| reply to AndyDufresne
Re: This is why prices go up to a T. You forgot something
quote:
The average CEO of a major corporation in the U.S. was paid $15 million in 2005, and the figure has climbed dramatically since then. The average U.S. worker's salary in 2005 was $40,000 and it has actually declined during the recession to approximately $34,000.00 Susanna Km writing an ABC News article just a week ago, said the average CEO pay increased 14 percent to $12.9 million in 2011, 380 times that of the average worker, following a 22.8 percent rise in 2010.The U.S. stands out, compared to other areas in the world with respect of CEO compensation.
Not going to provide a link, just google are CEO salaries out of control? |
|
| reply to MovieLover76
Re: Yeah, let's just ignore the access charges said by MovieLover76: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. Congestion would become very real and a very expensive problem to fix if all incentives to moderate usage and artificial speed bumps were removed while people are still expecting dedicated-like performance.
Building the network just to reach the customers is expensive but bulking up the network to sustain high concurrent usage at high speeds quickly gets expensive too. |
|
| reply to skeechan
Re: In other news... The rent is too damn high. |
|
|
|
| reply to InetforAll
Greed...KILLS. The truth is that these caps are NOTHING but a obnoxious
"money grab"!
The truth is ugly and most providers are wretched greed mongers.
MBAs will be the death of honest business in the USA. |
|
| reply to N3OGH
Re: In other news... ...the sky is blue... |
|
| reply to InvalidError
Re: Yeah, let's just ignore the access charges Really? how do both cablevision and Verizon FiOS manage uncapped users, while also being two of the Fastest ISP's based on real life speed tests.
The lobbyist gave up the argument man, time to toss in the towel. |
|
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX | reply to pittpete1
Re: This made me laugh said by pittpete1: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.
please... |
|
WHT
join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5 | reply to skeechan
Re: In other news... I discovered I like women better than men... |
|
| reply to InvalidError
Re: Yeah, let's just ignore the access charges And there ya have it folks... some people still believe the old mantra about caps being an essential part of managing the "network".
No, caps are and have always been about PR and managing customers' perceptions about using the network. ("Don't use it! You might break it!") |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to cableties
Re: But the tubes! said by cableties:They are using them up!!! 
5% use 95% of the bandwidth.
Then there is the "sandvine" backdoor sniffing patent trolls....
95% of the traffic, not bandwidth. It is impossible for 5% to use up 95% of the bandwidth. It is the 95% of the users using up most of the bandwidth. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to tmc8080
Re: $$ said by tmc8080:There is no good reason why every service provider shouldn't be at 50 megabits down/upstream
Unless you're being fed by fibre then there is... DOCSIS cannot handle that kind of upstream performance without splitting the nodes to very small number of users and VDSL2 cannot provide that kind of upstream speed without very short loop lengths, a lot of people are on longer loop lengths that can barely handle 10Mbps up or less. You roll out 50Mbps up with DOCSIS without splitting the nodes very small and the tiny amount of capacity at the node will be congested in no time. These are technical limitations of the access technology. The situation will improve a bit with DOCSIS 3.1 and VDSL2 vectoring but these are a ways off.
Sorry to ruin your silly rant with facts. |
|
| reply to PapaMidnight
Re: In other news... ...water is wet |
|
miser
join:2004-01-16
Sandusky, OH | reply to WHT
Hi WHT
You almost owed me a new keyboard and LCD display ....
Never drink coffee when reading DSLR!!!!
(I lurk and rarely post in the UBNT forum, so that's how I got the reference)
Cheers,
Miser |
|
| reply to MovieLover76
Re: Yeah, let's just ignore the access charges said by MovieLover76:Really? how do both cablevision and Verizon FiOS manage uncapped users, while also being two of the Fastest ISP's based on real life speed tests. Just because you can speedtest the highest speed does not mean the network behind those speeds could actually cope with a large percentage of subscribers using anywhere near those speeds at the same time. |
|
| reply to IowaCowboy
Re: Why should Netflix undercut cable Netflix isn't getting "a free ride" on Comcast's infrastructure. Netflix pays their ISP for bandwidth. That ISP pays an upstream ISP for bandwidth and so on to the top level. That top level has peering agreements with other top level ISPs to "pay" for data passing back and forth.
