how-to block ads
|
|  
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
 ·AT&T Midwest
 ·Comcast
| Re: Zero justification for it said by Dogfather  :And when the ISPs crying about capacity are forced to turn over their data, like Bell Canada, turns out they're lying out their ass. U.S. metered billing and caps has nothing to do about capacity and everything about protecting their PPV VOD revenues from competitors like Apple, Netflix, Microsoft, Amazon and others. Link? Source?
I haven't seen a single bit of data from ISPs showing their capacity at the node or national level and what they have available. Would be helpful to see that data since you apparently have seen it. | |
| | | | 
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| said by Nightfall :said by Dogfather :And when the ISPs crying about capacity are forced to turn over their data, like Bell Canada, turns out they're lying out their ass. U.S. metered billing and caps has nothing to do about capacity and everything about protecting their PPV VOD revenues from competitors like Apple, Netflix, Microsoft, Amazon and others. Link? Source? I haven't seen a single bit of data from ISPs showing their capacity at the node or national level and what they have available. Would be helpful to see that data since you apparently have seen it. What he is referring to is the congestion that Bell Canada claimed left them no other choice but to enable throttling.
When they posted the numbers, they were simply laughable. | |
| | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Zero justification for it said by Matt :said by Nightfall :said by Dogfather :And when the ISPs crying about capacity are forced to turn over their data, like Bell Canada, turns out they're lying out their ass. U.S. metered billing and caps has nothing to do about capacity and everything about protecting their PPV VOD revenues from competitors like Apple, Netflix, Microsoft, Amazon and others. Link? Source? I haven't seen a single bit of data from ISPs showing their capacity at the node or national level and what they have available. Would be helpful to see that data since you apparently have seen it. What he is referring to is the congestion that Bell Canada claimed left them no other choice but to enable throttling. When they posted the numbers, they were simply laughable. Thanks!
What I would like to see is a breakdown of all the major ISPs done by a 3rd party showing this kind of data. In the end though, the decision to cap is up to the provider. The consumer doesn't have a say in it.
EDIT:
The article you posted had to do with P2P Throttling. While the information is useful, what I would like to see is even a further breakdown from each node. Total amount of nodes saturated really doesn't help much. Ah well. | |
| | | | 
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Zero justification for it That data would be a closely guarded secret because like Bell Canada, their data won't support their doom and gloom assertions. | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Zero justification for it Short of a Mission: Impossible action, there will be no getting their data. It would take a job-losing leak of industry shattering proportions. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
1 edit | Re: Zero justification for it The very same is said here in the Twin Cities.. That statement about the top 3% using about the same, or more, than the rest of the 97% is echoed around in different systems..
If people actually saw these numbers in person, at the actual computer screen showing the data, people would flip and often not believe it.
Personally, I have no issue with caps, but would like to see them higher.. Comcast wants to do a 250gb cap, rather, I think 500gb is more reasonable, maybe a little higher. Further, passing the cap doesn't mean charges or cut off, personally, I'd rather see the connection slowed to that of a 1.5/256 line. If people want to run wide open connections for everyone else to take files from them.. fine. But when their line becomes almost unusable to the account user him/herself, maybe they'll think twice about opening up their connections to everyone and keep their bandwidth to themselves.
Further, as networks continue to be upgraded, the caps should also reflect reality. | |
| | | | | | | | | jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA
| Re: Zero justification for it Why slow down high users, when you can just make them pay more?
I'd be fine with a base price of $50 per month up to 200GB, then $0.25 GB at normal speed after that -OR- you get slowed down to the lowest priority during peak hours where congestion is an issue.
Make the hogs (like myself) pay and they'll either cut back, or at least they'll bear the burden of the added strain they induce on the last-mile. | |
| | | | | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Zero justification for it said by jaminus :Why slow down high users, when you can just make them pay more? In the DSL model I'd agree with you.. make them pay more. Still, I think it should be close to the Fair and Flexible model that Sprint once had with cell phone use. If you go over, they just upgrade you to the next plan for that month.
As for cable, it's a little different. The lines were built for residential use.. they weren't designed for heavy users. In fact, some cities/systems won't let residential homes sign up for business accounts just because of the implied heavy use in that area. The problem is that you have to cut the heavy users back to some degree, not necessarily allow an overage fee, because in a node model, and say you luck out and have a lot of heavy users in one area, they will slow the node down for everyone. You can split the node, but in some areas that's either a costly move OR not worth it if there is a high churn rate in the area.
In some nodes where there are higher rental homes/apts, you split the node and the people move to another node, that split was for nothing. And, in lack on contracts, you never know if the node split would be necessary for too long.
One thing that COULD work is a contract term on heavy users too. If a node split has to be done, at least those causing high use would be held to that contract, no ETF, and paid to term, for the trade of node splitting.
Yes, I realize that the last option is not user friendly, but neither is capital expense for a few people either.  Some operators are actually okay with seeing a few problematic customers become someone else's problem.
