brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Miami, FL | If you can't live with it depart with it
If you complain so much about the service jump ship! |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| Typical
So they jump through all these labyrinthine hoops and spend all kinds of $$$$ to thwart users from using what the cable co. considers excessive bandwidth, but by the same token, they refuse to invest in infrastructure to support the existing consumer base? Sounds like the Canucks have been taking notes from the American telcos/cable cos. If they're not careful, they may just end up in the broadband penetration toilet where the U.S. currently resides. Meanwhile the poorest 'hood in 3rd world cesspools has FIOS. 
--
The Toll
|
|
twizlar
I dont think so.
Premium
join:2003-12-24
Brantford, ON
1 edit | reply to brianiscool
Re: If you can't live with it depart with it
Thats all well and good, however Rogers and Shaw have a Monopoly of their coverage areas. Lots of places which aren't able to be served by ADSL technology or extremely poor ADSL coverage.
Whats funny is all of the smaller ISPs do no such throttling. You would think these huge corporations would have pleanty of money for upgrades and bandwidth.
--
AMD Athlon64 4000+ @ 2723mhz - mountaincable.net wireless Intarweb |
Ipods SUCK |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA | reply to brianiscool
Some people live to complain... even after leaving!  |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit | You can't build networks to satisfy the hogs, ...
...you build them for the average user and you throttle the hogs or boot them off. No matter how fast you make your network or how much bandwidth you provide, the abusers will always find a way to eat up all available bandwidth. Unless, of course, you move to the pay-by-byte model. Then everyone, except the non-rich hogs, will be happy with speeds.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
Persona
Premium
join:2004-07-07
Gravenhurst, ON | reply to brianiscool
Re: If you can't live with it depart with it
The only real alternatives for high speed service, in a given area in Canada, are DSL through Bell - provided you live in a supported area and a single Cable provider...that's it. |
|
deadi
Premium
join:2001-08-26
Perry, OH | reply to brianiscool
Thats really a bold statement considering there is no real choice in most places.
--
We learn through the exchange of information, tell me more...... |
|
deadi
Premium
join:2001-08-26
Perry, OH | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: You can't build networks to satisfy the hogs, ...
Yes, you build to support all your users. My provider, and most others do not seem to have a problem with this. Mis-management?
--
We learn through the exchange of information, tell me more...... |
|
ke4pym
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC
·Verizon BroadbandA..
 ·Packet8
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to deadi
Re: If you can't live with it depart with it
said by deadi  :Thats really a bold statement considering there is no real choice in most places. There is -always- a choice. You can choose to have what you've got, or nothing at all. Nothing is always an option. But one most people won't take and the companies of the world know this. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| reply to deadi
Re: You can't build networks to satisfy the hogs, ...
said by deadi :Yes, you build to support all your users. My provider, and most others do not seem to have a problem with this. Mis-management? TCH is just pissed at the pummeling his ILEC stocks took when people stopped getting gouged by insane per-minute long distance rates. He wants it to return, only in the form of per-byte charges. 
--
Use the OS tool for the job. |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to TKJunkMail
Well, if the pay per byte model is so good, why don't any of the major ISP's do it? I remember back in the 80's, I used to pay about 5.00 an hour for compuserve access, but I could use as much bandwidth as I wanted.
The reason that pay per byte will never happen is twofold.
First: There is no 'minute' cost for using your connection. Unlike a phone call (switched network), where a phone call ties up a circuit for x amount of time, a packet based network doesn't use any 'resources' if it's not being used. So the concept of charging by 'time' is meaningless.
Now, charging per byte. Granted, the pipes are a finite resource. The limiting factor is how much data the equipment can handle, AT ANY INSTANT. Unlike oil, or other 'physical' resources, the limit on an internet connection is not 'how much' (i.e. if you're not using 100% of your bandwidth, it's lost) but how much per user. If I travel 100 miles, my car uses about 3 gallons of gas. So, I'm out about $7.50. However, if I download 100GB, my 'pipe' didn't consume any 'resources', but I DID use a percentage of the total pipe.
To put it in numbers, if a particular node can handle 100mb/sec, in a perfect world, that node would move about 30TB of data every month. In a typical 500 user node, that means every person could download about 60GB per month. And, if every user DID download 60GB/month, the incremental cost to the ISP would be, umm, ZERO.
We don't live in a perfect world, so some users do 500GB/month, and others do 1GB/month. If the ISP's were to charge 'by the byte', then 500 people at 65.00/month, would mean that the ISP would charge you $1.00 per GB/month. Now, I have NO PROBLEM paying $5.00 for a 5GB/month plan, but the ISP would never do that.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| Of course there is no minute cost if its pay per byte or pay per bit, that would make it a "byte" or "bit" cost.
As much bandwidth as you wanted in the 80's was more than likely over dial up and not even close to as much bandwidth one may want over broadband. |
|
mrbueno
join:2002-08-03
US
| reply to twizlar
Re: If you can't live with it depart with it
I own smaller ISPs. I can assure you, many of us do this.
