K PattersonPremium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
kudos:1 | What is reasonable? 1 mb/sec x 3600 sec/hr x 720 hr/mo / 8 bits/byte = 324 Gigabytes/month, for $10.
To which you need to add the costs of the equipment, its maintenance, local loops, support, etc.
My guess is that a customer that uses 250 GB/month is not earning a profit for any cable company. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by K Patterson:1 mb/sec x 3600 sec/hr x 720 hr/mo / 8 bits/byte = 324 Gigabytes/month, for $10. To which you need to add the costs of the equipment, its maintenance, local loops, support, etc. My guess is that a customer that uses 250 GB/month is not earning a profit for any cable company. Please. Most of that crap was ALREADY paid for. Also remember the cable that carries the data from internt also carries your cable Tv signal. And much of the same equipment is used. So isn't part( if not most ) of the cost of all that stuff you mention covered in your cable bill anyways? Sure it is. trust me is Comcast wasn't making a profit with people using 250 GB they would have a lower cap. Also the fact is and you SHOULD agree that ther is ZERO justification for charging $1 or more per GB overage. If someone uses 350 GB a month I can assure you with 100% accuracy that is does NOT cost Comcast an extra $100 to provide that extra bandwidth. |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | reply to K Patterson
said by K Patterson:My guess is that a customer that uses 250 GB/month is not earning a profit for any cable company. probably not. that's why your grandmother's internet usage is probably 10MB a month, so cable/telco makes it up. averages. |
|
K PattersonPremium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
kudos:1 | Given that my grandmother would be 128 years old, her usage is probably less than that.
The issue, and it seems to me as much moral as anything else, is whether it is fair and equitable for the "excess" usage, defined as usage beyond the point at which the ISP starts to lose money, is OK or not. |
|
|
|
morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | that is the issue as defined by certain ISPs. control the issue... and you know the rest. it's to their advantage to do so.
the flip side is also valid: is it fair and equitable for ISPs to charge $20-$50 for high speed internet to low usage customers? my grandmother would be considered a low usage customer. basically, email. is that "fair" for ISPs to charge that much for such a low bandwidth user? |
|
 BoogeymanDrive it like you stole itPremium
join:2002-12-17
Panama City, FL
 ·Comcast
| reply to K Patterson
I would have to say that yes, it is ok. If 95% of users are using less, but being charged the same, they are making a large amount of money on them. Sure, some of you are going to say "I dont want my bill subsidizing the heavy users."
Tell me, do you ever eat out? Do you think it really costs the resteraunt $1 per glass of cola? Of course not, because usually the price includes free refills. They take a gamble and hope you drink less. So the person who only has one drink with his meal pays them a much higher profit than the person who has 3 refills. They make more money the less you consume and the faster they get you out of there so a new paying customer can come in. Do you that only have one drink and only take 30 min to eat bitch about the couple that have been sitting there having a 2hr conversation over thier meal while they consume 3 refills?
Its just the way things work. Do you think a gas station makes money on you when you just stop in and fill up? No, they make money when you buy stuff in the store that is marked up to make a profit. So I guess if I feel the need to buy a bottle of water when I fill up, I should bitch that I have to pay extra because of all the people who are only getting gas arent making the station as much money.
The problem is that they are charging the lite users much more than it costs them to provide service to them. And with overselling, when someone uses what they pay for, it degrades service for everyone else. Should I have to fall in line with grandma's usage just so the CEO can get another $1m bonus? Is the question you should be asking.
--
Im Your Boogeyman, Thats What I Am |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| reply to BF69
said by BF69:said by K Patterson:To which you need to add the costs of the equipment, its maintenance, local loops, support, etc. Please. Most of that crap was ALREADY paid for. So the HSI helpdesk support staff, email / portal admins, network engineers, CMTS engineers, and data-specific field techs are already paid for? By what?
said by BF69:If someone uses 350 GB a month I can assure you with 100% accuracy that is does NOT cost Comcast an extra $100 to provide that extra bandwidth. That's pure supply and demand of a limited resource. There's not enough bandwidth on a cable segment for every subscriber to use 250GB, yet alone 350GB.... and thus the financial demotivator to keep usage somewhere in the realm of a realistic amount they can supply. |
|
 dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18
1 edit | reply to morbo
said by morbo:that is the issue as defined by certain ISPs. control the issue... and you know the rest. it's to their advantage to do so. the flip side is also valid: is it fair and equitable for ISPs to charge $20-$50 for high speed internet to low usage customers? my grandmother would be considered a low usage customer. basically, email. is that "fair" for ISPs to charge that much for such a low bandwidth user? Is it easily acceptable that your low usage grandmother can just terminate that Mean Old broadband connection and go back to $9.99 dialup?
