dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2013-01-18 10:27:04: For years the cable industry insisted that they imposed usage caps because network congestion made them necessary. ..

prev page · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · next

pittpete1

join:2009-06-12
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
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?

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

2 recommendations

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.


Whatsupwhdat

@161.113.4.x
reply to skeechan

Re: In other news...

The rent is too damn high.


horseathalt7

join:2012-06-11
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.



PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD
reply to N3OGH

Re: In other news...

...the sky is blue...



MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1
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

1 recommendation

reply to skeechan

Re: In other news...

I discovered I like women better than men...



Joey1973

@verizon.net
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!")


34764170

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.

34764170

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.


Y2KDragon

@pentagon.mil
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


InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
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.


Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
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



Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
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



IowaCowboy
Want to go back to Iowa
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast
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:
·Embarq Now Centu..
·CenturyLink
·Speed of Light B..
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........


Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
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



morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
Reviews:
·Charter
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.


guppy_fish
Premium
join:2003-12-09
Lakeland, FL
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to InvalidError

You Obviously know nothing about FIOS and that for all practical purposes Verizon IS a major backbone of the US internet.

Verizon could care less what its users send/receive as being a tier one provider, it costs the same for one bit or one trillion GB, they have no peering charges



jjo

@comcast.net
reply to Crookshanks

Your point is well taken, and is an argument for basing access charges on bandwidth: provide a 100kbit/sec pipe for a cheap flat rate, and a 5Mbit/sec pipe for a higher flat rate. This is in no way a justification for per-byte usage charges on top of the flat-rate charge for bandwidth.



Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state
reply to Y2KDragon

Re: In other news...

All of you lie !


TexasRebel

join:2011-05-29
Edgewood, TX
reply to horseathalt7

Re: Greed...KILLS.

Might as well include wireless and satellite into this discussion as well. They use the same BS scare tactics with FAP (Fair Access Policy) or DAP (Data Allowance Policy).

I've got Verizon's HomeFusion, which is blazing fast with sub 100ms latency as cable or dsl, but they rape you for $120 + monthly warranty and taxes and fees for a mere 30GB of data after the 2nd month. The first 2 months they are kind enough to give you about 45GB of data under a promo period.

It's really too bad that the agency that was setup for consumer protections (FCC), doesn't make it illegal for data capping and that any company that practices it gets fined heavily for it.

Perhaps it's just me, but I think the same people that came up with datacaps are the same asswipes that are pushing for stricter gun control.. Both are trying their damnedest to legislate our freedoms away..



Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
reply to espaeth

Re: Yeah, let's just ignore the access charges

said by espaeth:

Technology refresh cycles are 3-5 years, which is about the rate you're seeing access speed increases and bandwidth cap increases.

Um.. Sure the speed increases, but the cap doesn't for most providers.

jkeelsnc

join:2008-08-22
Greensboro, NC

Lack of Competition

Lack of competition is a big part of the problem here. Still, vote with your money. I use TWC for internet. I am sure they don't like that I don't subscribe to TV service but its too expensive and I don't like watching TV much anyway. Before anyone gets their panties up in a bind about netflix you should know that I only stream 3 or 4 hours a week of netflix on average. TWC calls all the time trying to convince me what a "good deal" i'd get with a triple play or whatever. Yet all it would do is remove more money from my wallet for phone service I don't need and TV I don't want.

Furthermore, if they add caps I'll just downgrade to a lower, cheaper tier. The more they push the more I pull money back into my wallet. That is not selfish and it is not greedy. Anyone who thinks I should just open my wallet to go ahead and get all this stuff that they think I should is full of crap. I'll send YOU the bill every month then. Why would you try to argue about cord cutters cutting services they don't want or need? That is stupid. The cable companies need to adapt to the new environment or die off.


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Lack of competition is 98% of the problem and the barriers of entry to create competition is the other 2%.

If there were multiple choices for every user whom they get as their ISP then we would not have 99% of the stuff to discuss here.

One fiber network, nationwide, serving every person and business that can choose amongst any service that wants to reach them anywhere in the world. All we need from the ISP is a valid IP address. They dont even need to provide DNS as we can get that on our own.



grief

@norlight.net
reply to IowaCowboy

Re: Why should Netflix undercut cable

said by IowaCowboy:

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.

Netflix is not using Comcast or other providers network. The customer of those networks is using it and those customers are paying for that use. Using your logic every web site would have to pay every internet provider because they use those networks. To put it simply nobody is get network access for free

albundyhere

join:2000-10-26
New York, NY

Pricing Fairness?

Earthlink aka TWC has been giving themselves annual raises on my behalf every year...until this year. I've got a great present for them...well, it's more for me.


tanzam75

join:2012-07-19
reply to morbo

Re: Yeah, let's just ignore the access charges

It certainly is not ridiculous.

Indeed, fair allocation of fixed costs is precisely the idea behind toll lanes on otherwise-free highways. Because it's the peak-period drivers who are forcing the road to be expanded, it would be fair for them to pay 100% of the costs. In contrast, the off-peak drivers could've gotten by without the extra lanes, so they should pay 0% of the costs. For example, just two months ago, Los Angeles opened High Occupancy/Toll lanes on the I-110.

It's also becoming common for bridge and tunnel expansions to be paid for through time-of-day pricing. If you use it at midnight, you pay one rate, because you could've gotten by just fine on the old two-lane bridge. If you use it during rush hour, then you pay a much higher rate, because you're one of the commuters that forced the government to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new bridge.

That "millions and millions of dollars" argument is an illogical strawman. Nobody's asking one person to pay all of the money up-front. The fees are paid a little bit at a time, collectively, by all the people who forced the upgrade. Just like bandwidth cap overages are paid collectively, tens of dollars at a time, by all of the people exceeding the cap.