dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
12

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

funchords to SpaethCo

MVM

to SpaethCo

Re: Bandwidth Limits - All discussion here

said by SpaethCo:
said by stinger6:

In order to build their infrastructures these ISP's drank greedily from the well of "public tax dollars" then used their muscle to drive the small local ISP's out of the market.
What subsidies did the cable companies get to roll infrastructure to deliver cable TV? How about for the HFC plant? Sources?
I'm not sure this qualifies, but in my hometown, they were given access to the utility easements and an exclusive franchise, but it wasn't a total handout as they also gave free cable to some public buildings and created some public access channels. They've now stopped giving free cable to public buildings and stopped their support for public access channels, but they're still in the easements and they're still the only game in town.

I'm not saying that it was a mistake, it did get the system in and we've had quite a few upgrades. But it does cross significant private and public property.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS

MVM

WRT the easements, around here, they were already provided to electric and telephone. It isn't like Comcast is getting a free ride. PG&E owns the poles, and was given the primary easement access. I am reasonably certain that PG&E collects from AT&T (telephone) and Comcast for hanging their wires from the PG&E poles. The electric utility easement was there, anyway, and I still don't fully understand how access to that easement is a "subsidy".

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

funchords

MVM

Yeah, I'm not sure it is either.

I can't remember who my cable provider was in SoCal, but when the Orange County Tax authority started charging them property tax for the public land that they crossed, they just turned around and added it to our bills as a line item. And while they were trying to embarass the county Assessor, they reminded me that they are essentially getting a free ride across significant property for their "private" company.

But that's how we do things -- we like these public-private partnerships. But when we do them, it creates mutual interests, making the results neither completely public nor completely private.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS

MVM

Aerial utilities in this neighborhood mostly cross private property. A lot of neighborhoods built between 1955 and 1975, or so, have all overhead utilities mostly crossing private property. I believe this was a government requirement to reduce the "ugly" in utility poles alongside of streets.

Subsequent to 1975, or so, the governments required buried utilities, which puts them back in the public rights of way (under the streets). But buried utilities are costlier to install, and taxing the utilities on top of forcing them to use a more expensive installation method...I suspect that the utilities get a quid-pro-quo from the government agencies: "We'll bury the lines, if you don't tax us".

sturmvogel6
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

3 edits

sturmvogel6 to NormanS

Member

to NormanS
said by NormanS:

WRT the easements, around here, they were already provided to electric and telephone. It isn't like Comcast is getting a free ride. PG&E owns the poles, and was given the primary easement access. I am reasonably certain that PG&E collects from AT&T (telephone) and Comcast for hanging their wires from the PG&E poles. The electric utility easement was there, anyway, and I still don't fully understand how access to that easement is a "subsidy".
None of the utilities behave the way Comcast does, in my opinion. For the utilities, you have a meter where you could see your usage and as long as you are paying your bill, the utility will not if you "use too much" start delivering 90V instead of 110V or 40 Hz instead of 60 Hz power. Neither will your natural gas contain 30% nitrogen or air or the water suddenly 50% air bubbles while you are charged the same fee.

The utilities behave reasonably because they must answer to the PUC and the government. They do get advantages and they behave reasonably toward their customers, including those that like to have 1000 lights and water their lawn 5 times a day when it rains.

I have never heard of a utility calling good paying customers and threatening them with disconnection, either. Nor would the city take a friendly look at any utility that would disconnect paying customers for a year because they "were using too much" of the utility's services.

Yes, I've been told that I have been "stretching" my comparisons by those that are quick to compare CC to an utility when it comes to the advantages but does not get any of the obligations that come with those advantages, in my opinion.

joetaxpayer
I'M Here Till Thursday
join:2001-09-07
Sudbury, MA
552.8 23.8

joetaxpayer

Member

said by sturmvogel6:

None of the utilities behave the way Comcast does, in my opinion.
Well, my local water company has tiered rates that start at $3/1000 gallons, but as you go over 60,000 gallons in a six months period, the cost rises to $16/1000 gallons.

And when it's hottest out, and grass needs watering the most, they have a water ban.

OTOH, you would think that 99% of users would be happy to see that the 1% who use more than the bottom 80% are getting slowed down. If your neighbor opened the main to refill his pool every morning just as you tried to shower......

sturmvogel6
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

1 edit

1 recommendation

sturmvogel6

Member

said by joetaxpayer:
said by sturmvogel6:

None of the utilities behave the way Comcast does, in my opinion.
Well, my local water company has tiered rates that start at $3/1000 gallons, but as you go over 60,000 gallons in a six months period, the cost rises to $16/1000 gallons.

