dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-03-03 07:46:45: The other day we noted how Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam insisted that the "most important" thing that people needed to understand when talking about net neutrality was that heavy users should pay Verizon more. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · next

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

5 recommendations

The 10TB thing is getting old

There's no conceivable way that can be condoned as normal usage for any residential or small business connection. That's a sustained 24/7 transfer rate of >30mbit/s.

I could start a small ISP with that sort of bandwidth at my disposal.


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

3 edits

7 recommendations

For one user here it was 4 TB and 10 TB for another.

More disturbing however is in the 4 TB case, the user already switched to Business class FiOS.

And just who the F are you to condone a small business using 4 TB? I know a mom and pop photography company using close to 1 TB on an ADSL2 line. I also have another one man doctor's office using 1+ terabytes on a business class cable modem (sorry can't discuss what they do, privacy concerns).

None to my knowledge have ever heard a peep. And your telling me a 10 TB on a BUSINESS class fiber is somehow crazy????


karlmarx

join:2006-09-18
Chicago, IL

3 recommendations

reply to Crookshanks
And yet comcast, which considers using 1mb/sec 7x24 considers that to be 'excessive' (1mb/sec = 320GB/month).

elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY
reply to DataRiker
There are multiple tiers of business class. Small business falls under residential for data expectations and doesn't allow servers, etc hosting. For that (and where you would hit 10TB or more, you would need mid-tier or enterprise class.

In any case, Verizon isn't bothering even the heavy user, as I can use up to a TB a month which exceeds caps for every provider and have never heard a peep.

And I will also say my FiOS pricing is very competitive and I feel the cost is justified for the value I get with it. It has improved the family lives tremendously and all but eliminated ever viewing commercials which are a waste of life. I'll even delay sporting events 30+ minutes to avoid the rash of commercials (at leas for the first hour). Sporting events are like 50% commercials.

His quote was leaving the door open to "baggage fees" down the road, and I have no doubt after Verizon exhausts their new below the line schemes, they will start introducing caps.

Schemes (within the last year or so):

1. New router fee $5
2. Raise box fees 10% or more per year. In 3 years my CC fee has doubled.
3. Install fees (where free in the past)
4. Pay for battery
5. Pay to replace/ship new equipment
6. Begin RSN (regional sports) fees over $3 a month
7. In NY add a $1 BS improvement fee.
8. In some cases $15 between tiers vs $10
9. Reduce sign on bonuses
10. Increase renewal prices

I'm sure the VMS will not be cheap, and they still have things like raise all the aove said fees, add broadcast fees, etc.


Mr Guy

@charter.com
reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:

And yet comcast, which considers using 1mb/sec 7x24 considers that to be 'excessive' (1mb/sec = 320GB/month).

Devil's advocate. Any reason why you need a 1 Mbps connection running 24/7?


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

3 recommendations

said by Mr Guy :

said by karlmarx:

And yet comcast, which considers using 1mb/sec 7x24 considers that to be 'excessive' (1mb/sec = 320GB/month).

Devil's advocate. Any reason why you need a 1 Mbps connection running 24/7?

Because he wants to?

Devil's advocate. Why on earth are you concerned?

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to DataRiker
4TB is still excessive for such a connection, even a business class connection. That's a 24/7 sustained average of >12mbit/s. Verizon probably thought he was reselling the connection, which is frankly the first assumption I would have made in their shoes.

If you need such bandwidth you should be looking into a dedicated product, or perhaps consider a data center to host your application. If I recall correctly the users in question had essentially taken their entire video libraries and put them online for the benefit of their extended families.

FIOS was never marketed as or intended to be a replacement for your LAN. It's still a shared product at the end of the day.

I'm not even certain why someone would wish to use it in such a manner, other than bragging rights. If you have a bandwidth hungry service you care enough about to pay for a business class connection why wouldn't you put it in a webhosting center? You can buy such services for less than a business class FIOS connection and they come with far better connectivity, on-site security, redundant power supplies, backup hardware, and so forth.


karlmarx

join:2006-09-18
Chicago, IL
reply to Mr Guy
Well, let's see, I PAY for 105mb/sec.. so, using 1mb/sec would be using 0.96% (less than 1%) of the speed I pay for. Does that seem right?


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

2 recommendations

reply to elefante72
said by elefante72:

There are multiple tiers of business class. Small business falls under residential for data expectations and doesn't allow servers, etc hosting.

This is ridiculous. Most companies sell their SOHO accounts solely for the purpose of removing data restrictions.