I still, also, say that we're in a turning point in the history of the internet where the service and the content are growing at a fast paced and a bit off balance.. I think all of this issue of heavy use will go away in the next 8 years. | |
| | | | | | | | 
Dryvlyne
Far Beyond Driven
Premium
join:2004-08-30
Newark, OH
| All the more reason for those top 3% users to be migrated to a business tier or risk being disconnected. There is no way in hell any ISP can justify usage-based billing to make it "fair" to everyone who uses the Internet. Quite the contrary, it would be quite UNfair for the vast majority of users to have to pay for the abuse of such a small minority. Furthermore, as you've noted, ISP's have the means to identify specific users that are placing such extreme demands on their network.
The idea that it would somehow be 'fair' for the ISPs to just throw everyone into a new pricing model because of the actions of a small minority is simply ridiculous! | |
| | | | | | | | | 
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
 ·Skype
| Re: Zero justification for it Indeed. If as the comcast network engineer showed, they know down to the node and account who is running flat-out, they should be dealing with those customers rather than using them as justification to impact everyone.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com | |
| | | | | | | | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| said by Nightfall :Here in the city of Grand Rapids, the top 3% of their customers use more bandwidth than the bottom 97% combined. So. That is a FUD claim unless you ALSO back it up with the amount the percentage of total available bandwidth that is actually being used. If the total usage is 95% of the available bandwidth the fact that those 3% are using more of the 95% than the other 97% of the users is not important. Only if the usage is 100% of capacity does the split possibly become an issue. | |
| | | | | | | | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| Re: Zero justification for it said by RARPSL :said by Nightfall :Here in the city of Grand Rapids, the top 3% of their customers use more bandwidth than the bottom 97% combined. So. That is a FUD claim unless you ALSO back it up with the amount the percentage of total available bandwidth that is actually being used. If the total usage is 95% of the available bandwidth the fact that those 3% are using more of the 95% than the other 97% of the users is not important. Only if the usage is 100% of capacity does the split possibly become an issue. I never made a claim that Comcast bandwidth in my area was an issue. So what FUD claim did I make?
Secondly, you don't wait until you are using 95% of the bandwidth in an area before you add more. A well managed network has plenty in reserve, like about 20%, in case something bad happens. They also have multiple points of entry. Thats besides the point though...
My main point in my post, in case you missed it, was that the total amount of bandwidth used per account and per node, and how much is available is there. The ISPs have been keeping track of this info for years. | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
Anon0
@army.mil
| Re: Zero justification for it said by Nightfall :My main point in my post, in case you missed it, was that the total amount of bandwidth used per account and per node, and how much is available is there. The ISPs have been keeping track of this info for years.
But that doesn't really matter. ISPs are making the claim that they have to enforce bandwidth caps on users or their system will be unable to handle the extra load due to demands for things like streaming video. Who cares how much the individual users are using? What matters is how much bandwidth there's still available for everyone. Even if 3% of users are using more bandwidth than everyone else, if there's still more than enough bandwidth for all users then ISPs cannot say their infrastructure will be overloaded. It's twisting the statistics to make them say what you want them to. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| Re: Zero justification for it said by KrK :That's going to change though. More and more "regular users" are going to be moving up the ranks when they start ACTUALLY using their connections for services appearing in infancy on the Net now. The problem is that ISP's have enjoyed and telecom providers have exploited for profit for years the people who buy high speed lines and then use very little. (Hell even I fall into this class.) So now they are scared not so much for network capacity but for profits as they realize that soon the gravy train will be ending and regular Joe Sixpack connections will be starting to use their connections for actual useful services and actually want to use more then 5% of the bandwidth they pay for.... I have to agree with you. The ISPs profits are going to sink even further when this day comes. Once again though, I am not arguing this point at all. Merely that the data these ISPs are keeping on their customers and the "congestion" on their network is well documented and kept track of. | |
| | | | | 
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: Zero justification for it said by en102 :Is there a reason WHY they are attempting to sell higher data rates than they can support ?Eg. If they can only support 6Mbps, why attempt to sell 20Mbps and put a cap on it ? Yes. It is called marketing. And it is used to appeal to the average customer who are morons in most cases. Marketing isn't about logic and never has been. It is all about convincing people that they need something they really don't need.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
| | | | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | Re: Zero justification for it You know I meant that with a shot of sarcasm.
Consumers are sheep.
Similarly, when it comes to elections and politics, voters are sheep as well, driven more by hype, nitpicking, smear campaigns and PR spin, than real details.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | | | jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA
| If I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly, then I think you have it wrong.
Consider your average broadband user's consumption habits. They download large files infrequently, and the main thing they do is load websites, download songs, and the like.
Why would the typical user want a relatively narrow pipe they could saturate, when most people simply aren't downloading constantly?
Overselling hasn't emerged because consumers are stupid. It has succeeded as a business model because it makes sense. Even as a relatively high bandwidth user, I prefer a fast 16mb with monthly usage caps to a slower, uncapped connection. I want to be able to download 7 Gigs in an hour, and I don't have a problem if my ISP oversells its nodes to a point.
