors?

Why aren't the guys that actually BUILD THE HARDWIRE PIPES allowed to make a profit?

Also, the idea that ANYONE is arguing that ISPs can't make a profit is a silly straw man argument. What's being debated is consumer value in these new pricing plans -- as in -- they don't provide any.

annonymiss
@comcast.net

annonymiss to WernerSchutz

Anon

to WernerSchutz

Re: It's all about greed really

Show me 1 ISP that doesn't tell you "you my not achieve these speeds" and I'll pay for your internet for a year.

It's getting really old this argument you try to use.

Everyone knows what they are getting when they buy interenet.

Only the crybaby idiots that don't know what the meaning of "is" is spew complaints like this.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList to annonymiss

Premium Member

to annonymiss

Re: Google?

you must be in favor of VAT?
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

1 recommendation

BlueC to annonymiss

Member

to annonymiss
What the hell are you even talking about?

Google vs. ISPs? Really?

And what's this talk about "bits are going to be paid for at every cross connect"?

I have cross connects currently and I can certainly tell you what you just said makes little to no sense at all. There are paid cross connects in certain data centers, and they are a flat fee. That's always been the case with most places. How that would change is beyond me, I don't see how that would be restructured, and every data center has different policies.

So please, enlighten us all on that part.

As an ISP, I do know how this all works, and yes, certain ISPs are screwing their customers over. I'm all for companies making a profit, but when they put a strangle on their customers (who might have no choice to go elsewhere), it's unethical. Especially when they can clearly afford the upgrades and are taking in our tax money via USF.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

Karl Bode

News Guy

It's the "Google free ride" talking point phone company execs came up five years ago, and gets repeated by ISP industry folks because they believe it's their god-dictated destiny to get some of Google's ad money. Why? Because Google runs over networks, so obviously network owners should get an extra cut, even if content companies buy (and own) their own bandwidth, and the end user pays for bandwidth as well. It makes absolutely no sense, but it continues mindlessly forward both here and overseas:

»Scott Cleland: Google Using 21x The Bandwidth They Pay For [105] comments

It's particularly ridiculous in the case of Google given all the money they spend on global network infrastructure.
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

BlueC to Karl Bode

Member

to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:

Also, the idea that ANYONE is arguing that ISPs can't make a profit is a silly straw man argument. What's being debated is consumer value in these new pricing plans -- as in -- they don't provide any.

No kidding. The profit that's raked in from the actual layer 1 construction is quite up there (with Google's margins).

Anyone that honestly thinks "the guys that actually build the hardware pipes" are not making (or not allowed) any money is 100% clueless.
dynodb
Premium Member
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

dynodb to Anon39183

Premium Member

to Anon39183

Re: Physics fail

said by Anon39183 :

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.

The power being dissapated is not the result of the electrons travelling down the line being "destoyed".

The encapsulated data packets being transported by an ISP do, however, get "destroyed".

While it's not accurate to make a direct comparison between power consumption and data consumption, both do have very real costs associated with increased usage.
WernerSchutz
join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

WernerSchutz to annonymiss

Member

to annonymiss

Re: It's all about greed really

said by annonymiss :

Show me 1 ISP that doesn't tell you "you my not achieve these speeds" and I'll pay for your internet for a year.

It's getting really old this argument you try to use.

Everyone knows what they are getting when they buy interenet.

Only the crybaby idiots that don't know what the meaning of "is" is spew complaints like this.

Caching ! Besides the typo which would make you pay on a technicality, there IS a difference between a reasonable disclaimer and crippling a car/data bandwidth ON PURPOSE.
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

BlueC to annonymiss

Member

to annonymiss

Re: Google?

said by annonymiss :

There's a seachange about to happen, bits are going to be paid for at every cross connect, and that WILL be aggrigated to YOU, the subscriber. And you will cry for the day when you had what you have now and wish people like Karl had NEVER convinced you that what you have now is somehow immoral or unfair.

This part still bugs me.

When we have Residential ISPs like Comcast that are trying to get PAID to increase their core capacity, I find it very hard to believe that the costs are going UP.

The big ISPs have leverage and they're trying to use it to increase profits. Are they going to pass the profits down to the user? Of course not. After all, they're leveraging their own users to get that said profit. Clearly they aren't looking out for them.
BlueC

BlueC to dynodb

Member

to dynodb

Re: Physics fail

said by dynodb:

The power being dissapated is not the result of the electrons travelling down the line being "destoyed".

The encapsulated data packets being transported by an ISP do, however, get "destroyed".

While it's not accurate to make a direct comparison between power consumption and data consumption, both do have very real costs associated with increased usage.

