dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
46
share rss forum feed


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to pizz

Re: Cable companies need to wake up

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

EPS4

join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
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.


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

2 recommendations

reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

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.


NOCMan
MadMacHatter
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO
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.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

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?


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

1 recommendation

reply to EPS4
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.


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
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 Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Verona, PA
reply to EPS4
said by EPS4:

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.


ropeguru
Premium
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..


JamesPC

join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA
reply to NOCMan
Great point NOCMan. There should be no limitations on a unlimited service. And if they cant offer unlimited SOMEONE WILL!


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


JamesPC

join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA
reply to ropeguru
thats why you upload 24/7, but still takes awhile with 120kb/s


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.


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
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
MadMacHatter
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO
reply to ropeguru
I have FIOS 15mbit upstream. Not my fault other ISP's are crap.

SilverSurfer1

join:2007-08-19
reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

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.


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
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
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

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 FFH5:

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
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.


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