dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2011-09-30 10:12:29: Back in March Suddenlink gave users a new usage meter in order to help better "educate" users about their bandwidth consumption. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · next


peterwolf

@gblx.net

Typical

So they say typical usage is 43GB a month. lol ATT says it is less then 20GB a month.

Who is to say what is typical usage?

flycuban

join:2005-04-25
Homestead, FL
it's pretty much whatever their mgt. decides..

nauru

join:2011-02-02

1 recommendation

Could be worse.

20 cents per GB is not so bad... here in Canada it's anywhere from $2 to $5 per GB when you reach the cap. Horrible.


DarkRgoue

@suddenlink.net

Suddenlink is stupid.

All I can say is they better not do this. I use around 200 to 300 gigs a month with online game play and youtube and other things like streaming audio channels i have going nearly 24/7 when im awake and I am home. 50 gigs is stupid as with the 10/1.5 teir I can reach that in less then a days time. Now maybee 500 gigs a month might be understandable. Ill I can say is suddenlink better pay attiention or they will be shooting themselves in the foot.


thegeek
Premium
join:2008-02-21
right here
kudos:2

Fuck

Suddenlink just bought out my previous provider, NPG Cable, late last year. So far I have been ok with Suddenlink, although they constantly call trying to get me to sign up for phone service even though I tell them to stop calling. I typically download over 1TB a month. I guess I'll have to end up switching to a business account now.


DarkRgoue

@suddenlink.net

Part of the usage faq

Does Suddenlink plan to set a maximum usage allowance for its Internet customers, like other companies are doing? Do you plan to charge extra if a customer's usage is too high?

Those steps are not part of our current plan. Our only goal at this time is to help the few customers whose usage is well above (approximately double) the high end of the typical range to identify the reasons why and take steps to protect and secure their computers and accounts.

This is on suddenlinks usage faq page from their site. They forgot to read their own site.


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Until they say what the cap is; outrage is misplaced

Nothing in any of the links say what the cap will be. If it is 250GB/mo like Comcast and with the posted overage fees, this would be a reasonable plan.
--
»www.rickperry.org/


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

Funny how mobile data is 50X more expensive

Do the mobile companies expect us to believe their bullshit?


thegeek
Premium
join:2008-02-21
right here
kudos:2
reply to FFH

Re: Until they say what the cap is; outrage is misplaced

I guess I took it that the cap would be 50GB. But you're right, they don't specifically state what it will be.

I use about 1TB on 10Mbps connection at $50 a month. If the cap is only 50GB then at $10 per additional 50GB, I'm looking at about $140-$150 a month. They offer business accounts (cap free at least right now) for 8Mbps for $130 or 12Mbps for $200. I can live with a slight decrease in speed so switching to a 8Mbps business account would be a good deal if the cap is only 50GB. If it is more then I'll have to re-evaluate. Still, an $80 increase of what I pay now will suck.


Oh_No
Trogglus normalus

join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL
reply to peterwolf

Re: Typical

said by peterwolf :

So they say typical usage is 43GB a month. lol ATT says it is less then 20GB a month.

Who is to say what is typical usage?

There is no such thing as typical. Every user is unqiue and usage cannot be lump together in categories to predict the future. You will never know what a users uses until they use it.
Sometimes it could be 300GB a month and sometimes 10GB a month. All you can do is assume the user will use the bandwidth you give them.


Oh_No
Trogglus normalus

join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL
reply to FFH

Re: Until they say what the cap is; outrage is misplaced

Any cap on your service for usage is unacceptable.
You never know how much bandwidth you will need to use tomorrow.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to Oh_No

Re: Typical

said by Oh_No:

There is no such thing as typical.

How about an average user transferring an average number of bits?
said by Oh_No:

All you can do is assume the user will use the bandwidth you give them.

That's a fiscally unsustainable assumption that has never been used in telecommunications.


cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7
reply to nauru

Re: Could be worse.

said by nauru:

20 cents per GB is not so bad... here in Canada it's anywhere from $2 to $5 per GB when you reach the cap. Horrible.

No cap would be better than no cap. But $.20/GB sounds entirely fair to me.

tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

2012 make or break year..

either these cap nonsene policies die or the drumbeat for regulation/reform is going to start.. the 2 wire duopoly and 1 wire monopoly is no longer adequate competition for the ISP last mile marketplace in a majority of the country.


DarkRogue

@suddenlink.net
reply to FFH

Re: Until they say what the cap is; outrage is misplaced

I could live with a 250 gig cap, 40 something gig no but a 250 gig cap or so would be okay.


Oh_No
Trogglus normalus

join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL
reply to openbox9

Re: Typical

said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

There is no such thing as typical.

How about an average user transferring an average number of bits?

There is no such thing as an average user as there is no control over each users usage.
Sure you can average past numbers, but that is not a valid use of statistics for saying what users will use. Every user is unique.
To base your network off past averages instead of potential peak usage is irresponsible and huge gamble.
said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

All you can do is assume the user will use the bandwidth you give them.

That's a fiscally unsustainable assumption that has never been used in telecommunications.

Lol, ISPs were greatly profitable from 1995 to 2011 with unlimited internet.
It is very sustainable unless you want to protect tv subscriptions that have nothing to do with the internet.

Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT
reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

All you can do is assume the user will use the bandwidth you give them.

