 skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | In other news... ...the Sun rose in the east. |
|
 N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | Birds flew south for the winter... |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Vitelity VOIP
| Yeah, let's just ignore the access charges If metered pricing were about "fairness," carriers would offer the nation's grandmothers a $5 a month tier that accurately reflected her twice weekly, several megabyte browsing of the Weather Channel website. The first packet is the most expensive one to deliver, because you have to have all of the necessary underlying infrastructure in place to get it there.
The key problem is trying to time your technology refresh cycle so that it lines up with the next generation of available technology so that you get the most "bang for your buck" when you purchase new hardware for replacement or expansion.
Data caps are an imperfect system to try and shape demand into something that meets that refresh cycle. It's been pretty clear for years that caps are about the business model, not congestion.
We had this whole discussion on this site in 2008/9 when there was news every freaking day about the Comcast network management system. This isn't news. |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Cost coverage shift from tiered TV to tiered data quote:
caps are really about: driving up the cost of data for all users in order to offset the inevitable decline in TV revenues
Or in other more accurate words: " Covering the fixed cost infrastructure of the cable plant as video watching shifts from the cheaper broadcast cable channel method to the more expensive bandwidth intensive point to point streaming method. " So costs will shift from tiered TV plans to tiered data plans based on usage and not speed.
--
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·DIRECTV
 ·Optimum Online
·Cablevision
| Genius Sooo, they switched from the weak network congestion issue, which they were lucky enough that most people don't understand congestion, to a fairness argument, for which anyone can debunk simply by looking at the prices on their website.
Genius lol |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·DIRECTV
·Optimum Online
·Cablevision
| reply to espaeth
Re: Yeah, let's just ignore the access charges It's news because a cable lobbyist admitted it, and it's a huge accomplishment that the opposition had so much proof the network congestion was a farce that they finally had to come clean and admit it.
Of course they just switched to a new argument, but that argument is even weaker in my opinion. |
|
 IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1 | Well, surprise, surprise, surprise! »The real reason for the cap ~by IPPlanMan~
I said that caps had nothing to do with addressing congestion back in 2009...
As I recall, some didn't agree with me about that... |
|
| Well, the cable lobbyist will just say later that he "misspoke" (lied, in political speech) |
|
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon FiOS
·voip.ms
| reply to espaeth
Re: Yeah, let's just ignore the access charges I might agree, but hasn't Comcast kept the same cap for years? I mean if that is the case, then the D3 upgrade didn't make any bit of difference?
In my neck of the woods, Time Warner nor FIOS have caps and both stream at max rates all the time, especially FIOS. And I only pay $110 for 50/25 and extreme. I think that is perfectly reasonable, and I use about 200-400GB a month (depending upon the kids streaming habits). I would not be happy in a capped world.
What they have to worry about is simple: I drop cable and do only internet. Now I use 600-700GB a month because streaming becomes the only method for getting video. Right now outside of broadcast only 5-10% of the viewing comes from cable. Wife has finally given me the go-ahead to drop cable and save $50/mo.
Also infrastructure costs are often shared w/ the other services (most people actually run TV), so in that case outside the HSI equipment costs, baked into the cost of cable and phone are infrastructure costs.
As we know transit costs (if they have any) --look @ CDN have been plummeting.
So the cost is clearly going down, so why does the price go up every year? Profit, nothing more, nothing less. I don't blame them, they can get away with it for now.
If too many people start dropping cable, then it will start eating into their margins because equipment was sized for distributing cable too. Phone cost is minimal.... That is the balancing act, keeping you signed up for the triple play.... |
|
 ArrayListnetbus developerPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | reply to Linklist
Re: Cost coverage shift from tiered TV to tiered data oh it will still be based on speed. no way will people get 100mbps connections for the same price as another person on a 12mbps connection. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Frontier Communi..
| reply to espaeth
Re: Yeah, let's just ignore the access charges said by espaeth: If metered pricing were about "fairness," carriers would offer the nation's grandmothers a $5 a month tier that accurately reflected her twice weekly, several megabyte browsing of the Weather Channel website. The first packet is the most expensive one to deliver, because you have to have all of the necessary underlying infrastructure in place to get it there. You hit the nail on the head. The connection itself has a fixed cost regardless of what the actual usage (be it total data or average bitrate) is. Our electric bill costs us $15/mo before we use a single kWh, just for the connection to the grid.
