dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


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 · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · next

Lakeland, FL
·Verizon FiOS
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.

united state
reply to Y2KDragon

Re: In other news...

All of you lie !


Edgewood, TX
reply to 15444104

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..

I Void Warranties

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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.

Complete 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.

Quakertown, PA
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.


Etobicoke, ON
reply to pittpete1

Re: This made me laugh

Too clueless.


Columbus, OH
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.


Columbus, OH
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.


Brooklyn, NY
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
reply to 34764170

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 15444104

Re: Greed...KILLS.

said by 15444104:

MBAs will be the death of honest business in the USA.

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.


Patterson, NY

Cable Industry.....

Never mind

reply to openbox9

Re: Greed...KILLS.

said by openbox9:

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.

Ha....MBAs have been one of the most detrimental elements in US business since they were "concocted".

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.


Etobicoke, ON
reply to tmc8080

Re: $$

They can't upgrade in the past to technology that has not existed until quite recently or doesn't exist yet.

Purcellville, VA

1 recommendation

reply to Qwest exec

Re: In other news...

There's a difference between being "willing" to pay something and not really having a choice, isn't there? Some people work from home, and therefore have no choice but to pay for "high speed" Internet... even if they are price gouged.

And then we have the really anti-competitive businesses like AT&T and Verizon, who somehow magically will all die fiery deaths in hell if they aren't allowed to place ridiculously low caps on usage and bill for overages at ludicrous rates. They use the mythical "bandwidth hog" as their example, trying to paint a false picture about others' greed and habits when it's simply their own greed and desire to screw consumers which have led to their pricing model.

I'm not a big fan of big government... I'm really not. And I don't like it when government passes a whole bunch of new laws that aren't really necessary. But in this case, I believe we're almost at a point where our government has somewhat of a duty to step in and begin treating broadband as a utility... just like electricity and water. If we're going to be stuck in a nation with little to no choice of "high speed" Internet providers in most areas, then consumers should be at least entitled to the same protections afforded to them when faced with other monopolies.

Independence, OH
reply to Xioden
We are charged for air already try felling your tires at a gas station sometime.

Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly Skies
Derry, NH
reply to Whatsupwhdat
Actually, in many areas, it is. And because rental unit occupancy is high (due to the market crash and high unemployment-underemployment people can't buy houses) and continues to rise because "supply&demand allows us" to charge rent till most people are out on hte street. THEN you 'll see rent come down until occupancy is high again and we'll start the merry-go-round again...

But When ? ?
Irving, TX

Time Warner charges Grandma too much ! ! ! !

TW will charge your Grandma out of her home, if necessary. It's all about fairness to a conglomerate that has ever growing expenses to keep ahead of the Jones's, and yes, Grandma will pay for that, whether she likes it nor not.

After TW took over from Comcast in N. Texas, the rates for Basic Basic (no Box) went from $10 to $12 to $14 and is now $19. For the same damn Basic Basic service.

Funny how the price for Basic stayed around $10 for many many years, and then Bam ! Up and Up she goes.... and to HELL with Grandma!!!

Well, obviously, the same TW business model applies to their internet fee structure. AT&T is just as obscene.
A La Carte Cable Choice is the ONLY Choice I'm Interested in ! ! !

reply to 15444104

Re: Greed...KILLS.

Let me guess. You're on the labor side of the house and believe that you've been inappropriately wronged by some 24 year old MBA at some point in your life?


How come?

How come EVERYONE in the world knew this was a bunch of bull from day 1, except the cable folks?

What a crock!!
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonk ··· amonkey/

Ai Otsukaholic
reply to chip89

Re: In other news...

The air is free, you pay to use the compressor.


Gatineau, QC
reply to Scree
said by Scree:

...And we still pay too much for services...

In Canada the new trend with Rogers is 200 MB on a 3-year $55/month plan. It used to be 500 MB for cheaper just a few months ago... That doesn't mean you're getting a deal though.


reply to Qwest exec
Yes because there's so much f'king choice in this non-monopoly driven communications market we have here in the U.S.

Please, leave the gems of wisdom home if they contain no wisdom, spouting lines like that requires willful ignorance of the situation.