how-to block ads
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
4 edits | Re: Great, More Ammo For The Cap Arguments said by pabster:Well reports like this will be sucked up and fed to us by the cro...er, large ISPs as "proof" that they must implement bandwidth caps and throttling et al. The big problem that I have is that we are already metered. We already pay money for access to the internet. As other posters have pointed out, we are billed based on speed. Speed * Time in a Month = Max number of bytes exchangeable. That's what we need for the internet to work as it should and be what it CAN potentially be.
ISPs originally signed us up for broadband service based on speed. They had no byte caps. Now that the subscriber base is potentially outstripping their capacity ( This is what THEY say), they want to cap us. They want to change the game after the game has started and we're an hours into it. They know we're hooked!
The alternative is obvious: Build out the capacity to provide the service levels that were promised.
As far as the argument that "At least on a metered basis, the abusers will pay."
As noted above, they ALREADY pay.
Besides, the issue isn't that they aren't paying. The issue is they impact the service level of the rest of the network. This is the fault of the PROVIDER, not the subscriber!! The subscriber isn't doing anything afoul of the service agreement; at least they likely weren't until recently. It is only recently, at least for my ISP, that caps have been discussed.
So let's say that the "abusers" get charged more. Will service in the impacted area be improved? Unlikely... Companies chase new customers, they don't do much to keep current customers unless it is painfully obvious that a bunch of them are about to be lost.
Metered service is the path to doom. To the ISPs: Don't sell what you can't deliver. Build capacity and raise the rates to cover it, but metering will take away the internet.
A metered web connection means that you will have to pay for:
1. Watching ads. No, not in the round-about way where by watching ads you are more likely to buy a product and thus you are kind of paying for ads. I mean paying extra to see ads that are part of a web page or ads that you can't block.
2. Downloading security updates. Do you really want to download that latest 100MB+ Windows Service Pack or
Apple Update knowing that it will cost you extra to do so?
3. Updating anti-virus. Should give you second thoughts about having that money ticker in the system tray eating away at your bank account each time it updates its virus definitions.
4. Spam. Sure, the guy sending spam has to pay for it as well, but he also makes money off it.
5. Phoning home software. Whether it's a DRM scheme or an operating system, using it will cost money.
6. Spyware, adware, malware and viruses. Software that downloads itself, replicate itselfs and spreads to other computers eats up bandwidth and will end up costing you money. The question is, what will cost you more, the viruses or the anti-virus updates?
7. Firesharing. The entertainment industry will likely accuse the ISP's of making money off their contents by paying by the bit while copyrighted content is shared over P2P, and they will want a cut. Prices soon goes up.
8. Rich media content. And this is the biggest problem, I think. People will hesitate to download podcasts or stream video and the internet will cease to evolve. No Netflix, no Hulu, no pesky competing DirecTV video on demand, no WoW, no Xbox Live Marketplace, No Sony online gaming, no VPNing into work or to help family, or whomever, no pesky competing VoIP, & no slingbox! As far as the VoIP goes, so what if you have free long distance, you have to pay by the byte.... The ISPs will be the maker of Kings!
Basically, if the ISPs get to go the "metered by the byte way" they will be given another excuse not to expand the physical net the way it should be while racking up major, major profits.... Then we'll not likely need all of that storage! ISPs are selling ACCESS to the internet, not water or electricity. This is NOT a finite resource. You add capacity, and people use that access as THEY see fit;. Dumb pipe. | |
|   DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
4 edits | Re: Great, More Ammo For The Cap Arguments And thus far no one has shown any major ISP to be running at their backbone connection's capacity. The the data services divisions of all of these companies are highly profitable and at least in the case of AT&T those profits are increasing rapidly. Hardware is getting cheaper on a performance basis, these connections are highly scalable and unit costs of bandwidth are coming down rapidly, especially when they're their own tier 1 provider.
Other than cable's current DOCSIS limitations and them not dedicating enough channels to HSI on the node level, which will be fixed with SDV, ditching analog and DOCSIS 3 for ramped up speed to end users, there is no capacity problem.
The capacity issue is a myth to justify capping in order to defend video revenues. The overage fees price that competition out of the market just as Comcast uses 30% bundling penalties to defend their video services. All of a sudden Netflix starts costing more money. Apple and Microsoft rentals cost more money. DirecTV VOD costs more money; more money than what the ISPs (eg Comcast, TWC, AT&T) charge for their video services. That's it.
It's no coincidence that AT&T starts talking caps just after they start their selling their own video services. | |
| | Reviews:
 ·CenturyLink
 ·Verizon Wireless..
 ·Mediacom
| Re: Great, More Ammo For The Cap Arguments said by Dogfather:It's no coincidence that AT&T starts talking caps just after they start their selling their own video services. Of course it is! 
It's also no coincidence that all the big players just happen to have some sort of video offering(s) which directly competes with various others across the 'net.
Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain... | |
| | andre2
join:2005-08-24
Brookline, MA | said by Dogfather:The capacity issue is a myth to justify capping in order to defend video revenues. Not only that, but since preventing large scale use of internet video is the real goal, increasing capacity is the last thing they would do with the money. Their actual intent is to simultaneously impose caps, and then come up with excuses why the promised upgrades in capacity aren't happening, and to keep this up as long as possible. Eventually the dam will break, either with government regulation, or with new competitors with no existing video revenues who will be willing to charge based on actual costs. | |
| | | | said by Dogfather:And thus far no one has shown any major ISP to be running at their backbone connection's capacity. I CHALLENGE A LARGE ISP NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR TO LEAK STATS ON --> ACTUAL -- BACKBONE USAGE (numbers, graph, anything). FINALLY SETTLE THE ARGUMENT OF HIGH OR LOW USAGE ON THE BACKBONE LEVEL!!!!!!! | |
| | | Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Great, More Ammo For The Cap Arguments And get fired for "leaking" info about corporate.
No thanks , some people would rather not be tried for corporate espionage and would like to keep their jobs.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
 spamdPremium
join:2001-04-22
Cherry Valley, IL | This sounds a lot like what big oil companies already do. Limit supply to make a profit.
I can hear it now. "Comcast rates go up, as available bandwidth tightens". Meaning Comcast will not upgrade their backbone to keep up with demand, it's too profitable to instead charge more for the already congested backbone.
--
When everything is coming your way, you are in the wrong lane. | |
|
| |
|
