dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-01-27 10:48:35: Remember the "exaflood"? The idea that Internet video bandwidth demands were simply unmanageable and that we'd all be crying over clogged tubes by now? It never arrived, because it wasn't real. ..


YDC

join:2007-11-13
Hewlett, NY

1 recommendation

Oh we know..

It will look just like your favorite cable, phone or wireless company. No doubt innovation is still ripe at the top. How can we get even more money from these poor people? We need to show profit at an enormous rate or Wall Street will punish us.

guppy_fish
Premium
join:2003-12-09
Lakeland, FL
kudos:3

Because there are caps and costs

Wireless is in check due to the incentive pricing, gorge on video and streaming all you want, just you have to pay for it. Nothing wrong with that

Oh my Electric and Water bills work the same way

ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
Not quite. If you don't use much water or power in a month, you're only charged a minimal amount to service the account. If, however, you don't use much data, you still pay the full subscription fee.

If the ISP's really were interested in per-byte billing, then your base monthly bill would be something like $5.00, and you'd pay for each byte, beginning with the first one. Maybe around $0.10 per gigabyte.


nome

@optonline.net
reply to guppy_fish
Well they should be regulated like like water and electric, no?

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

Exaflood

I don't know. The Exaflood seems pretty real for a number of Windstream customers.


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
awful lot of Netflix customers seem to have clogged tubes too.


Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

1 recommendation

Let's see here..

In 2011, the spread got wider, 1090 billion MB projected vs 890 billion MB actually carried. And in 2012, the FCC projected 2219 billion MB was even further from the actual traffic of 1468 billion MB.

1090 billion MB = 1090 million GB = 1090 thousand TB = 1090 PB = ~1EB transferred.

So, around an EB of data was projected. Why do they just say that instead of using billions of MB's? Oh ya, billions sounds like more so we *MUST* use it to make it sound worse and prove our point instead of using real numbers.

Truthfully, the worlds pipes can handle that traffic with ease. I don't know what everyone is freaking out about. Maybe if every ISP in the world was using a couple T1's or OC3's as their entire backbone, I could see it happening.

*BEWARE OF THE EXAFLOOD* That's why we're capping your internet instead of throttling it. "Makes perfect sense to me", says the executives lining their pockets.
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.3G,8G RAM,2T+2T+1.5T HDDs,Win7]
MyLaptop[Asus G53SX,32GB RAM,2x1TB HDD,Win7]
WifeWS[C2D@2.4G,4G RAM,250G HDD,Win7]
Router[PE1750,4G RAM,3x36G HDD,2xIntel Pro/1000+GT Quad Port,Gentoo]

ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
reply to nome

Re: Because there are caps and costs

They use public rights-of-way and the public airwaves (for wireless), so they should have some oversight, yes.

Also, if they're going to charge for specific amounts of data, then the tools used to measure this data should be inspected and certified by a regulatory agency. We do the same for other goods, so data should be treated no differently.

Bengie25

join:2010-04-22
Wisconsin Rapids, WI
Reviews:
·Solarus

Wired vs Wireless

I never thought we were going to have an "Exaflood" for wired because technology has been keeping up for the past 50+ years. What I'm not sure about is if wireless can handle it.

Wireless inherently has a lot of interference to deal with, which makes it much harder to scale than fiber, or even copper. With 1600p and soon 4k displays somehow getting packed into 3" screens, it doesn't take a lot for the many mobile users to suddenly consume more data than a fixed line network, and ISPs are already having issues with using copper handling this kind of demand.

I think fiber is the way for fixed line and bandwidth will be a non-issue, but all of the bandwidth issues copper has, wireless has it much worse and copper can't keep up with demand.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but I do think an "exaflood" for wireless is a real possibility and could have growing pains unless we get a magic bullets for wireless bandwidth.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to ISurfTooMuch

Re: Because there are caps and costs

said by ISurfTooMuch:

Not quite. If you don't use much water or power in a month, you're only charged a minimal amount to service the account. If, however, you don't use much data, you still pay the full subscription fee.

