baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
 ·Comcast
 ·magicjack.com
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
| To the whiners...
For everyone who complained and moaned about Comcast's 250 gig cap, its now looking pretty attractive with time warner and att's recent announcements.
caps will be a part of our internet future. maybe not he best idea, but one that companies must enfore becasue of bandwidth hogs.
they do have to provide us with something to monitor our caps though. i use tomatoe, which works pretty well. |
|
manfmmd
Premium
join:2003-01-14
Earth
clubs: | How
about re-investing their gains in their infrastructure bolstering their available bandwidth, expanding their territory, etc. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit |  And why should they lose money so video providers get rich ?
implementing caps and overage fees, not coincidentally just as their cable TV offerings are being threatened by alternative HD video And why shouldn't they protect their video income - so that the content providers grow rich while their business goes down the tubes. If the HD video content providers don't like it, let them sign contracts with the ISPs or build their own fiber networks to the home.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
CrazyT
join:2008-10-08
Irving, TX | How much do i use?
Is there a forum or can someone tell me how I can measure what my monthly GB usage is? my home ISP is AT&T |
|
swhitney2003
I can't drive 55.
Premium
join:2003-06-13
NH
clubs:
·Skype
·Verizon Wireless B..
·Comcast
| reply to baineschile
Re: To the whiners...
said by baineschile  :caps will be a part of our internet future. maybe not he best idea, but one that companies must enfore becasue of bandwidth hogs. Overage charges are also a revenue stream. Caps may not be needed necessarily, but implementing them will kills 2 birds with 1 stone. |
|
baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
·Comcast
·magicjack.com
·Verizon Wireless B..
| reply to manfmmd
Re: How
I thought it was priority of a company to make money while providing a service that people want
not give customers as much as they can possibly afford to, even though the service desired is only desired by the few that caused the cap in the first place... |
|
rawwhide
Zer0
Premium
join:2000-09-03
Zero
clubs:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to baineschile
Re: To the whiners...
said by baineschile :For everyone who complained and moaned about Comcast's 250 gig cap, its now looking pretty attractive with time warner and att's recent announcements. I never thought it would happen. You would think that in areas that do not have u-verse that At&t would implement some web page that links to all sorts of videos that can be watched online for free, to hurt Comcast. I guess I should have seen it coming since it competes directly with u-verse. If I get capped, I will go with the provider. with the highest caps. Anything under 32g cap is a joke. You can pull that down in a month with dial-up. 
--
TinFoilers UFO Union of America!!
TinFoilers UFO Union Local 101... |
|
swhitney2003
I can't drive 55.
Premium
join:2003-06-13
NH
clubs:
·Skype
·Verizon Wireless B..
·Comcast
| dialup could do it
Using email as a base is pretty bad. Only if the average joe could understand that. Dialup could handle all the email someone ever wanted to do... why couldn't broadband. Sad that some people buy into the super-large-number-effect. "WOW THATS A LOT OF EMAIL, ILL BE FINE!"
And high resolution pictures? What, 3MP? I would consider high resolution starting at 6MP (and not overly compressed).
ISPs should be more blunt - "if you download/upload a shit ton of content from P2P, backup storage, or streaming media, you could be at high risk for overage charges. Oh yea, the bandwidth limit is xxxGB. If you are absolutely confused, then you will not be affected."
Seems to me the majority of people who this concern would be the ones who knew better. I think people know when they download a lot... and if they don't then they are not all the tech savvy and probably only check email or surf the web. I say this as a generalization, it does not apply to all situations. |
|
AnonNutter
@kaballero.com
| The true cost of bandwidth
quote:
AT&T has limited Internet usage to about 90 minutes a day (7%) and is marking up anything over that by 1,000 to 2,000%. There is no economic or technical reason for this. The difference in cost between capped and unlimited service to a DSL carrier is a few dimes at most, possibly only pennies. AT&T's bandwidth cost has been going down for several years, and they have plenty of capacity to handle any likely load. Additional bandwidth costs a large carrier like AT&T between five and ten cents a gigabyte. Charging 10 times as much is information superhighway robbery.
This does not take into account the cost of maintaining the infrastructure, the cost of power, rent of facilities, payroll, etc... etc...
The big costs are not bandwidth charges, but selling bandwidth does have to cover the big costs.
 |
|
Nightshade
sic semper tyrannis
Premium
join:2002-05-26
Salem, OR
1 edit | The comparisons would be fine if...
all we did is send pictures, surf the web, and send emails to our friends once in a while.
Basically use the internet today as it was used ten plus years ago and the comparisons would be perfect.
Now the question is, do we know anyone who uses the internet today as it was used ten years ago?
I sure as heck don't know anyone. My elderly next door neighbor views streaming content on the fox news network website.
AT&T and all the other ISPs who use this tactic really need a reality check on what the internet is really all about in this day and age. The internet ten years ago is vastly different, content-wise and capability, than the internet we know today.
All they are doing is justifying their low caps by using the most basic and simplest forms of internet traffic and reality be damned.