How exactly are the packets getting "destroyed"?

Let's start with that.............
dynodb
Premium Member
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

dynodb to ArrayList

Premium Member

to ArrayList
said by ArrayList:

he said that the only reason there are any "congestion problems is because of a lack of investment by the ISP. Which is absolutely true.

Only in the sense that if providers spent an unlimited amount of money on an unlimited amount of capacity- then yes. That's like arguing that the only reason that rush hour traffic is congested is because they didn't instantly add more lanes at the first sign of trouble.

One can't disregard the fact that bandwidth consumption per user has been seeing double-digit increases per quarter. The same trunks / nodes that only six months ago were perfectly fine might now be congested, even without an increase in the number of subscribers riding it.

Obviously, the providers are for-profit businesses. The expectation that any amount of profit made should be spend on endless upgrades to benefit a very small percentage of "bandwidth hogs" isn't realistic.
dynodb

dynodb to WernerSchutz

Premium Member

to WernerSchutz

Re: It's all about greed really

said by WernerSchutz:

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 ?

Try bringing in your car under warranty after disclosing that it spends every weekend on a racetrack and tell me how that goes.

Thunderlips
Get It Up Fly A Hull
join:2001-12-07

Thunderlips to annonymiss

Member

to annonymiss

Re: Google?

Talk about making money off the backs of others. Genius, if it wasn't for sites like Google and DSLReports, we would all dump our ISPs and then you...er, they, would really be screwed. If there are no sites worth going to, WE DON'T NEED YOU! Your entire business model is to make money off what others are doing on the internet. This entire argument is a perfect example of the stupidity you, er, they are using to try and justify absolute greed.
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

BlueC to dynodb

Member

to dynodb

Re: It's all about greed really

said by dynodb:

Try bringing in your car under warranty after disclosing that it spends every weekend on a racetrack and tell me how that goes.

How does this even relate to internet connections?

Are you implying that overusing your internet connection causes damage to equipment?

In that case.... Redtube, Netflix, etc would all be targets in a large mass of lawsuits.
dynodb
Premium Member
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

dynodb to BlueC

Premium Member

to BlueC

Re: Physics fail

said by BlueC:

I think the important thing to mention is the differences between technologies (ADSL/VDSL vs. DOCSIS vs. Wireless vs. Ethernet).

Upgrading capacity on any of these choices is going to vary, but you have to understand that there is a difference between capacity to the core, capacity to the node, and capacity to the end user.

Any of these links can be oversubscribed. How do we know certain ISPs aren't oversubscribing things beyond a reasonable level? Since residential service pretty much comes with no guarantee, they can do whatever they want regarding dedicating a specific capacity to a node (or core network).

Maybe we should ask, "why would they?". Reduced costs.

So, when it comes to upgrading capacity, it can be very easy to do (cost-wise) depending on the technology being used.

Comparing power to bandwidth is foolish. Two completely different services, with VERY different variables.

Virtually every aspect of the Internet is oversubscribed. Every ISP, telco, cable and wireless provider oversubscribes.

If the amount of bandwidth per user remained static month to month and quarter to quarter, getting the right oversubscription ratio wouldn't be difficult to determine and meet. As it stands now though, that's not the case- it's increased quite dramatically in a relatively short period of time.

Expanding capacity isn't "very easy" with regards to cost or time, especially when you're looking at tens of thousands of trunks, nodes, etc for a major provider. We're talking not millions, but hundreds of millions of dollars for upgrades that may get overwhelmed with increased traffic less than a year later.
WernerSchutz
join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

WernerSchutz to dynodb

Member

to dynodb

Re: It's all about greed really

said by dynodb:

Try bringing in your car under warranty after disclosing that it spends every weekend on a racetrack and tell me how that goes.

You are talking to the wrong type here. I have 5 Maseratis and a Pantera, do not care much about car warranties. Moreover, this has to do with misleading advertising, bait and switch and greed and nothing to do with an endless argument you try to create once proven to be wrong, astroturfing or both.

chuck car
@teksavvy.com

chuck car to BlueC

Anon

to BlueC

Re: Helping Grandmothers

Browsing the web and reading email usually busts a 2 gigabyte a month cap on Bell dsl (wired not wireless). Thank your lucky stars you don't live in Canada.
dynodb
Premium Member
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

dynodb to BlueC

Premium Member

to BlueC

Re: It's all about greed really

Physical damage to equipment? No. However, the network can "break down" in the sense that it gets congested, which is the constant battle that the providers have been waging.

megarock
join:2001-06-28
Fenton, MO

megarock

Member

Can't argue here...

