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

34764170

join:2007-09-06
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.

NOVA_UAV_Guy
Premium
join:2012-12-14
Purcellville, VA
Reviews:
·Comcast

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.


chip89
Premium
join:2012-07-05
Independence, OH
reply to Xioden
We are charged for air already try felling your tires at a gas station sometime.


bear73
Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly Skies
Premium
join:2001-06-09
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...


Unbundled
But When ? ?
Premium
join:2010-09-13
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 ! ! !

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
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?


cork1958
Cork
Premium
join:2000-02-26

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/seamonkey/


skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
reply to chip89

Re: In other news...

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


BingoRingo

join:2010-03-29
Gatineau, QC
kudos:1
Reviews:
·voip.ms
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.


m0deth

@verizon.net
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.

shamus087

join:2012-12-01
Bedford, OH

TWC low load.

It's funny, when I was having internet issues about 2 weeks before Christmas last year, during a Tech repair visit, I suggested that it may be possible that the internet server node I'm on is overloaded, to which he told me that he can check that, he showed me a bunch of graphs, but what I got from it was 22% overall load at the busiest times.

Keep in mind he logged in from my computer to show the graphs about current total load of their server.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

1 recommendation

reply to guppy_fish

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

said by guppy_fish:

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

Peering charges have nothing to do with the stuff I was thinking about.

Unless Verizon can break the laws of physics, their costs would start increasing exponentially once they start having to stitch multiple 2M$ routers together to accommodate peak demand across network nodes. Having to do this at few strategic facilities is one thing but having to do it systematically network-wide would kick costs up a few notches.

The biggest single-chassis routers can handle about 5Tbps of non-blocking traffic. Once you need to go beyond that while maintaining close to non-blocking routing, things get a whole lot more expensive and that is definitely where Verizon or any other ISP with millions of subscribers would end up if everyone was trying to use 100+Mbps during peak hours, ignoring potential congestion at the DSLAM or node/CMTS level.

People keep saying that equipment gets cheaper but what they almost always neglect to mention is that density in routed Tbps/rack only doubles every ~5 years, which is much too slow to keep up with peak demand which increases by 50-60%/year which is about 10X over the same period. Since technological progress alone is insufficient to meet demand (about 5X too slow), how many identical switches or routers do you think you need to put together to double the capacity of a single one of the same while maintaining non-blocking performance? You need six of 'em... 2X the capacity = 6X the rack space using same-model equipment. The cost scaling is really horrible.

Not every ISP can afford (or is willing) to use the latest and biggest gear available so don't be surprised if there are more stories about smaller ISPs hitting their equipment's practical brick walls in the future or attempting to extract money from their transit providers to cover some upgrade costs.

tanzam75

join:2012-07-19

3 edits
reply to morbo
Yes, it's unfair that grandma doesn't get to pay $5 for cable Internet, while the bandwidth hog pays $1000. But surely it's fairer to charge grandma $50 and the bandwidth hog $100, rather than charging everyone $60.

The problem is that bits are not like molecules -- they're free to transport, until you have to do a node split. So do you price them like they're free, with a fixed infrastructure charge? Or do you price them like they're expensive, with a metered charge? Why not a combination of both, to account for their hybrid nature?

To point to the lack of a $5 grandma rate as a reason not to charge overage fees is illogical. You think it's unfair not to charge pure usage-based pricing, so you instead advocate a flat rate in which it's even less fair?

I don't understand this "gotcha" mentality when it comes to the guy's comments on congestion. The reason that there is no congestion today is precisely because the cable companies have spent money in the past -- on DOCSIS 3, on logical node splits, on physical node splits. Plus, the fairness argument isn't exactly new.


rf1445

@comcast.net
reply to chip89

Re: In other news...

Actually you are not paying for the air. You are paying for the use of the equipment and electricity it takes to pump that air. But their profit is still 99.9% of that cost.


Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2

1 edit

good meter

Only if they had a good meter,government regulation and Guaranteed speed & accuracy.

then I would have no issues with then.
since they can not do such then no

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to InvalidError

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

said by InvalidError:

Not every ISP can afford (or is willing) to use the latest and biggest gear available so don't be surprised if there are more stories about smaller ISPs hitting their equipment's practical brick walls in the future or attempting to extract money from their transit providers to cover some upgrade costs.

Then those ISPs can expect to go out of business. and extract money from their transit providers? Please stop making me laugh.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to OSUGoose
said by OSUGoose:

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.

What you said is far from true everywhere. There are plenty of places where the opposite is true and *DSL networks run fine without congestion and cable nodes are congested to crap. It really depends on the company and how the network is managed and if the components are upgraded appropriately.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to 34764170
said by 34764170:

Then those ISPs can expect to go out of business. and extract money from their transit providers? Please stop making me laugh.

Most incumbent ISPs have pretty close to an effective monopoly over their respective service areas so going out of business due to not upgrading is unlikely.

