reply to InvalidError
Re: Yeah, let's just ignore the access charges 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
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.
reply to Y2KDragon
Re: In other news... All of you lie !
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..
Simba7I Void Warranties
reply to espaeth
Re: Yeah, let's just ignore the access charges
said by espaeth:Um.. Sure the speed increases, but the cap doesn't for most providers.
Technology refresh cycles are 3-5 years, which is about the rate you're seeing access speed increases and bandwidth cap increases.
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.
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.
reply to IowaCowboy
Re: Why should Netflix undercut cable
said by IowaCowboy: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
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.
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.
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.
morboComplete Your Transaction
You are not consistent with your own flawed analogy so this discussion is going no where.
With cable admitting that caps are not about congestion, your point is completely debunked. It's also not about fairness. Until grandma is paying $5 a month for checking her email and the torrent users pay $1000 a month for their heavily used connection, this isn't about fairness. It's about cable companies wanting to double dip for services that are already provided and paid for.
reply to InetforAll
Re: Bottom Line Thats why they have t1s. If you just want a pipe almost anyone can get that. No caps no worry about whats carried just a little more money. But it is exactly what you want.
reply to InvalidError
Re: Yeah, let's just ignore the access charges I am fortunate enough to live in an area with municipal broadband. I'm also fortunate enough to have been given an unrestricted access tour of the local NOC. Granted, the user base is only 15000 users, the lead network engineer reported that typical constant bandwidth usage during prime time stays around 50 MB. If everyone on their program suddenly decided to go hog wild, they would still have sufficient network overhead. Oh yeah, they only charge $35 for a 10 Meg, symmetrical fiber connection.
reply to pittpete1
Re: This made me laugh Too clueless.
reply to InvalidError
Re: Yeah, let's just ignore the access charges Yea but that cost comes down if you build a network that is reliable, more customers will subscribe.
Compare DSL and Cable, Where the DSL connection provided frequently has issues and throttles even youtube, yet the cable connection doesn't and provides a predictable consistent connection & speed regardless of content or time of day. The cost to provide the cable network will drop as there will be more rate payers to subsidize the costs for the installed network, while the DSL connection will degrade worse as there are less and less users to foot the costs. Now swap roles, and the argument remains.
reply to espaeth
We look short term because there were times were we were hyped that fixes were coming for years to only have them be canceled or deployed half-cocked, I'm looking at you AT&T U-Verse.
reply to brad
Re: $$ based on the amount of profit all telco & cablecos have chewed down on existing networks it could have paid for 3 or 4 generations of new investment when times were very good for them, instead they squandered many opportunities to do right by the customer. the circumstances they are in today are mostly their own doing..
reply to horseathalt7
said by horseathalt7:I thought that was "Wall Street", lawyers, and/or unions? MBAs have a very valuable role in our economy. It's about balance. Please don't be so naive to believe it's only one person's fault.
MBAs will be the death of honest business in the USA.
Cable Industry..... Never mind
reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:Ha....MBAs have been one of the most detrimental elements in US business since they were "concocted".
I thought that was "Wall Street", lawyers, and/or unions? MBAs have a very valuable role in our economy. It's about balance. Please don't be so naive to believe it's only one person's fault.
Unions don't have nearly the ability to influence that executive manglement has.
Even Folks like Former GM exec Bob Lutz spoke of how dangerous and destructive the MBA is.