--
Be careful who you vote for, you just might get it. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to baineschile
Re: How
said by baineschile :I thought it was priority of a company to make money while providing a service that people want yes customers WANT caps. They've been clamouring for them. Go ahead at&t in my area we also have Charter. I'm sure eventually Charter may have caps until that happens is at&t thinks having cap can posisbly compete with a service that has no cap for the same price they're crazy. Even if you think you'd never use 80 GB of cap space the fact with the other guy you don't even need to worry about it is more than enough for people to switch. How stupid is at&t? |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to AnonNutter
Re: The true cost of bandwidth
said by AnonNutter : quote:
AT&T has limited Internet usage to about 90 minutes a day (7%) and is marking up anything over that by 1,000 to 2,000%. There is no economic or technical reason for this. The difference in cost between capped and unlimited service to a DSL carrier is a few dimes at most, possibly only pennies. AT&T's bandwidth cost has been going down for several years, and they have plenty of capacity to handle any likely load. Additional bandwidth costs a large carrier like AT&T between five and ten cents a gigabyte. Charging 10 times as much is information superhighway robbery.
This does not take into account the cost of maintaining the infrastructure, the cost of power, rent of facilities, payroll, etc... etc... That's already taken into account with the prices they currently charge. NONE of that would go up if I decide to use an extra 100 GB of bandwidth. The ONLY cost increase for then is BANDWIDTH and that's been proven to be 10¢ per GB at most.
As I said if companies want to have REASONABLE caps and REASONABLE overages then fine. at&t caps are NOT reasonable. And there overage fees surely aren't. If at&t and the other said they would charge 15¢ per GB overage fees they could pay for that extra bandwidth and STILL make extra revenue and most people wouldn't bitch about 15¢ per GB. Also since at&t has rollover minutes for cell phone they need rollover bandwidth. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: And why should they lose money so video providers get rich ?
said by TKJunkMail :implementing caps and overage fees, not coincidentally just as their cable TV offerings are being threatened by alternative HD video And why shouldn't they protect their video income - so that the content providers grow rich while their business goes down the tubes. If the HD video content providers don't like it, let them sign contracts with the ISPs or build their own fiber networks to the home. The HD content providers are already paying for massive pipes to the internet and if they don't have a direct peering agreement with AT&T or Comcast or Time Warner, someone either pays for the peering or it's a mutually beneficial agreement.
I'll say it again, THEY ARE ALREADY GETTING PAID for the traffic. They are trying to double dip and also snuff out any competition to their video business. Hell, getting paid twice while eliminating your competition so you don't have to compete sounds pretty damn good to me.
Luckily, the incoming administration is going to put a stop to all this "by the business and for the business" foolishness and return the country to what it should be, "by the people and for the people."
As for building their own pipes, what a crock. When someone does try to, what happens? They are sued into oblivion. I cannot begin to imagine the brass set it takes for a business to sue a municipality for providing a public works project. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to Nightshade
Re: The comparisons would be fine if...
said by Nightshade :all we did is send pictures, surf the web, and send emails to our friends once in a while. No shit they think it's 1998 not 2008. or something. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | reply to AnonNutter
Re: The true cost of bandwidth
Pretty sure those costs DO include infrastructure, power, etc. AT&T has zero bandwidth costs from a pure per-gig perspective. It's all infrastructure... |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to baineschile
Re: How
said by baineschile :I thought it was priority of a company to make money while providing a service that people want not give customers as much as they can possibly afford to, even though the service desired is only desired by the few that caused the cap in the first place... "The few that caused the cap?"
So, what Bittorrent warez kiddie do you know that went over 40GB and broke Time Warner's back? 250GB I can understand ... that's a reasonable number, but AT&T and Time Warner's caps are a money grab. Their caps are not because of bandwidth hogs, it's to stifle competing video services, finance upgrades in competitive areas (read TW vs FiOS competition or where AT&T has to compete with Comcast), and protect their lucrative VoD stream. |
|
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| I agree totally
I agree that the criteria they use to justify how great caps are is down right insulting. To say that it enhances a users experience is insulting as well.
This will reduce costs for the ISP but it will also reduce revenue. The first instinct a person will do is use the internet less because they are afraid they will go over the cap and be charged more. This could mean less revenue from advertisements and other things. On the other hand the ISP's hopes and wants you to go over that cap.
This is why the ISP's are giving the false picture of how many websites you can see and emails you can send. With the caps they don't want to make it look like your getting less, that's why they are putting out these big numbers. Any computer illiterate person would think that what the ISP is offering is a great deal.
--
Got Change? Better hide it before Obama taxes it! |
|
Hazy Arc
join:2006-04-10
Greenwood, SC | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: And why should they lose money so video providers get rich ?
This is akin to being charged for having a friend send a bottle of wine over to your table while at an expensive French restaurant...your friend is paying to send you the wine and you're paying to receive it. |
|
sapo
I eat meat
Premium
join:2002-09-16
Sacramento, CA | reply to manfmmd
Re: How
When you can make more with the same, the reasoning is obvious. |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| reply to Matt
Its all a money grab, however it's also a precedent setting measurement. Once these caps are fully implemented and accepted, then there will be a further lowering of caps to coincide with more bandwidth usage. The ISPs will blame the usual suspects...pirates and p2p users as the problem. Buttressing that position by the ISP will be the MPAA/RIAA complaining about lost revenues to our congress and other morons that don't see the bigger picture.
The developers of ARPA net must be ecstatic with this result!
--
"For duty and humanity!"
- Moe Larry and Curly (MEN IN BLACK, 1934)...These are the guys we have in Congress |
|