As for ISPs wanting to extract revenue from their transit providers, Comcast has tried it with Peer1 and Free is trying it on Google so there certainly are some who are tempted to test those waters. While the scheme may be upsetting for CDNs and transit providers, it actually has a handful of advantages if the ISPs' savings from it are passed down to their end-users, one of them being that it takes most capacity-related costs out of end-users' monthly fees... pay directly for physical access, pay indirectly for your actual usage.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
said by InvalidError:

Most incumbent ISPs have pretty close to an effective monopoly over their respective service areas so going out of business due to not upgrading is unlikely.

As for ISPs wanting to extract revenue from their transit providers, Comcast has tried it with Peer1 and Free is trying it on Google so there certainly are some who are tempted to test those waters. While the scheme may be upsetting for CDNs and transit providers, it actually has a handful of advantages if the ISPs' savings from it are passed down to their end-users, one of them being that it takes most capacity-related costs out of end-users' monthly fees... pay directly for physical access, pay indirectly for your actual usage.

I'm not saying it would on its own but its another nail in their coffin. ISPs in this situation are typically very small and are already struggling as it is.

Actually it is France Telecom/Orange and Google. The amount of money these very large ISPs are extracting from these companies is a drop in the bucket in the bigger picture and I'm very skeptical the ISPs will pass on any savings to the users. These companies never do anything that truly benefits the end user. If they were using the money to directly go towards doing network upgrades then I wouldn't be against this concept so much but that isn't the case. They just want another revenue stream and drag out doing network upgrades as much as possible.


OSUGoose

join:2007-12-27
Columbus, OH
reply to 34764170
That's exactly what I was saying, but the same can be true if you reversed it.

Case in point here AT&T DSL is ok, yet Insight/RR is oversold.


Sarick
It's Only Logical
Premium
join:2003-06-03
USA
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
reply to espaeth
My mother is a grandma and given the chance she'd do over 50gb a month! She learned about netflix and as a grandma uses her PS3 to stream Dora the Explorer ext to the grand kids. Not to mention her level 15 trophie ranking on PSN.

Grandmas aren't all low bandwidth users some math the big boy in usage.
--
Sarick's Dungeon Clipart


Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

1 edit
reply to tanzam75
said by tanzam75:

Yes, it's unfair that grandma doesn't get to pay $5 for cable Internet, while the bandwidth hog pays $1000. But surely it's fairer to charge grandma $50 and the bandwidth hog $100, rather than charging everyone $60.

That's why we have price tiers. If "grandma" wants to just check her email, stick her on the cheapest plan available (ours is 1.5mbps). If you're a power user, get the fastest one (ours is 30mbps). I don't see the blasted problem here.

Unfortunately, in some areas, that no longer applies. Now you have to buy a "byte" package and risk overages. This isn't "network management". This is just a new way of squeezing more money out of their customers.

..and if they can't handle multiple customers having super/ultra-fast tiers, why did they offer it in the first place?
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.2G,8G RAM,500G+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1G,2G RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital DE504,Sun X1034A,2xSun X4444A,SMC 8432BTA,Gentoo]

tanzam75

join:2012-07-19
said by Simba7:

..and if they can't handle multiple customers having super/ultra-fast tiers, why did they offer it in the first place?

Because residential services are priced on the assumption that you will only burst to the max speed.

Max speed is not the only part of the equation. Average speed also matters. A 1.5 Mbps user who continually maxes out the connection is actually using more network resources than a 20 Mbps burst user who averages less than 1 Mbps.

Of course, the 10 Mbps user -- on average -- should use more data in a given month than the 20 Mbps user. So they ought to get a higher cap to go along with the higher speeds. But it still can't be unlimited, because the pricing of residential cable Internet is only made possible by the fact that people do not max out their connections.


BillPayer

join:2011-07-24
Dallas, TX

Illegal?

"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." -- President Richard Nixon

htroberts

join:2011-02-11
reply to Qwest exec

Re: In other news...

said by Qwest exec :

If you're willing to pay it, it's not too much.

That's only true if the price is set by the market: that is, if there are many buyers and many sellers. Internet providers work hard to ensure that there's not a competitive market.


skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
That is the very definition of and inelastic item. People need insulin and to avoid death will pay whatever it costs to get it but that doesn't mean that the cost paid can't be excessive.


60632649
Premium
join:2003-09-29
New York, NY
reply to skeechan
Don't eat the yellow snow!


coxcustomer

@cox.net
reply to skeechan
Rocks are hard....


Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state
liar


RadioDoc
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL
kudos:2
reply to K00laid

Re: Why should Netflix undercut cable

said by K00laid :

Comcast has no right to impede or otherwise interfere with a competitor's traffic or services requested by and routed to a Comcast internet subscriber. Comcast has no right to demand anything more.

* ding *

Winner.

This is now and always has been about impeding access to competing services by cable subscribers. Period.