And when it's hottest out, and grass needs watering the most, they have a water ban.

OTOH, you would think that 99% of users would be happy to see that the 1% who use more than the bottom 80% are getting slowed down. If your neighbor opened the main to refill his pool every morning just as you tried to shower......
And still they do not cut off people without telling them how much they could use, they do offer higher usage people a plan to pay for their consumption and the watering ban is usually justified by hot conditions outside that are OBSERVABLE by others, they do not just say "take our word for it, there is a water shortage". Neither are you expected to have weekly neighborhood meetings to discuss who could take how many showers at what time nor if Bill the neighbor is a bad person because he fills his pool twice a week. If he can afford it, it is his service.

Do you have a meter that you could read ? Of course.

While there are constraints,in my opinion none are in such a one sided manner as I have observed with the provider in question.
sturmvogel6

1 edit

sturmvogel6 to joetaxpayer

Member

to joetaxpayer
said by joetaxpayer:
said by sturmvogel6:

None of the utilities behave the way Comcast does, in my opinion.
Well, my local water company has tiered rates that start at $3/1000 gallons, but as you go over 60,000 gallons in a six months period, the cost rises to $16/1000 gallons.

And when it's hottest out, and grass needs watering the most, they have a water ban.

OTOH, you would think that 99% of users would be happy to see that the 1% who use more than the bottom 80% are getting slowed down. If your neighbor opened the main to refill his pool every morning just as you tried to shower......
The neighbor could not open the MAIN, just his own faucet(s). Opening the main would be akin to uncapping a modem.

The neighbor would use his own PROVISIONED 2-3 inch water line, as is a 8 Mbit modem.

So if he opened the faucet while you were showering, no detectable pressure loss should be seen by you, unless the water system was very poorly designed.

But is does sound like a familiar argument.

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

2 edits

funchords to joetaxpayer

MVM

to joetaxpayer
said by joetaxpayer:

OTOH, you would think that 99% of users would be happy to see that the 1% who use more than the bottom 80% are getting slowed down. If your neighbor opened the main to refill his pool every morning just as you tried to shower......
This situation works out just fine in the networking world...

In most cases, all users quickly reach the maximum their modem will allow -- whether their use be short bursts (fetching a web page, sending an IM, playing a game) or steady (uploading). If the network segment is at maximum when you try to surf to a new page, packets are going to be dropped. Probability is nearly certain that someone whose got a steady upload going is going to have a packet dropped, since his packets are always in the queue. If you're not already transmitting at maximum speed, your speed will increase, and the above process will repeat -- the faster modem slowing and the slower modem increasing speed -- until

1. you're both transmitting as fast as your modems will allow,
2. you're both transmitting equally fast but can't go faster because the segment is over capacity with other traffic not involving either of you, or
3. either one of you completes transmitting

This works, has worked, and will continue to work and doesn't need any new throttling scheme.

I used two users as an example, but generally it scales and repeats until equilibrium is reached.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS to sturmvogel6

MVM

to sturmvogel6
said by sturmvogel6:

None of the utilities behave the way Comcast does, in my opinion. For the utilities, you have a meter where you could see your usage and as long as you are paying your bill, the utility will not if you "use too much" start delivering 90V instead of 110V or 40 Hz instead of 60 Hz power. Neither will your natural gas contain 30% nitrogen or air or the water suddenly 50% air bubbles while you are charged the same fee.
No meter on the telephone line. Voice (POTS) can be "metered", if you choose the right plan; similar to some Internet providers, 10 calls for a flat monthly rate, then hellacious high "per-cal" rate added to the bill on the eleventh, and higher.

Telephone, itself, can be limited to outgoing 911 for non payment.

I've already alluded to an unlikely event; every customer on the water line opening all of their spigots at once.

PG&E has cut off customers, albeit, for non-payment of a bill.

WRT PG&E, or even water, it is pretty hard to "use too much" because you really can't use more than the infrastructure is designed to deliver. The utilities were designed that way.

WRT Internet service, there are "Last Mile" constraints. Both for cable, and DSL. With DSL, however, you really have to work hard to "use too much"; slower speeds move lower volumes of data.

Can Comcast deliver more than current "Last Mile" HFC technology? I believe that DOCSIS 3.0 is supposed to address some of that. But only one provider is really addressing the "Last Mile" capacity issue in a logical manner: Verizon. Their FiOS product is delivered over FTTH/FTTP. And the expense is limiting the rate of rollout. Cable is betting on DOCSIS 3.0, and AT&T is betting on FTTN.