devnuller
join:2006-06-10
Hollis, NH
| reply to NOCMan
Re: Good.
said by NOCMan  :So you're willing to pay a 800% markup on the actual cost of bandwidth delivery? They're paying 2-5 cents per gigabyte of traffic and in some cases with peering agreements even less than that. NOCMan, (what an inappropriate name)
You have NO IDEA what you are talking about! Your statements are baseless and uneducated.
Please quote your economic data which shows not only your example around the small cost of a 6 meter fiber interconnect with another carrier (transit/peering), but also the 100's of thousands of miles of fiber, 10's of thousands of routers, transport equipment, CMTSs, frequency allocation, etc, etc, that is needed to upgrade capacity in a massive scale.
Networks are not financially based on per gigabyte used. They are built for peak usage. Please stop quoting the same uneducated errors over and over again. |
|
elijah6
Premium
join:2002-02-14
Lake Wales, FL | I'll give up the net
If verizon decided to do it, I'd drop my net connection in a fucking minute. I don't "need" to have the internet. I refuse to pay these fuckers to nickel and dime me to death. |
|
insider
@ptsi.net
| reply to KrK
Re: Stated Caps are already rediculous.
I can add some facts to this debate. What is happening is the result of exponential growth in backbone demand. I spite of what people seem to think, this costs a lot of money. And not just in port charges, but the cost to transport that port capacity to the end users. Yes I can buy a DS-3 port now for about $3,500. But it costs 4 times that much to get it to my hub so I can make it available to my end users. The last DS-3 we added lasted about 5 months before it became saturated. Not because of more end users but because of increased byte consumption. Roughly 10-20% of users consume 80% of that capacity. Is it fair to the 80% to make them subsidize the 20%? Do I think usage based charges are a good thing? NO. But something has to give. And in spite of what some of you have said, I'm afraid that once one or two large companies go down this path, the floodgate will open and we will all be dragged in that direction. |
|
ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
| reply to RARPSL
Re: Good.
Precisely the point. Dialup companies could rape the customer at will because there was true competition. A dialup provider simply needed to provide access numbers to essentially allow your computer the ability to call another computer, creating the "network connection". Dialup ISPs had no hardware installed at the premise, so to speak. All a user had to have was a phone line...which at the time was a monopoly owned by the Bells (and don't get me started on how they raped customers on charges...local toll, pshh)
Now, cable companies hold the monopoly on certain areas of cities. Where I am, I can't choose to go with Cox or Time Warner; it depends on where I live at the time. Rancho Bernardo (most of it) is wired for Time Warner. Escondido (most of it) is wired for Cox. In other words, it depends on where I live, when. Last I heard, Cox was going to absorb the remaining Time Warner areas; I certainly hope not, as I was rather pleased with Time Warner's internet offering.
Basically, if cable cos choose to go with this model, there's nothing you can do except defect to DSL - which is inferior in some areas, especially mine. Not only lower speeds, but the ambiguity of the "loop length to the CO" nonsense, it's a crap shoot whether you'll get service and if you do, whether it'll be decent or not.
No...for consumers like me, if they implement it, we'll have to pay it. There's no other choice. |
|
gefflong
join:2003-02-18
Aledo, IL
| reply to plat2on1
said by plat2on1 :said by Frank :said by bent :I suppose you'd also like a bottomless tank of gas for your SUV for one flat price every month? gasoline is an exhaustible resource just like electricity. internet and media is not. you dont see the cable company billing you based upon how many hours your cablebox was turned on do you? does internet run on magical fairy dust? These might be the two stupidest quotes I've seen in a while. Gasoline usage and Internet usage are not even comparable. And "magical fairy dust"... you should probably buy a vowel and then see if you can solve the puzzle.
A similar move would be to have cable companies charge by hour watched as Frank suggested. If you want to watch ER and Friday Night Lights, then it's going to cost you more. If you don't like it, then you'll have to choose one.
Seems pretty stupid, doesn't it!?!
Unless companies and get away with it. Then they'll do it. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to KrK
said by KrK :Get "Bent"... Troll much? We need the future internet to be fast and have massive uncapped bandwidth so that next generation services and goods can be delivered and our economy prosper. People like you would take us back to the stone ages for their own personal gain.... id love a media rich internet too, but even if the US ISPs provide a cheap open pipe the best features will be lawyered away by the MPAA. Networked DVRs for example could have huge potential in a properly wired world, it would be cool to set a recording at home and then decide to watch it at a hotel on a trip by logging into comcast.net(as an example) and be able to watch a show because its saved on their system rather then the cable box.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA
 ·Comcast
 ·SONIC.NET
| reply to insider
Re: Stated Caps are already rediculous.