If the ISP's really were interested in per-byte billing, then your base monthly bill would be something like $5.00, and you'd pay for each byte, beginning with the first one. Maybe around $0.10 per gigabyte.

Exactly why they will stick to business models that are cap and overage.

If they went purely to metered they would always be facing that specter of having to prove their meter to the weights and measures of every state and possibly a few cities. I imagine the executive boards of the ISPs do not want the expense of that when they can get away with the robbery of cap and overage and only sometimes accurate metering.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
Of course, all of this may unravel if someone sues them, claiming that their meters are inaccurate. Naturally, they'll try to force them into arbitration, but then I'd wait for the lawsuit that claims that the arbitration is rigged in favor of the company.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
I have always figured the whole reason arbitration existed was because its rigged in favor of the company.

After all there as to be a reason their legal department is scared of juries.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


BillRoland
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL
kudos:3

Remember?

Remember? How could we forget, you opine about it at least once a week.

ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
reply to Kearnstd

Re: Because there are caps and costs

Well, when the company gets to decide who the arbitrator is, there's going to be some favoritism there. It may not be written down anywhere, but the arbitration company knows who's paying them now and who will (or won't) be paying them in the future.

Unfortunately, companies can force you to take arbitration if it's in your contract, but, to my knowledge, no one has sued on the basis of the arbitration being unfair. Sooner or later, a lawyer is going to try that approach, and the results will be interesting.


intok

join:2012-03-15
reply to ISurfTooMuch
If they are going to bill me by the byte then it damn well better be over a symmetrical 1GBit FTTH line.

Coincidentally, doing this also solves network congestion and helps with latency.


intok

join:2012-03-15
reply to Bengie25

Re: Wired vs Wireless

Simple, at the next network upgrade rollout the cell company uses more, lower power/range antennas, you know, the pico/micro/femtocell variety that can be put on utility poles. This has the added benefit of being able to fill in dead zones created by objects in between the users and the high power wide area antenna up high.

Montezuma

join:2009-11-15
reply to guppy_fish

Re: Because there are caps and costs

Yeah, nothing wrong with that...except that even when I use on the low end of the "average" monthly data usage for a household, I am facing a bill close to $1,000 USD. There are no alternatives, because Comcast can't be bothered to run the cabling anywhere in the county, AT&T wants to keep all of the fiber lines for cell towers, and AT&T won't bother removing the damned loading coils(used to help improve telephone lines in rural areas for decades) from the POTS lines to make DSL a potential option. Yeah, I am so thankful I can prop up some executives cocaine habit.

While some services have had a slightly increased cost in rural areas, $1,000 for data access(made far worse by the fact that that $1,000 provides far fucking less data use than the average wired Internet connection) is extremely offensive. So, you can spare the discussion the same tired, useless comparisons that you are attempting to entertain us with today.

If you would like to know why I am paying Verizon Wireless $1,000(and more, depending; $1,000 USD is now average for my data-only line, each month), it is because AT&T requires my girlfriend(an employee on the wireless side) to have Internet access at home. Given how much work she has to do from home, on top of what she does at the office space she drives to five days a week, plus me checking my email sparingly, 100 GB does seem low. AT&T refuses is even activate the LTE equipment already installed in the cabinets in nearby towers(we just got UMTS a year ago, but I know for a fact that LTE transceivers are installed in the towers around our home). I also doubt AT&T will provide my girlfriend with a company line if and when LTE is active around our home, since it refused to do so when the requirement first came up.

The ironies abound in this one situation.


Areyouinsane

@204.16.69.x
You do realize that people are selling unlimited Verizon Wireless data lines for around $200, right? You just assume liability. Then you can cut your $1000 monthly bill down to around $100. I'm not sure why anyone would pay them that much.