Users at some point have to realize that prices are low and margins are lower. Many of us don't want to play the transfer cap game, so throttling high demand users is a solution.
When business has bent over backwards for the last 12 years to drop the price of consumer bandwidth it has cost us in the realm of profit margins. Many broadband ISPs are taking a $200 to $400 loss on the front end hoping to see profit in 12 to 24 months.
DS-3's are not $19.95 per month. Sorry. Low prices are due to the high over-subscription rates we have been able to maintain as users went from occasional web surfing on dial-up to occasional video watching on broadband. Now the trends have changed to many people running dedicated servers (bittorrent or otherwise). This low price Internet ideal that people are holding on to is almost impossible to maintain when I go from a 20:1 subscription rate down to 5:1. Essentially the overhead in this case has increased nearly four times. Those aren't hard numbers, but you get the idea.
You are not paying for a dedicated and unlimited connection. If you are being told otherwise, then they should change their marketing.
We have a policy of letting people know exactly what is and is not allowed on our network. If they don't like that, they can go deal with someone who will lie to them. It won't be me. |
|
twizlar
I dont think so.
Premium
join:2003-12-24
Brantford, ON
| I should have said ALOT of the smaller ISPs HERE do not throttle. There is a big difference between capping certain users or having upfront caps to providing a service and blanket throttling protocols and services simply because your infrastructure or pricing model doesn't cover it. Don't be shady and say up front you have an alloted amount per month etc. There is no REAL reason to throttle for a company like rogers except that their infrastructure can't handle it. They ALREADY have KNOWN monthly caps so using the excuse that bandwidth is expensive isn't really a valid one when everyone is capped the same. They simply don't want to pay for needed upgrades on their crowded network. There are alot of differences between having an unlimited connection and being able to use your connection to its ability anytime you want. Why should I pay for 6mbit cable if I can only ever use half or so of that at any given time because their network is so poor. This has nothing to do with a need for unlimited/dedicated bandwidth. I should be able to get ~95% of my throughput whenever I need it for a download or service.
--
AMD Athlon64 4000+ @ 2723mhz - mountaincable.net wireless Intarweb |Ipods SUCK |
|
playboy2000
join:2005-05-30
Calgary, AB
·TELUS
| bit torrent is flawed
Bit torrent is an application that simply does not work well with today's internet infrastructure. The internet, is still ultimately a client-server environment, and the cost of trying to properly decentralize it would be huge.
I personally really like Comcast's burst speed idea, it provides quick bursts of upstream data when you need it, and keeps bit-torrent from destroying the network. Personally, I wouldn't mind if my ISP (Shaw cable) gave me 2mbit burst upload speed (up to 45 seconds), and reduced my sustained upload to 128k (down from 1mbit).
Remember, bit torrent is still largely pirated material, so pointing out the legitimate uses for the program is a moot point. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to deadi
Re: You can't build networks to satisfy the hogs, ...
said by deadi :... Mis-management? not mis-management, it's probably cheaper and easier to throttle than it is to increase capacity.
Why build capacity to serve new customers when you can throttle existing customers and squeeze the new ones into the same bandwidth? I'll answer my own question: NO COMPETITION. |
|
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to ke4pym
Re: If you can't live with it depart with it
said by ke4pym :said by deadi :Thats really a bold statement considering there is no real choice in most places. There is -always- a choice. You can choose to have what you've got, or nothing at all. Nothing is always an option. But one most people won't take and the companies of the world know this. Dude, you have reviews for two different ISP's and two different VOIP providers.
You don't even have the room to say "nothing at all" is a choice. There are people out there that have uses/obligations that can't be satisfied with "nothing at all" as an option. If this ISP is all that they have to work with, and they use their market stance to offer shoddy service, then people are at a disadvantage and don't really have any other option, do they?
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: |
|
jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS
| reply to Matt
Re: You can't build networks to satisfy the hogs, ...
Actually he is partially right here. They should expand their capacity, but they shouldn't do it for those who routinely download gigabytes of material a month and strain the system. I'm not talking about 50 or even 100gigs. I'm talking about those users who download 300-400gigs a month every month.
--
Bush bashing is old. How about more solutions instead? |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | reply to twizlar
Re: If you can't live with it depart with it
There's also a difference between throttling some to manage capacity, and throttling in order to avoid spending money on necessary upgrades in the face of video demand. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to jsouth
Re: You can't build networks to satisfy the hogs, ...
said by jsouth :Actually he is partially right here. They should expand their capacity, but they shouldn't do it for those who routinely download gigabytes of material a month and strain the system. I'm not talking about 50 or even 100gigs. I'm talking about those users who download 300-400gigs a month every month. I agree. However, usage of the percentage model is flawed. What if average usage was 500MB a month and you happened to download 3 GB a month because you receive and send lots of videos to your family? You are now the unprofitable customer - or the low percentile bandwidth hog - is it time for you to go?
While I definitely don't believe in the pay-per-byte method, I like to tease TCH. He is completely entitled to his opinions, as am I, but I am also entitled to tease him about them. 
--
Use the OS tool for the job. |
|