I'll repeat what many others have said, including myself: to me usage based charging can only be considered with respect to how much those charges are. If the charges are high, then, it is bad, and if the charges are low, then it is OK, probably even good. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to KrK
the thing is the companies are to blame for the decline of available bandwidth. they touted all this watching streaming video and downloading music. but deep back in corporate they didnt ever think people would jump on it per ususal.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | reply to NOCMan
Re: Good.
Not with Uverse. With Uverse, when you order it, they just plug in a VDSL modem into your line at the neighborhood cross connect box. Your voice service is still comes from either a legacy RT/Pair Gain/DLC or the central office. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to devnuller
Verizon IS PAID when they "get bandwidth", they own UUNET. So they have free bandwidth to the world. They are the highest peered network in the world, and all of it will be free peering or profit peer (someone pays them to get a connection to them, they dont need to pay anyone else). Also having 26 million IPs (on that ASN alone) makes them the 4th largest network of potential customers online (I'm disregarding Bourgeoisie corporations that got /8 blocks pre-IANA and non USA providers). Note ASN numbers are loose indicators of size, a company may 1000s-1,000,000s of unused IPs inside that ASN that dont ever see any use, and a company may have multiple ASNs which I am not looking at.
»fixedorbit.com/stats.htm |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | reply to voyager6868
Re: How to become a millionaire in one month
And then Joe Six pack and Susie housekeeper will appear crying on the local exploitive evening news show, and the next day the local DA will step in to capture PR for his future election campaign. |
|
mattbrown
join:2008-04-05
Fork, MD | Not cool
as soon as this happens and believe me it will.. Cable will be done and DSL will take over. |
|
uberRegenbogen
@bellsouth.net
| Heads they win; tails we lose.
$1.25-5 per month? Does that mean that someone using only a few gigs per month would only pay $5-15? Surely, if 40-60GB per month is ok on a $40-60 service, then they should be able to do quite well simply charging a couple of dollars per gig, no matter how much—or how little—is used. But, golly, this doesn't seem to be part of their plan.
The flat-rate model works, because an awful lot of people grossly under-use their pipe—resulting in a handsome profit margin for the ISP. They don't want to give that up. They want the benefit when the curve swings the other way; but they're not willing to reciprocate.
Heads they win; tails we lose. |
|
bent
and Inga
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
clubs:
·Comcast Formerly ..
1 edit | reply to bent
Re: Good.
For the "Won't someone please think of the linux distros?" crowd, get freakin real. How many internet users even know what linux is, much less d/l a distro?
If you want to use your internet connection to completely replace your TV and phone and provide all the other bandwidth intensive services, don't expect to do it for $45/mo. Hell, you can't even buy Standard Cable for that much any more.
I'd gladly pay $30/mo for 30GB/mo, and a $ or two a gig above that. The majority of the people that scream about this are the p2p junkies who bring their ziploc bags to the buffet, and saturate their connections 24/7 so that some chump on the other side of the country can watch the latest episode of American Idol. Sorry, your crys are falling on deaf ears.
--
»www.lp.org/issues/family-budget.shtml
"That government is best which governs least" - Thoreau |
|
fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA
| said by bent :blah blah blah blahSorry, your crys are falling on deaf ears. I imagine that to simply mask your lack of understanding of much of the modern world, you have "deaf ears" to everything around you. The world has moved on, it isn't 1996 anymore. Ever heard of things like Amazon Unbox? Vuze? Rhapsody? iTunes? These things take bandwidth and are legal and licensed. There is only going to be more like them. If you can't handle progress, maybe Ted Kaczynski will rent you his cabin. |
|
Insider
@ptsi.net
| caps versus network management
This is all about cost of providing service. The last two quarters have brought an explosion of content consumption. Someone is going to have to pay for it. The FCC has tipped their hand on this issue, very little network management control will be tolerated. That leaves self policing (pay for what you consume) as the only other alternative. Actually, a DS-3 today is about $3,500, but that is close enough. Unfortunately it costs us another 3 times that amount to get it to our hub so we can make it available to our end users. We keep adding DS-3s because our backbone gets saturated, not because of new customers but because of increased consumption of the available capacity. Studies by some companies have shown that up to 80% of capacity is consumed by 20% of customers, so called power users. Should they pay more via caps or should we raise the rates for everyone? |
|
bent
and Inga
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
clubs:
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to fuziwuzi
Re: Good.
So what you want is 2008 bandwidth consumption on a 1998-era network, you want all you can use, AND you want to pay $45/mo for it, and then you scream bloody murder if somebody injects a RST into some of your 256 concurrent TCP connections?
Even using bandwidth intensive music and video services won't put most households above the 100 gig mark every month. Know what does that? P2P file stealing.
Have your cake and eat it much?
--
»www.lp.org/issues/family-budget.shtml
"That government is best which governs least" - Thoreau |
|