My SOHO cable account was hosting at max bandwidth for almost half a year solid. Never a peep. Our last business had all of its traffic passing through a business class DSL line for years ( Pretty much max usage for 12 hours a day ). Never a peep.

My usage up and down on the SOHO cable account has hit well north of the 1 TB range almost monthly.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to Mr Guy
If people were only sustaining an average of 1mbit/s it wouldn't be an issue.

Comcast has a shared last mile, so they need to plan around the peak hour bitrate. Someone using 320GB/mo is doubtless streaming video, so they've got a 95th percentile number of at least 3mbit/s (720p Netflix stream), perhaps a lot more if some of that usage is downloading rather than streaming, or concurrent streaming.

It would make a lot more sense for ISPs to bill on bitrate rather than consumed bytes, using a scheme like 95th percentile billing, but the issue would be explaining how that works to John Q. Public. People barely understand demand billing when the electric company does it, and a kilowatt is a significantly easier concept (10 100 watt light bulbs) to grasp than a megabit.

At the end of the day, the user with a higher peak bitrate costs more to support than a comparable user with a lower peak bittrate. There are four ways to deal with this:

1. Keep unlimited, but raise EVERYONE's rate to afford the CapEx for network expansion.

2. Cap total bandwidth consumed per month.

3. Bill based on average/peak bitrate, with burstable billing.

4. Plan your network around 1:1 contention and sell slower connections that can run at 100% 24/7.

1 and 4 are non-starters. 3 would make more sense from a technical and revenue standpoint but is difficult to explain to the public. So we're left with 2.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:

Well, let's see, I PAY for up to 105mb/sec.

Fixed it for you.


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

2 recommendations

reply to Crookshanks
Crookshanks, I have clients getting close to 1+ TB usage monthly for years now on SOHO cable accounts.

As I stated earlier, on my old COX Soho account I hit well north of 1 TB regularly.

I can't even begin to describe how pathetic this is.


anonomeX

@comcast.net

1 recommendation

Yeah, right...

trying to stream from Netflix or Amazon or Crunchyroll or wherever during the evenings was so... fulfilling (not). Who needs to worry about usage caps when there's barely a trickle of traffic moving over the connection?

Loading.... Loading.... Loading....


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

5 recommendations

reply to Crookshanks

Re: The 10TB thing is getting old

said by Crookshanks:

said by karlmarx:

Well, let's see, I PAY for up to 105mb/sec.

Fixed it for you.

So less than 1% transfer seems excessive to you.

Do you ever laugh at yourself trying to defend this stuff?

Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06

2 edits

3 recommendations

reply to Crookshanks
There is no way to condone FiOS's monthly fee as normal pricing of a residential connection. Indeed this price-gouging would allow for several profitable ISPs to be encapsulated within the same network. If the bill was $10/month you could be shocked at that level of usage, but of course you're opposed to customers getting a good value for indeterminate reaons

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to DataRiker
said by DataRiker:

Most companies sell their SOHO accounts solely for the purpose of removing data restrictions.

False. Small business accounts also come with faster access to support and the option for static IP(s).

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

1 recommendation

reply to DataRiker
said by DataRiker:

I also have another one man doctor's office using 1+ terabytes on a business class cable modem (sorry can't discuss what they do, privacy concerns).

A Doctor's office using 1TB or more is engaged in telemedicine and I certainly hope they've got something more reliable than a DOCSIS or ADSL line for such an endeavor. The Doctor's offices I've worked with around these parts all have dedicated metro area ethernet connections for their enterprises, always brought in on fiber, oftentimes with redundant physical links, and always with SLAs that promise five nines of reliability.

Running a telemedicine enterprise on a consumer/small business grade circuit is just asking for trouble. I wonder if his malpractice insurance provider is aware of that setup and signed off on it? If you signed off on such a setup as their IT provider you've arguably committed malpractice yourself.


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

2 recommendations

reply to Crookshanks
This whole post is a bunch of FUD, designed to scare.

ISP's could simply throttle users past 10 TB's. Problem solved. But that isn't greedy enough.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

2 recommendations

reply to DataRiker
I've repeatedly explained the technical justification for such policies and the reasons why they're far from ideal (burstable billing is better) but better than nothing.

Don't blame me if you can't read my posts or the marketing material from ISPs that clearly states they're selling an "up to" connection, not a dedicated one with 1:1 contention.


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

5 recommendations

Nobody expects 1:1 contention. Nobody expects the network to never slow down.

Caps have nothing to do with this. Its forced artificial scarcity.


Mr Guy

@charter.com
reply to DataRiker
said by DataRiker:

Because he wants to?

