 pizzFiber pleasePremium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY | Cable companies need to wake up By going to a tiered bandwidth plan, you're just going to make it that much easier to switch to DSL. They only people you will have left are the one's who cannot get DSL. |
|
|
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
1 edit | said by pizz:By going to a tiered bandwidth plan, you're just going to make it that much easier to switch to DSL. They only people you will have left are the one's who cannot get DSL. And what makes you think that DSL providers won't follow suit? Once a big ISP like Comcast and TW do this, the rest will follow.
And that 250GB should be plenty. The biggest month I ever had was about 12 GB up & down combined and that was watching a few TV shows online I missed on TV and downloading one of those infamous linux distros.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Vitelity VOIP
| reply to pizz
said by pizz:The only people you will have left are the one's who cannot get DSL. ... or the overwhelming majority of folks who never consume > 250GB/month. |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | If the telcos spin this the right way, then they could manage to scare a bunch of users who would never ever hit their caps anyway to think they could get booted for downloading.
Of course, that assumes the telcos don't want to cap. However, I'd be somewhat surprised, because the networks are so different. DSL and B/GPON are shared mediums like any DOCSIS system, but the methods through which they are shared leaves the telcos with much greater capacity for the speeds they deliver.
If, out of some sheer hatred for the consumer or something, they decide to cap, then obviously they won't be promoting their superiority over the cablecos for not capping, and people won't switch because the remaining uncapped options are less desirable for various reasons. |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | reply to Linklist
The question is, why would a DSL provider cap when they don't have to? While I understand that DSL is also shared, it doesn't seem to have the same level limitations as DOCSIS 1.1 (which most of Comcast uses IIRC) that lead Comcast to think of capping. |
|
 JeffreyConnoisseur of leisurely thingsPremium
join:2002-12-24
Long Island
kudos:3
 ·Verizon FiOS
·Vonage
| reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:said by pizz:By going to a tiered bandwidth plan, you're just going to make it that much easier to switch to DSL. They only people you will have left are the one's who cannot get DSL. And that 250GB should be plenty. The biggest month I ever had was about 12 GB up & down combined and that was watching a few TV shows online I missed on TV and downloading one of those infamous linux distros. I really dislike when people say what should be enough for someone else. That's great that you only use 12GB. Perhaps it's just you in your house, and a significant other. Then again, you have other people, homes with parents, 4 teenagers, Netflix movie downloads, etc.
--
And so castles made of sand, slip into the sea, eventually.
I'm the Dude. So that's what you call me. You know, that or, uh, His Dudeness, or uh, Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing. |
|
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:said by pizz:The only people you will have left are the one's who cannot get DSL. ... or the overwhelming majority of folks who never consume > 250GB/month. When they don't have enough people paying the extra fee, they will lower the standards to get the next 0.1%.
Just another marketing ploy for the competition.  |
|
 NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | reply to Jeffrey
I agree. Music downloads, web surfing, online radio, video games, Movie rentals from Itunes range from 600M to over 6G.
Backing up all my digital media online would put me over a terabit. So you're telling me it would take me several months to download all of it. That limit would severely limit innovation on the internet. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Frontier Communi..
| reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:And what makes you think that DSL providers won't follow suit? Because the telcos are hemorrhaging customers left and right to cable's triple play offerings and need something to use as a competitive advantage, even if said advantage won't matter to 99% of their customers?
Realistically speaking how many broadband customers even cared about getting faster speeds? Isn't everything above a certain point (1.5 or even 3.0Mbps) just gravy to the vast majority of broadband users? That still hasn't stopped them from engaging in speed wars in areas with real competition. Why will this be any different? |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
| reply to EPS
said by EPS:The question is, why would a DSL provider cap when they don't have to? Running circuits to remote terminals isn't free. |
|
radam
join:2004-02-13
Fairfax Station, VA | reply to pizz
Sounds like Comcast coverage areas need Verizon competition. This competition has forced Cox to be more customer focused in Fairfax VA. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
| reply to Jeffrey
said by Jeffrey:I really dislike when people say what should be enough for someone else. They had to quit using the phrase "One Size Fits All" because of statements like this.
A former coworker of mine now works for Charter Communications here in MN -- for grins I asked him about the node data they collect from the CMTS head-end. He showed me a sample report and I was surprised that I had to skip through a few pages before I found the first line that showed > 2GB of usage.
Statistically speaking, 250GB would easily fit 99+% of the existing user base usage. |
|
 Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Verona, PA | reply to EPS
said by EPS:The question is, why would a DSL provider cap when they don't have to? While I understand that DSL is also shared, it doesn't seem to have the same level limitations as DOCSIS 1.1 (which most of Comcast uses IIRC) that lead Comcast to think of capping. Because capping has nothing to do with the line between the customer and the ISP; but the line between the ISP and other ISP's, which is an issue for every ISP regardless of how they deliver service to the customer.
--
I never though that we would end up here;
When fascism comes as an angel of light;
Its license parading as tyranny drives forth its son. |
|
 ropeguruPremium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA | reply to NOCMan
said by NOCMan:... Backing up all my digital media online would put me over a terabit. So you're telling me it would take me several months to download all of it. That limit would severely limit innovation on the internet. Sad part is that with all the wimpy upload speeds, you would be through a month and still wouldn't have a complete backup.. |
|
| reply to NOCMan
Great point NOCMan. There should be no limitations on a unlimited service. And if they cant offer unlimited SOMEONE WILL! |
|
 NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Comcast
·Callcentric
 ·Site5.com
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:said by Jeffrey:I really dislike when people say what should be enough for someone else. They had to quit using the phrase "One Size Fits All" because of statements like this. A former coworker of mine now works for Charter Communications here in MN -- for grins I asked him about the node data they collect from the CMTS head-end. He showed me a sample report and I was surprised that I had to skip through a few pages before I found the first line that showed > 2GB of usage. Statistically speaking, 250GB would easily fit 99+% of the existing user base usage. I have to agree here.
I have a friend of mine who works for Comcast here local to me. One day, I was over at the office to see him and I asked him about usage. This was about 8 months ago. He pulled up the data usage of all the homes in our area and we counted a grand total of 50 people over 100gb. I cannot remember how many were over 250gb, but I remember seeing 767gb as the top account and the next one down was 521gb. I think it probably was about 5 accounts. |
|
| reply to radam
The Cable Co's need telco competition everywhere. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to pizz
250GB seems fair.... but the $15.00 for 10 GB is steep. $1.50 a GB is way too high.... It's obviously designed as a penalty to try and get people to cut usage, otherwise, why not just give the 250GB and then meter the rest above that for a realistic figure, say 10c a GB...
The reason is most likely to do with the infrastructure configuration. They think the nodes could become overloaded at the neighborhood level. So they will use the steep pricing to encourage people to stay down on usage.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
 TopmounterSent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Evergreen, CO | reply to pizz
It's about time they started considering a sane pricing model. One of two things will happen:
1) Their low-margin customers will pay a premium for overages
or
2) Their low-margin customers will go be low-margin DSL customers
Just freaking tell me exactly what I get for how much. The same flat-rate "UNLIMITED" data transfer pricing model is not sustainable for both casual and hard-core users. |
|
| reply to pizz
Only the top 0.1% ...comcast can afford that if anything will be a benefit to get rid of them |
|