That's a fiscally unsustainable assumption that has never been used in telecommunications.

Yeah, that's like having a buffet and assuming that each people won't stop at half a plate of food!

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to Oh_No
said by Oh_No:

There is no such thing as an average user as there is no control over each users usage.

Huh?
said by Oh_No:

To base your network off past averages instead of potential peak usage is irresponsible and huge gamble.

How do you get to an estimate of potential peak usage? Please don't suggest totalling max advertised connection speeds for all customers.
said by Oh_No:

Lol, ISPs were greatly profitable from 1995 to 2011 with unlimited internet.

But that's not what we're discussing. Your assumption implies that if an ISP has 1,000 customers for a single node, each subscribing to a tier advertising max throughput of 10 Mbps, then that ISP must plan for 10 Gbps of throughput. That is unsupportable.

chgo_man99

join:2010-01-01
San Jose, CA

Were goibg back to aol times

Pretty much reverse trend.


ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
Reviews:
·RCN CABLE
·Comcast
reply to openbox9

Re: Typical

said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

There is no such thing as typical.

How about an average user transferring an average number of bits?

I really think that if ISPs are going to make claims like this they need to completely release all of their methods for collecting the data and how they came up with these statistics. If they want to charge per byte, they should be regulated just as gasoline is regulated.

I only see these caps and overages as a way to increase profits for investors. The extra usage does not cost the ISP more to provide.


ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
reply to cdru

Re: Could be worse.

$.20/GB is outragous. Exactly how much do you think it costs to provide a GB of service? I'm just spitballing here but I don't think it is even possible to calculate that.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
They're amortizing last-mile plant upgrade costs, backbone upgrade costs, etc. into a single number. Many data centers have overages of 10 cents per GB...and they don't have a last mile coax plant o keep up. Honestly, 20¢ per GB is entirely reasonable.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to Oh_No

Re: Until they say what the cap is; outrage is misplaced

Any billing per KwH on your electrical service is unacceptable. You never know how much power you will need to use tomorr...oh wait...

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to openbox9

Re: Typical

Though his argument is crazy in one respect, even you would have to admit that they use the maximum potential bandwidth usage and utilization charts when they determine upgrade paths and such.

"All networks are built and upgraded" with X% of peak utilization in mind. I use the "" loosely as it is clear with monopolistic/duopolistic ISP's they don't necessarily use it to build or upgrade, just to restrict and monetize.


ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
Reviews:
·RCN CABLE
·Comcast
reply to iansltx

Re: Could be worse.

plant upgrade costs, backbone upgrade costs, etc do no have anything to do with how much usage goes through them. you can pay for all of that with the monthly fees. If they really want to make this reasonable they will stop jacking the monthly access fees up every 6 months. Heck, maybe even lower it every so often.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to Skippy25

Re: Typical

said by Skippy25:

even you would have to admit that they use the maximum potential bandwidth usage and utilization charts when they determine upgrade paths and such.

Of course. That's the basis for capacity planning capital expenditure decisions.


cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7
reply to ArrayList

Re: Could be worse.

said by ArrayList:

$.20/GB is outragous. Exactly how much do you think it costs to provide a GB of service? I'm just spitballing here but I don't think it is even possible to calculate that.

Go price web hosting per GB charges/overages, or go look at what cloud hosting providers charge per GB. Google, Amazon, Microsoft, they are all $.10-.15.

And I never said that $.20 was reasonable compared to what they pay wholesale for their bandwidth. It's reasonable compared to what other commercial companies charge for overages, and far less then what just about every ISP that charges for overages actually charge. I don't keep up what all ISPs charge, but I know I've seen fees of at least $2/GB for some plans.


Oh_No
Trogglus normalus

join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL
reply to openbox9

Re: Typical

said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

There is no such thing as an average user as there is no control over each users usage.

Huh?

Huh? I guess you don't know how statistics work.
said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

To base your network off past averages instead of potential peak usage is irresponsible and huge gamble.

How do you get to an estimate of potential peak usage? Please don't suggest totalling max advertised connection speeds for all customers.

Estimate?? It is a hard caculation based on the speed you give each customer.
In cases where networks cannot handle 50 mbps sustained due to being over sold, the ISP should not sell 50 mbps. They should sell 5 mbps (or whatever the network can handle) but with a "speed boost up to 50 mbps". Just offering 50 mbps (even with BS small print) is very misleading if the network cannot handle it.
said by openbox9:

said by Oh_No:

Lol, ISPs were greatly profitable from 1995 to 2011 with unlimited internet.

But that's not what we're discussing. Your assumption implies that if an ISP has 1,000 customers for a single node, each subscribing to a tier advertising max throughput of 10 Mbps, then that ISP must plan for 10 Gbps of throughput. That is unsupportable.

It is very supportable to offer what your network can handle instead of lying.


ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
reply to cdru

Re: Could be worse.

you cannot compared overages on a vps/webhost against a residential internet account. they are not even close to the same type of usage. if I could live in a data center then, yes, it would be reasonable to compare the two.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to ArrayList

Re: Typical

said by ArrayList:

I only see these caps and overages as a way to increase profits for investors. The extra usage does not cost the ISP more to provide.

The capping and metering serves to generate revenue and control growth. There is a marginal cost to increasing capacity on fixed infrastructure to a certain level, at which point investment must be made to increase capacity beyond that threshold.