In a fair system, Grandma wouldn't be paying $44.95/mo, but it's equally insane to think that she should be paying $5/mo. Time Warner's tiered option ($5 lousy dollars off your bill for a pathetic 5GB cap) is a blatant rip off, but the point here isn't to save 95% of their customers money. It's to monetize the 95%+ percentile of customers that use the lion's share of the available network capacity. |
|
 IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
·Comcast
 ·Verizon Broadban..
| Why should Netflix undercut cable Comcast owns the lines and infrastructure. They charge a modest price for TV service and that pays the salaries of hard working individuals maintaining the infrastructure that carries TV, phone, and Internet. I don't think Netflix should get a free ride on Comcast's lines as I call that unfair competition. If it was not for Comcast offering TV service, we'd be paying three times as much for Internet. Competition is good, but when you severely undercut a competitor and get a free ride on their infrastructure, I call that unethical competition. I think the FCC should seriously look at IPTV services and make them adhere to the same regulations that cable/satellite/broadcasters must adhere to. I pay a good chunk of money to Comcast each month for my triple play and cord cutters are going to cause that cost to go up as they still have the cost of maintaining infrastructure but are losing the money to pay for it and broadband prices will go up and quality will decline.
I think Comcast should waive caps if a subscriber gets expanded basic or above or Netflix should have to pay Comcast and other pay TV providers for use of their networks. |
|
| But the tubes! They are using them up!!! 
5% use 95% of the bandwidth.
Then there is the "sandvine" backdoor sniffing patent trolls....
--
Splat |
|
 mr seanProfessional InfidelPremium,ExMod 2001-07
join:2001-04-03
N. Absentia
kudos:1 | reply to skeechan
Re: In other news... And Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead... |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
| reply to elefante72
Re: Yeah, let's just ignore the access charges said by elefante72:I might agree, but hasn't Comcast kept the same cap for years? I mean if that is the case, then the D3 upgrade didn't make any bit of difference? It started off a decade ago as a "soft" cap where they kicked heavy users off the system. In 2008 it was defined to be a 250GB cap, and then this year they started to expand the cap / look at strategies for being able to use more capacity for a larger monthly fee. See: »Exclusive: Some Comcast Users Will See 500 GB Cap
I think the problem is that infrastructure updates take years, and our culture is now exclusively focused on short term goals/results. |
|
 ScreeIn the pipe 5 by 5
join:2001-04-24
Mount Laurel, NJ | reply to skeechan
Re: In other news... ...And we still pay too much for services... |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
·Charter
| reply to espaeth
Re: Yeah, let's just ignore the access charges The problem is that the caps are mostly arbitrary and used in an anti-competitive way to limit competition from streaming content. If the caps were at least updated annually or on a rolling schedule based on average consumption increases then this wouldn't matter. |
|
| reply to IowaCowboy
Re: Why should Netflix undercut cable do you understand how the internet works at all? and what the heck makes you think cable cut the cost of internet. If anything they pioneered more expensive internet access. |
|
morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 Reviews:
·Charter
| reply to Crookshanks
Re: Yeah, let's just ignore the access charges said by Crookshanks: but the point here isn't to save 95% of their customers money. It's to monetize the 95%+ percentile of customers that use the lion's share of the available network capacity.
I'm glad you admit that this is strictly about milking the subset of customers that consume above average resources for no other reason that "we can" and a mistaken understanding of costs associated with the above average use. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to IowaCowboy
Re: Why should Netflix undercut cable But what about the providers who don't have triple play revenue, like AT&T and Verizon? (Sure, there's limited FIOS and U-Verse where both are in the TV business but compared to their core wired business of delivering bits, it doesn't compare to cable's success at getting most folks to spend more with them to offset plant costs.) Are AT&T and Verizon subsidizing their wired infrastructure costs with wired revenue? Of course that would be like shooting your own foot since their wired business is still regulated and they are allowed to charge a price that guarantees a set profit margin. In fact, there are actually claims that Verizon is illegally pushing wireless costs into its wired expense column since that's still a regulated monopoly. What about cable companies undercutting POTS service with $19.95 unlimited local/long distance VOIP? What about wireless cannibalizing POTS service? |
|
