dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7054
share rss forum feed


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

1 recommendation

reply to KrK

Re: Cable companies need to wake up

said by KrK:

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,
Agreed.

said by KrK:

otherwise, why not just give the 250GB and then meter the rest above that for a realistic figure, say 10c a GB...
This point is moot as we both agree on your previous statement, but let's continue for the sake of examination.

Purchasing the additional bandwidth from their upstream providers is not the only issue.
- The impact of heavy users on the last-mile network exists. Using Praeto 80/20 metaphor to describe it -- it probably is true that they can serve 80% of their customers at 20% of the cost. Heavy bandwidth eaters probably are 20% of the users but are the primary driver for plant upgrades 80% of the time.
- They don't want to be perceived as "metered." FIOS isn't, and that's their competition. So they still want to keep the comparisons to metered Internet to a minimum.
- Comcast is a bandwidth aggregator, and bandwidth is not sold by their providers by "consumption" but by a committed-rate (they are charged whether or not usage reaches that high). They have to make such purchases with sufficient headroom to keep the nature of the traffic "bursty" (otherwise everything crawls) but low enough to avoid wasting money on bandwidth they cannot sell.

I hope that explains that part -- even though your main point is right on.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...


JamesPC

join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA
reply to ropeguru

thats why you upload 24/7, but still takes awhile with 120kb/s



KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to funchords

Yes, that makes a lot of sense.

Also, look at it this way--- it will "encourage" people to NOT switch their source of video entertainment (IE TV, Movies) from the Cable company to new third party options via IP and their broadband connection... due to the cost.

IE, a handy way to 1) Help control bandwidth expense 2) Generate some additional revenue from heavy users and 3) Put the brakes on the competition from video over the 'Net.

Looks like all wins to them, doesn't it.
--
"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!)



Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12
reply to espaeth

said by espaeth:

said by Jeffrey:

I really dislike when people say what should be enough for someone else.
Statistically speaking, 250GB would easily fit 99+% of the existing user base usage on the single node - out of thousands deployed across multiple companies - I happened to see the stats from in Minnesota. Yes I realize my sample size is statistically meaningless but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.
I fixed it for you.


tc1uscg

join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI
reply to pizz

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.
Then maybe, the FCC will say.. "Ok, go ahead.. but.. as long as your adding caps, if you sell service at 10mbps, that's what you HAVE to provide. Anything less, and you have to credit your customer(s)".. Naw.. just day dreaming. Martin doesn't have the balls.


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
reply to Matt3

said by Matt3:

said by espaeth:

said by Jeffrey:

I really dislike when people say what should be enough for someone else.
Statistically speaking, 250GB would easily fit 99+% of the existing user base usage on the single node - out of thousands deployed across multiple companies - I happened to see the stats from in Minnesota. Yes I realize my sample size is statistically meaningless but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.
I fixed it for you.
Yea, cause we all know that measurables like that in a discussion like this are meaningless. /sarcasm


davoice

join:2000-08-12
Saxapahaw, NC
reply to espaeth

said by espaeth:

said by EPS4:

The question is, why would a DSL provider cap when they don't have to?
Running circuits to remote terminals isn't free.
You're right. And the smart LECs used USF funds to get it done without costing them a penny. Just look at Bellsouth's (now AT&T) DSLAM and remote terminal ployments in Mississippi as an example.

}Davoice


NOCMan
MacChatter
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO
reply to ropeguru

I have FIOS 15mbit upstream. Not my fault other ISP's are crap.



NOCMan
MacChatter
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO
reply to funchords

This point is moot as we both agree on your previous statement, but let's continue for the sake of examination.

Purchasing the additional bandwidth from their upstream providers is not the only issue.

Actually bandwidth costs are pretty linear the first 50 dollars a customer pays for all the customer service maintenance taxes etc. After that were still talking less than 15 cents per gigabyte and comcast is a transit carrier as well. I have OC3's from both Comcast and Time Warner in use around the country.

That being said if they think they're going to charge 1.50 per gigabyte I will begin to organize an effort for government regulation of overage charges. I will not see a Enron of the internet rise to power.

At their prices it would cost hundreds of dollars for any decent online backup.

They would of been more resposible to put no hard caps but tiers above certain usage. Is 100 dollars a month so terrible for a user that might download a few thousand gigs of data legitimately?

What then for companies that provide you services. Comcast would be able to outprice them on virtue of they control the cost of data now. So a HD download from Apple could cost you 9 dollars on top of what Apple charged. How is that fair for Apple?

This is net neutrality at it's core. They were stopped from charging content providers and now they figured it out that they can charge you and get away with it.
--
Mac Chatter
»www.macchatter.net


hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to tc1uscg

The day Martin says that is the day Comcast sues him directly and not the FCC as a whole. He can't make them provide an actual speed due to they use "up to" and actually Cox has caps; nobody tried to tell them they had to provide the full speed they claim "up to".


SilverSurfer1

join:2007-08-19
reply to FFH

said by FFH:

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.
Well that settles it once and for all then. You, personally, have not used over 250 gigs so that stat, of course, applies to everyone else.

SilverSurfer1

join:2007-08-19
reply to tc1uscg

said by tc1uscg:

".. Naw.. just day dreaming. Martin doesn't have the balls.
Balls don't have shit to do with it what you are proposing. Someone didn't write the telco errand boy a check to ensure it. Big difference between money and balls.


Jeffrey
Connoisseur of leisurely things
Premium
join:2002-12-24
Long Island
kudos:3
Reviews:
·voip.ms
·Verizon FiOS
·Vonage
reply to espaeth

said by espaeth:

said by Jeffrey:

I really dislike when people say what should be enough for someone else.
Statistically speaking, 250GB would easily fit 99+% of the existing user base usage.
Someone else made this point at some other spot in this thread....if 99+% of the customers are below the 250GB cap - by a large margin - then why the need for this to begin with?
--
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.