Is there someone forcing her to have that $20-$50 broadband connection?
Email, I can assure youm doesn't require broadband.
I use 30GB... should I be charged the same price as someone that uses 200-250GB?
I have actual use(occasionally) for a high speed connection.
This is why *I* have decided to keep the $52.95 connection.
If all I did was email, I could get away with NetZero's FREE service.
Want a copy?
»account.netzero.net/s/landing?gr···=3045580
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:said by BF69:said by K Patterson:To which you need to add the costs of the equipment, its maintenance, local loops, support, etc. Please. Most of that crap was ALREADY paid for. So the HSI helpdesk support staff, email / portal admins, network engineers, CMTS engineers, and data-specific field techs are already paid for? By what? I said MOST. And no it doesn't take $40 a month per customers to pay some guy in India to give me "customer service"
That's pure supply and demand of a limited resource. There's not enough bandwidth on a cable segment for every subscriber to use 250GB, yet alone 350GB.... and thus the financial demotivator to keep usage somewhere in the realm of a realistic amount they can supply.
If they don't have enough bandwidth then may I suggest they don't offer such high speeds. That would solve the problem completely. The the maximum amount of bandwidth they can supply is 250 GB, well that works out to about 800 Kbps running 24/7. Since they never know if their customers would use their service 24/7 they have to assume that's the case thus the highest speed Comcast should be offering with a 250 GB cap is 800 Kbps, not 16 Mbps. So if they don't have enough bandwidth it's their own fault. Of course if they only offered 800 Kbps they would lose customers left and right. So I would suggest breaking down and improving infrastructure. This isn't rocket science. See I just solved the whole issue right here. Solutions are simple if they CHOOSE to do them. I don't feel sorry for companies that CHOOSE to be retarded. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
1 edit | said by BF69:If they don't have enough bandwidth then may I suggest they don't offer such high speeds. That would solve the problem completely. The the maximum amount of bandwidth they can supply is 250 GB, well that works out to about 800 Kbps running 24/7. Since they never know if their customers would use their service 24/7 they have to assume that's the case thus the highest speed Comcast should be offering with a 250 GB cap is 800 Kbps, not 16 Mbps. Why would they have to assume the extreme minority case? The bandwidth rates work the way they do because the overwhelming majority of folks want bursts of high speed access.
said by BF69:Of course if they only offered 800 Kbps they would lose customers left and right. So I would suggest breaking down and improving infrastructure. Right, instead of having the folks driving the demand have higher bills, *EVERYONE* should have higher bills to support rapid infrastructure upgrades that most folks didn't want or need in the first place?
What's a better, workable solution?
Don't get me wrong, it's not like I'm in love with the idea of caps or other broadband usage restrictions... but at least the approach is honest and defines the service as it really exists. There's no such thing as unlimited bandwidth. |
|
| reply to K Patterson
yes that like 2 dollars n 50 cents(maybe 5-7 dollars in other countries) will break those company's profits ez... |
|
K PattersonPremium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
kudos:1 | said by doomngroom :
yes that like 2 dollars n 50 cents(maybe 5-7 dollars in other countries) will break those company's profits ez...
Yes, it will.
Comcast earned 7.2% in the first half of 2008.
$2.50 extra cost on a $44.95 internet bill is 5.6%, reducing the earnings to 1.6%.
One service call wipes out the entire earnings from a $100 per month triple-play account for an entire year. |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:said by BF69:If they don't have enough bandwidth then may I suggest they don't offer such high speeds. That would solve the problem completely. The the maximum amount of bandwidth they can supply is 250 GB, well that works out to about 800 Kbps running 24/7. Since they never know if their customers would use their service 24/7 they have to assume that's the case thus the highest speed Comcast should be offering with a 250 GB cap is 800 Kbps, not 16 Mbps. Why would they have to assume the extreme minority case? The bandwidth rates work the way they do because the overwhelming majority of folks want bursts of high speed access. Because COMMON sense is going to tell you that if you offer a 24/7 connection that people may actually try to use it 24/7. Maybe many don't use much bandwidth now, but unless you have been lvig in a cave each month the amount of bandwidth per customers has been going up. Online video is becoming more and more popular. Downloading movies online is becoming more and more popular. It wil take a few years to improve infrastructure and to not think that a SIGNIFICANT portion of your customers won't reach that 250 GB cap in a few years is ignorant.
said by espaeth:said by BF69:Of course if they only offered 800 Kbps they would lose customers left and right. So I would suggest breaking down and improving infrastructure. Right, instead of having the folks driving the demand have higher bills, *EVERYONE* should have higher bills to support rapid infrastructure upgrades that most folks didn't want or need in the first place? What's a better, workable solution? Don't get me wrong, it's not like I'm in love with the idea of caps or other broadband usage restrictions... but at least the approach is honest and defines the service as it really exists. There's no such thing as unlimited bandwidth. My solution IS workable. What is wrong with a company using some of it's profits to improve infrastructure. That what you are supposed to do in business.