Going up the other end, the customer pays Comcast (or Verizon or Time Warner) for bandwidth. If Comcast (or Verizon or Time Warner) isn't the "top level ISP", they pay the ISP above them and so on until you get to the top where you have those peering agreements again.
Netflix isn't "getting a free ride" any more than a local pizza shop who pays Verizon for a phone line is "getting a free ride" by Sprint letting their customers call to order pizza. (After all, they're not paying Sprint any money. Why should Sprint let their number be called?!!)
--
-Jason Levine |
|
| reply to pittpete1
Re: This is why prices go up to a T. I believe this is the link you were referencing: »www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wir···-control
--
-Jason Levine |
|
 IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
 ·Comcast
 ·Verizon Broadban..
| reply to Jason Levine
Re: Why should Netflix undercut cable said by Jason Levine:Netflix isn't "getting a free ride" any more than a local pizza shop who pays Verizon for a phone line is "getting a free ride" by Sprint letting their customers call to order pizza. (After all, they're not paying Sprint any money. Why should Sprint let their number be called?!!)
Speaking of pizza shops, there is a local Domino's franchise here that will not accept orders from cell phones for security reasons. He will only accept delivery orders from landlines. He can probably tell by the caller ID as the most common landline prefixes here are 781, 782, 783, 787, 543 (Verizon in the Indian Orchard subdivision, east Springfield, and parts of Wilbraham) are the most common landline prefixes in his delivery area.
The reason he won't take calls from a cell phone is he had one of his pizza delivery guys murdered in a robbery while making a delivery so he has taken steps to protect his employees. |
|
Crusty
join:2008-11-11
Sanger, TX Reviews:
 ·CenturyLink
·Speed of Light B..
·Embarq Now Centu..
| reply to espaeth
Re: Yeah, let's just ignore the access charges said by espaeth:said by morbo:The problem is that the caps are mostly arbitrary and used in an anti-competitive way to limit competition from streaming content. Yeah, yeah. We've all heard the blanket statement repeated over and over again on this site. How many services really compete head to head? At best, online services chip away at sections of what is available via broadcast TV, but there is not a wholesale replacement option. It's not because of bandwidth caps; it's because anyone with a clue about how that infrastructure is built knows that you can't scale to 100+ million simultaneous Internet video feeds using technology available today. Caps aren't the reason that service doesn't exist, no matter how badly you want that to be cause. said by morbo: If the caps were at least updated annually or on a rolling schedule based on average consumption increases then this wouldn't matter. Technology refresh cycles are 3-5 years, which is about the rate you're seeing access speed increases and bandwidth cap increases. I haven't seen a speed increase in nearly 7yrs and I'm forced to either have zero internet or just use one ISP or move across the street.
But yet, my costs rise each year........ |
|
| reply to IowaCowboy
Re: Why should Netflix undercut cable Completely the store owner's call. Just like if Netflix decided, for some reason, "we're not allowing Comcast customers to access Netflix." The point is, though, that he *can* accept orders from people using other phone companies even though he isn't paying those other companies anything. He pays his phone company and the customers pay their phone company. The two phone companies work out among themselves how they handle calls passing between them.
Netflix does the same thing. They pay their ISP, their customers pay their ISPs and the ISPs work out how traffic passes between them. If you needed to pay every ISP for your website to be viewable on their network, running a simple web page would be too expensive for your average person.
--
-Jason Levine |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | reply to tanzam75
Re: Yeah, let's just ignore the access charges Yes, it costs money to upgrade a node. However, unless the network is completely mismanaged to the point of incompetence, a single user using above average resources cannot be attributed to the cost. That's like saying that the 3 lane interstate highway is congested for 5 hours a day, and at 5 hours and 1 minute of congestion per day the next driver is responsible for adding an additional lane to the highway (millions and millions of dollars). It's ridiculous. |
|