Residential broadband providers don't ever claim you can use your connection all the time. BroadbandReports.com users may want an uncapped pipe, but it'd mean much higher prices, which is unacceptable to the typical broadband user. | |
| 
nightdesigns
Gone missing, back soon
Premium
join:2002-05-31
AZ
·Cox HSI
| It's a pure money grab by the ISP's.
I'm not even a P2P User, but running a Slingbox, Having Tivos that pull from amazon downloads, Watching You-Tube, Purchasing from I-Tunes, Music Streams and such, watching olympics online, Vonage, Off-Site File Backup, a VPN connection into my parent's business, and I'm just about to get the Netflix Roku box I'm probably going to be over my limit. Not including the Roku box, I was at 100GB downloaded last month.
--
This Space for Rent... | |
| EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| Considering the degree to which DOCSIS 1.1 networks are oversubscribed, I can believe that cable companies have some congestion issues, but those should be alleviated by DOCSIS 3 at least in part. However, the telcos involved (Bell Canada, at&t) are almost certainly just trying to make a few more bucks by jumping on the bandwagon, and ranting about inevitability in hopes that eventually enough people will believe them. | |
| | | | | | |
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Zero justification for it But since not all cable systems are seeing these localized upstream channel saturation they can pick and choose the "worst" case cable systems to upgrade. | |
| 
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| said by Dogfather :U.S. metered billing and caps has nothing to do about capacity and everything about protecting their PPV VOD revenues from competitors like Apple, Netflix, Microsoft, Amazon and others. If you say this enough times, maybe one time it will really be true.
On demand video isn't a saturated market; you can still acquire a vast many new customers without taking the existing customers of other companies. Microsoft isn't stealing VoD customers from Sony, because XBox owners will get video from Microsoft and PS3 owners will get video from Sony. The thing that is hampering most Internet video sources (besides scalability issues) is the fact that you need a special hardware device that locks you in to only content from a single upstream provider. I buy a Roku, I can view Netflix, but not iTunes. I buy AppleTV I can watch shows from iTunes, but not Netflix.
This is about bigger things than video competition. | |
| |
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
4 edits | Re: Zero justification for it said by espaeth :said by Dogfather :U.S. metered billing and caps has nothing to do about capacity and everything about protecting their PPV VOD revenues from competitors like Apple, Netflix, Microsoft, Amazon and others. If you say this enough times, maybe one time it will really be true. On demand video isn't a saturated market; you can still acquire a vast many new customers without taking the existing customers of other companies. Microsoft isn't stealing VoD customers from Sony, because XBox owners will get video from Microsoft and PS3 owners will get video from Sony. The thing that is hampering most Internet video sources (besides scalability issues) is the fact that you need a special hardware device that locks you in to only content from a single upstream provider. I buy a Roku, I can view Netflix, but not iTunes. I buy AppleTV I can watch shows from iTunes, but not Netflix. This is about bigger things than video competition. You obviously don't understand the impact from an MSO perspective. The MSOs don't give a crap if Microsoft is competing with Sony for VOD PPV customers. They DO care that Microsoft is competing with the MSOs.
People don't rent the same PPV VOD program twice and while Microsoft may not get PPV viewers from Sony and Sony may not get PPV viewers from Microsoft, both Sony and Microsoft get their PPV viewers from the MSOs.
The MSOs aren't going to stand by and wait for your "killer do all box" to be released to stop it. They're going to stop it now with caps and traffic shaping. There are already millions and millions of installed set top boxes like TiVo Series 2, XBOX 360 and PS3s (with most offering the same rental content) to make the MSOs concerned. IOW, I don't need a do all box to rent a particular movie title. Any of these providers will offer it. It's like saying that the MSOs would only be threatened by a box that plays VHS and Beta or DVD and Blu-Ray. No, so long as the title is universally available which most new releases are, every installed box competes with their PPV business.
As far as scalability, again you're wrong. Of all services, PPV VOD is one of the few that is infinitely scalable because every xfer funds itself.
--
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders...All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." -Hermann Goering 4/18/46 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
See 9 replies to this post | |
| | | | | | | rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT
| If you think VOIP revenues are anything like the Video revenues you are nuts.
Video is the bread and butter, VOIP and Internet are second fiddle. Their entire business model is based on video. Now you are talking about other people being able to sell slightly less overpriced PPV to their customers using their lines. You don't think that bothers them? Do you have any idea how much profit they make on PPV? The margin is like 80% to the MSO. PPV is a number one priority for every MSO because it's a huge percentage of their profit margin on the entire service.
3rd party providers eating into that revenue is a major scary for them. Just as Internet TV is scary. They don't want people to be able to download video quickly or conveniently from anyone but themselves because then people might only buy the internet and buy their TV direct. They have a business model that is built entirely on being the middleman in a transaction, internet video is creating the possibility of eliminating that role of middlemen and making them a commodity bandwidth provider.
Maybe that's not feasible right now but it will be down the road. The strategic solution for them is not to wait till it gets here then claim problems, but to get limits or systems in place that make internet TV impossible, inconvenient, or poor quality right now so the business can't develop. Caps on bandwidth virtually guarantees you will never be downloading your HD television broadcasts and likely not even SD content. | |
| | | |
|