If it weren't for the content providers (such as Netflix) there would be no reason to own internet. The internet was not born and created by phone companies - it was developed by universities and then passed to the public to share information freely. In fact since the early days the telco's were nothing but a dumb pipe - the dial up connection to the real network. Through lobbying and campaign donations somehow they've taken control of the internet and while we the customers already pay all the money it takes to not only operate their company and build their networks as they already do - but now they want to charge the other end of the internet too?

How can anyone in their right mind think that makes sense. Without content providers there is no internet.
amungus
Premium Member
join:2004-11-26
America

amungus to annonymiss

Premium Member

to annonymiss

Re: Google?

"...wish people like Karl had NEVER convinced you that what you have now is somehow immoral or unfair."

I'm not sure Karl has ever said anything along those lines... Nor do most posters here (edit: I've visited this site since about 2000 )

If UBB made any sense, we would have had it by now. We don't.

Karl pays for hosting/bandwidth. So do millions of people, myself included. It isn't free. Nobody just up and "has a website" of any sort (I don't mean "free" hosting stuff, or a facebook page) without PAYING for it, and in most cases, if it's a popular site, it's certainly NOT cheap...

It's real simple; apparently too simple.
I pay hosting company, they pay their bills. I could also host my own site, and pay for whatever class of connection I could afford, power, servers, cooling, maintenance, software licensing, etc., etc... Neither option is free!

Person at home pays their ISP, they pay their bills. Done. What happens in between is also very simple - Long haul transit for data is either already owned (and largely paid for) by ISP, or a "peer" who gets their cut from, guess who, BOTH ISPs (host's ISP and customer's ISP).

Telco's, "Peers," etc., just didn't get into the same games that others did (Yahoo, Google, Amazon), but why would they? Should they also sell cars? Insurance? Be a record label? Sell pizza? Wtf?

The fact that anyone makes money from using services is a miracle, OMG! Better not tell that to all the businesses out there that pay OUTRAGEOUS prices for all their phone/data services, yet still manage to profit enough to stay afloat, or, capitalism forbid, become richer than those whom they PAY for services
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

BlueC to dynodb

Member

to dynodb

Re: Physics fail

said by dynodb:

Virtually every aspect of the Internet is oversubscribed. Every ISP, telco, cable and wireless provider oversubscribes.

If the amount of bandwidth per user remained static month to month and quarter to quarter, getting the right oversubscription ratio wouldn't be difficult to determine and meet. As it stands now though, that's not the case- it's increased quite dramatically in a relatively short period of time.

Expanding capacity isn't "very easy" with regards to cost or time, especially when you're looking at tens of thousands of trunks, nodes, etc for a major provider. We're talking not millions, but hundreds of millions of dollars for upgrades that may get overwhelmed with increased traffic less than a year later.

Absolutely, but there are certain parts that should not be, or it should be done with very little oversubscription. i.e. the connection servicing the node. You already have substantial oversubscription at the node in correlation with capacity delivered to the end user, if you oversubscribe the capacity to the node, it becomes exponential.

That's where things get messy. But hey, it saves the ISP money!

I said expanding capacity CAN be easy, depending on the scenario. If I wanted to introduce an additional GigE to my core, it would be very easy to accomplish, and not all that expensive. The key thing is I planned for future upgrades. Most ISPs do, so if they're excuse is they can't add additional capacity, then they didn't plan accordingly or they're wanting to save money.

Comcast seemed to have no trouble going from DOCSIS 2.0 -> 3.0. That was a big upgrade, yet they were quick to start deploying it in their markets (compared to other ISPs, I am in no way saying what they did was quick in general).

Of course demand has been rising substantially over the years, but so has the decrease in cost of bandwidth. There have been numerous advancements in technology which have allowed for greater increases in capacity without having it cost an arm and a leg.

DOCSIS 3.0 is a prime example. It's allowed ISPs to make capacity upgrades quite easily.
jagged
join:2003-07-01
Boynton Beach, FL

1 recommendation

jagged to annonymiss

Member

to annonymiss

Re: Google?

ok genius, I pay for my Comcast connection at home so I can access my two servers in Washington DC, for which I pay as well so they can be seen online.

How's that a free ride, explain?
dynodb
Premium Member
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

dynodb to WernerSchutz

Premium Member

to WernerSchutz

Re: It's all about greed really

The entire idea from the provider's standpoint is to bring down consumption of the heavy users.

Yeah, that sucks for the very small percentage of heavy users, but how much money should the providers be expected to spend annually to satisfy 5% of their users? Millions? Tens of millions? Hundreds of millions?

ISPs- like any business- exist to make money; it's not "greed" to try and make a profit.
prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · next