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.

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....

said by wentlanc :

I don't completely disagree with you either. But the difference between a 4x throughput gain over copper, and the nearly infinite gain through fiber is vastly different. I would rather see cable operators spend a little more, like Verizon is doing, to ensure that the investment will actually last.

said by wentlanc :

I'm starting to believe that the cable operators may be looking to protect their investment into DOCSIS v3 with caps.

said by Dogfather :

I disagree on the investing part. These providers reinvest a good portion of their revenue. Comcast is going DOCSIS 3, SDV, moving away from analog. Verizon obviously is dropping over $20 billion on fiber. AT&T is moving to 40 gig and then 100 gig.

said by espaeth :

They're reaching the top end of their distribution technology. The 38mbps downstream DOCSIS channel is the EXACT SAME 38mbps channel capacity they had when they started rolling this stuff out in 1999. Sure, they've done a vast many node splits over the years to reduce subscriber density per channel, but that doesn't change the fact that when they rolled this out they had all kinds of headroom in contrast to 1.5mbps subscriber connections. DSLAMs as well could be fed off T1s to deliver 512k and 1.0mbps connections back at the early part of the decade. They are at the point now where they are coming to the end of the excess capacity in the plants that they can just dial up. Growth beyond this point is going to require real physical infrastructure upgrades which will require lots of real money.

said by RARPSL :

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.

said by Dogfather :

There is no evidence of congestion on these networks and when ISPs are forced to turn over data it turns out the exact opposite is true. Congestion isn't the motivation for the caps because there is no congestion.

said by Nightfall :

Here in the city of Grand Rapids, the top 3% of their customers use more bandwidth than the bottom 97% combined.

said by jaminus :

Why slow down high users, when you can just make them pay more?

said by Dogfather :

Internet VoIP control faces 2 hurdles. The first is very simple, the FCC is watching for this like a hawk.

said by Dogfather :

Second, cable is crushing indy VOIP with little effort and they're not doing that with video.

said by Dogfather :

As for your broadband price model, you're model requires that the per unit cost of bandwidth doesn't drop which it certainly does, keeping per user bandwidth costs the same as consumption increases.

said by Dogfather :

We've seen from Bell Canada's data, that even with the increase in traffic, there is no capacity crunch and providers like AT&T who in confidence reiterate that they have no capacity crunch expand from 10 gig to 40 gig and eventually to 100 gig while their data services margins increase (according to their annual report).

said by Dogfather :

It's certainly no coincidence that after a decade of providing unmetered service that only after rolling out their own video product (U-Verse) are they moving to caps.

said by Dogfather :

Short of a Mission: Impossible action, there will be no getting their data. It would take a job-losing leak of industry shattering proportions.

said by espaeth :

If they're so anxious about competition for revenue, then why aren't they going after Internet VoIP competition which strikes at one of their most lucrative services right now?

said by Dogfather :

That data would be a closely guarded secret because like Bell Canada, their data won't support their doom and gloom assertions.

said by Matt :

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.

said by espaeth :

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.

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.

said by EPS :

I can believe that cable companies have some congestion issues, but those should be alleviated by DOCSIS 3 at least in part.

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 ?

said by Nightfall :

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.

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.