Jeffrey
Connoisseur of leisurely things
Premium
join:2002-12-24
Long Island
kudos:3
Reviews:
·voip.ms
·Verizon FiOS
·Vonage
reply to NOCMan

said by NOCMan:

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.
Shit, I forgot about 3rd party online backup. Yep, that would set me over the 1TB limit as well.
--
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.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

See, it's working already!



espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
reply to Combat Chuck

said by Combat Chuck:

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 don't know if I agree with that. Carrier bandwidth is the cheapest bandwidth you can buy; it's generally a small number of massive circuits with large commits so Internet bandwidth itself is dirt cheap. The DS1/DS3/OC3 circuits to feed the remote terminals, on the other hand, require buildout of the telco ATM cloud which is definitely not cheap bandwidth.

The costs are in the last mile, always have been.


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
reply to Matt3

said by Matt3:

I fixed it for you.
Do you have stats to counter extrapolating that to represent broadband services as a whole?

The logic doesn't seem far off: assume an extremely conservative 125 users per downstream channel.

38mbps downstream DOCSIS channel * 1byte/8bits * 60sec/min * 60min/hr * 24hr/day * 30day/mon = 12312GB of total possible capacity on the downstream channel per month.

12318GB / 125 users = ~98.5GB per user on an equal division.

If it were common for many people to be downloading extremely large amounts of data then CMTS channels would always be congested and nobody would ever be able to hit these 250+GB monthly transfer numbers.


factchecker

@cox.net
reply to Combat Chuck

said by Combat Chuck:

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.
Chuck, you've got it backwards... Take it from someone who has worked/still works with enterprises that purchase transit bandwidth... Transit is the cheap bandwidth. Bandwidth for regional, long haul backbone and local access networks (last mile) are where the costs are for providers because they have to run fibre/coppper, install nodes/RTs, etc.

There is no transit and backbone level bandwidth shortage, it is entirely in the last mile.


factchecker

@cox.net
reply to Nightfall

said by Nightfall:

Yea, cause we all know that measurables like that in a discussion like this are meaningless. /sarcasm
No, the sample size is what makes it meaningless. You can't use a sample from one node to represent the whole user population of a network. Nodes vary not only in size, but also in the types of users that are passed - some neighborhoods may have more light users than others.


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP

1 recommendation

reply to Jeffrey

said by Jeffrey:

if 99+% of the customers are below the 250GB cap - by a large margin - then why the need for this to begin with?
I think the key issue was that the abuse department was making calls and telling people to consume less, but was unable to quote a figure.

Now there's a figure for them to relay.


Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Reviews:
·Suddenlink

1 recommendation

reply to SilverSurfer1

said by SilverSurfer1:

said by FFH:

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.
Well that settles it once and for all then. You, personally, have not used over 250 gigs so that stat, of course, applies to everyone else.
Nope, just 99.9% of Comcast's users.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?


Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Verona, PA
reply to factchecker

said by factchecker :

Chuck, you've got it backwards... Take it from someone who has worked/still works with enterprises that purchase transit bandwidth... Transit is the cheap bandwidth.
That's not what everyone was saying a couple years ago when the "invisible cap" originally hit.


S_engineer
Premium
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL

Yes but with the rollout of docsis3, you can reach these caps faster than ever...costing you the consumer more than ever!

How Comcraptic!



Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
reply to factchecker

said by factchecker :

said by Nightfall:

Yea, cause we all know that measurables like that in a discussion like this are meaningless. /sarcasm
No, the sample size is what makes it meaningless. You can't use a sample from one node to represent the whole user population of a network. Nodes vary not only in size, but also in the types of users that are passed - some neighborhoods may have more light users than others.
Helps if you read my post. It was city wide, not by a node or neighborhood.


OldGrayWolf

join:2007-10-06
reply to pizz

I've monitored my bandwidth usage. I fits in the 250GB per month bandwidth.

However, I can also look at my router logs. The router logs have entries for constant port scans and messenger SPAM from malware infected computers on THEIR network. This is NOT included in the bandwidth measurement I have taken because they just bounce off my router.

If they don't exclude these unsolicited attempts to connect to my computer/network, it will distort the statistics of my bandwidth usage.

This idea is not going to work very well.

I think that companies that have TV content provided through other channels (such as Comcast/TimeWarner/et.al.) are trying to limit the adoption of Internet TV and other video Internet sources that are already available in Europe in order to maintain their revenue.



Quaoar

join:2004-08-11
Fort Collins, CO
reply to pizz

Right DSL, only if you live within the 5k feet of the local switch that gives you anything above dial-up speeds. That might be 30% of Comcast subscribers.

Q



Quaoar

join:2004-08-11
Fort Collins, CO
reply to S_engineer

Docsis 3.0 is only viable for Comcast in DIRECT competition with FIOS or similar. Most of Comcast will never see Docsis 3.0 since Verizon overlaps Comcast in only very limited areas.

Q



Quaoar

join:2004-08-11
Fort Collins, CO
reply to JamesPC

Comcast dropped the "unlimited" at least two years ago, perhaps three.

Q


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to S_engineer

As it should cost you more. If you are using that much bandwidth on a regular basis then you need to be paying for it. Plain and simple and now they are spelling out for you.


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to Jeffrey

Then I guess you would need to pay the extra cost to back it up or find a better and more affordable solution.

I personally would recommend a good backup tape, raid 5 drives, or a mirrored drive setup.