Just because one WANTS to do something doesn't mean they SHOULD

Devil's advocate. Why on earth are you concerned?

I ask because I want to. Also you need to learn the definition of devil's advocate. Why are YOU concerned about my asking?


Mr Guy

@charter.com
reply to DataRiker
said by DataRiker:

said by Crookshanks:

said by karlmarx:

Well, let's see, I PAY for up to 105mb/sec.

Fixed it for you.

So less than 1% transfer seems excessive to you.

Do you ever laugh at yourself trying to defend this stuff?

OK so They should lower the speed to 10 Mbps. then he's getting 10%. happy now? No one is running a LEGAL connection full throttle 24/7.


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

3 recommendations

reply to Mr Guy
I am concerned anytime somebody implies using less than 1% of something they paid for is unusual and needs explaining

Feel better?


karlmarx

join:2006-09-18
Chicago, IL
reply to Crookshanks
Hmmm.. you're logic escapes me..
They charge the HIGHER rates for faster speeds, which is why they need to spend capital. They only SPEND money on capital to PROVIDE higher speeds... And yet, their capital expenditures are only 15% of their revenue, while their MARGIN is 40%. Logically, they want to KEEP spending on Cap Ex, since it gives them a 300% return on investment.. So, option 1, raising RATES only makes sense if they keep raising speeds.

Option 2: That is a money grab. Hell, even the ISP's themselves have stated it has NOTHING TO DO WITH CONGESTION and NOTHING TO DO WITH FAIRNESS and NOTHING TO DO WITH COST OF SERVICE. It's an attempt to MONETIZE something they ALREADY have a 40% margin on. It's greed, nothing less.

Option 3: I used 95% percentile when I used T-3's back in 2000 from UUNet. Worked great, as we HAD 45MB/sec, but we usually only ended up in the 10mb/sec tier, which was more than affordable.. But, too complex for the morons, so we can pass on that.

Option 4: Umm, that's never going to happen. I stream Aereo at 3mb/sec when I watch TV. A 1:1 contention is unrealistic, because I could NEVER use 100% of my pipe 100% of the time.

As to your argument that the user with the higher peak rate costs more, I AGREE with you, 100%.. BUT, that user is ALREADY paying MORE for a faster pipe. It has NOTHING to do with the number of bytes they use, but they CAN use more because they PAY for more. That's why you pay a LOT more for a 100mb connection vs a 5mb connection..
--
I for one, don't think old people don't need companionship. They need to be isolated and studied so it can be determined what nutrients they have that might be extracted for our personal use.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to DataRiker
Ah, yes, traffic shaping. I guess that would be solution #5. Verizon Wireless went this way with their EVDO network.

Calling my post FUD is amusing though. Who am I trying to scare? The DSL-R crowd that won't support anything short of "Unlimited 1:1 contention for $20/mo!" regardless of the source?

ISPs are going to deal with bandwidth usage regardless of any amount of bellyaching from you and your crowd. Frankly I wish they would find a better way than raw bandwidth caps, but that's probably the safest way in our litigious society. Traffic shaping and burstable billing would get them sued. Caps and overages are easier to explain and justify from a contract law perspective. So that's what we're left with.

By the by, if you think 10TB should be the throttle point for DOCSIS networks you don't know a lot about contention and shared last miles. That's nearly 10% of an DOCSIS 3 node with eight bonded channels, in reality a lot more because such usage wouldn't be neatly averaged out.


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

1 recommendation

reply to Mr Guy
said by Mr Guy :

No one is running a LEGAL connection full throttle 24/7.

I do. And on a daily basis.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to DataRiker
said by DataRiker:

This whole post is a bunch of FUD, designed to scare.

ISP's could simply throttle users past 10 TB's. Problem solved. But that isn't greedy enough.

And cutting them off entirely and making $0 is somehow greedier?


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000
reply to Crookshanks
said by Crookshanks:

Calling my post FUD is amusing though. Who am I trying to scare? The DSL-R crowd that won't support anything short of "Unlimited 1:1 contention for $20/mo!" regardless of the source?

BS.

I just said I favor throttles.


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000
reply to silbaco
The goal seems to be to push them to medium business class.

Most user will either A - use less data, or B - jump to business class. Rarely will a user cancel after a warning.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to DataRiker
said by DataRiker:

Crookshanks, I have clients getting close to 1+ TB usage monthly for years now on SOHO cable accounts.

As I stated earlier, on my old COX Soho account I hit well north of 1 TB regularly.

I can't even begin to describe how pathetic this is.

Verizon doesn't cap to 1TB. What's your point?