If you read my post I don't have a beef with Comcast having a cap. That's their right. And 250 GB in 2008 is fine for most. In 2012 probbaly not so much. My beef is with companies like TW that only want to have 40 GB and I also have a beef with overages that are $1 or more per GB. Hey if Comcast want to have overages fine. But they should charge customers ACTUAL COST. The facts are even if Comcast chaged 25¢ per GB overage they would make a profit and then they could use that profit to improve infrastructure. I hadly think my proposal is out of line or overly burdensome. Also 25¢ per GB is still a financial disinsentive to use too much bandwidth. No one is going to use a TB of bandwidth when the overage fee would still be $187.50 |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
1 edit | said by BF69:Because COMMON sense is going to tell you that if you offer a 24/7 connection that people may actually try to use it 24/7. Maybe many don't use much bandwidth now, but unless you have been lvig in a cave each month the amount of bandwidth per customers has been going up. Online video is becoming more and more popular. Downloading movies online is becoming more and more popular. It wil take a few years to improve infrastructure and to not think that a SIGNIFICANT portion of your customers won't reach that 250 GB cap in a few years is ignorant. Companies develop capacity based on utilization numbers, not your idea of "common sense". This is a perception vs reality issue. Of course the amount of bandwidth utilization is going up -- it's even going up exponentially. That said, it's not going up at nearly the rate that some members on this forum would have you believe.
Take a look at ISPs that publish public aggregate usage stats like a local ISP here in Minneapolis: »home.visi.com/status/?i=bigpipes
Take a look at the statistics out of Japan, such as this report that came out in June that summarizes data from all of Japan's major broadband providers: »www.caida.org/workshops/wide/080···ffic.pdf
Japan's Current Broadband Traffic:
Mode usage is 94.1MB/day (2.823GB/mo)
Average usage is 862.6MB/day (25.878GB/mo)
Japan's 2011 Predicted Broadband Traffic:
Mode usage 223MB/day (6.690GB/mo)
Average usage 3176MB/day (95.280GB/mo)
Japan is seeing that most usage is on the order of 2-3GB/mo, and they're only predicting that most will use 6-7GB/mo in 2011 based on the current growth model. The current numbers being reported by US ISPs are very similar.
Internet video is still very early in its technology lifecycle. Clearly it's going to have impact on scaling network capacity, but it's not like that growth is going to happen overnight.
Take a look at the music industry; we're now at the point where digital MP3 players are widely available from a variety of manufacturers at price points as low as $20. Still, 85% of music sales in the US is still physical CDs. 65% of music sales are done through big box retailers like Best Buy, Target, Wal-mart, etc. Source: »online.wsj.com/public/article/SB···526.html
It's important to realize that the country as a whole is slow to adopt digital delivery. The members of this forum represent the leading edge of technology, not anything even remotely close to the "average" technology user.
said by BF69:My solution IS workable. What is wrong with a company using some of it's profits to improve infrastructure. That what you are supposed to do in business. The broadband companies are investing in improving infrastructure. The major problem is that it's really expensive to do so. At the core of the network you don't have the n-user problem that really elevates the cost of bandwidth. Take the recent 100GigE upgrades mentioned for both Verizon and Comcast; if they take a 10GigE link between Denver and Chicago and upgrade it to 100GigE with an infrastructure cost of $250k ($125k per side interface cost) that upgrade benefits ALL traffic for every single customer that has to transition between Chicago and Denver.
For MSOs to upgrade to DOCSIS 3.0 they need to replace line cards that have costs of $90+k each in thousands of CMTS units. Even better, since it's a line level change the benefits of a DOCSIS 3.0 upgrade also don't reach consumers unless you upgrade the millions of cable modems that are installed so that they can understand D3 channel bonding. So after after investing millions, if not billions, in CMTS hardware, node replacement (for more downstream channels), plant engineering, and customer equipment replacement you can jump from 38mbps to 152mbps shared downstream channels. Not exactly a lot of bang for your buck.
That's the problem with network infrastructure: you can't just "bump up" the bandwidth without a forklift upgrade. If you go to Best Buy and purchase an 8 port switch for $40, your cost per port is $5. When you need that 9th port you can't just go to Best Buy and give them $5 -- you either need to replace that switch entirely with a higher port density model or add a whole new 8 port switch for another $40. |
|
