how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
986 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| | Watch Out Dear AT&T,
I keep posting this to you. I hope you are reading. I repeat what I have said before now that I see what is really in the works. If you implement these caps I will leave. You will lose a customer. This is not good value for my money with caps.
Have a good day. | |
|  | | Re: Watch Out As a percentage of their user base, the # of people this will affect is almost nothing. So while a few people will be upset and leave, the rest will not even be affected and stay where they are, and AT&T is hardly affected except to get rid of the true bandwidth hogs that cost them more money than they pay for service. Remember, AT&T is in business to make money.
TD | |
| | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Re: Watch Out You sir are a propagandist...
AT&T's costs per gigabyte are nowhere NEAR what they're charging. TWC is worse ($1.50+ per GB) in their demo area, however AT&T runs a freaking Tier 1 network, so on that end of things bandwidth costs are zero. Let me repeat, ZERO.
The only costs they have for bandwidth is their own pipes, which hae been amortized by now. They can afford to keep unlimited plans but, as they say, money talks...
Let's take a quick look at DSL tiers:
$20 for 768k - $1 per GB
$33 for 1.5M - 82 cents per GB
$37 for 3.0M - 62 cents per GB
$43 for 6.0M - 54 cents per GB
$55? for 10M - 37 cents per GB
Problem: there is no 10M tier in DSL markets.
Granted: TWC's $45 plan has the same cap as AT&T's $20 plan, and $33 on AT&T will get you as much usage as $60 on TWC.
But the numbers are still ridiculous. If I'm calculating correctly, on all but the highest tier, you could mail a DVD and both media and postage would end up costing less than sending tat data over the internet...and that's without the overage charges!
I feel sorry for people in AT&T\TWC markets (Austin and San Antonio) as now business blass internet is their only option for something with a decent amount of data transfer.
No matter what way you slice it, I, with my current internet usage patterns, would be going over the limit even on the Elite plan on AT&T. Also, for areas where only DSL is available, if I want to watch TV over the internet I get nicked a dollar or more per show. Not cool. Just goes to show how "magnanimous" Comcast is with their 250GB cap, but it's still not cool either way.
I'd be fine if the caps on all tiers were 3-4x higher than what they are now...remember AT&T owns one of the largest internet backbones in the world, but the current situation disgusts me. Also, $1 per GB overage? That's about a 10,000% profit right there, since AT&T again doesn't have to pay upstream providers...they ARE the upstream provider. I'd say 10-25 cents per gig would be more reasonable. | |
| | |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| Re: Watch Out said by iansltx:You sir are a propagandist... AT&T's costs per gigabyte are nowhere NEAR what they're charging. TWC is worse ($1.50+ per GB) in their demo area, however AT&T runs a freaking Tier 1 network, so on that end of things bandwidth costs are zero. Let me repeat, ZERO. No. Settlement-Free Interconnects are not free of cost; not even remotely close. All Settlement-free means is that both carriers view their cost and benefit of the connection as being equal so they don't bill each other. Every company still has a non-trivial internal cost to maintaining that connectivity.
said by iansltx:I'd be fine if the caps on all tiers were 3-4x higher than what they are now...remember AT&T owns one of the largest internet backbones in the world, but the current situation disgusts me. Also, $1 per GB overage? That's about a 10,000% profit right there, since AT&T again doesn't have to pay upstream providers...they ARE the upstream provider. I'd say 10-25 cents per gig would be more reasonable. This isn't a real cost. People arrive at this cost by working out the cost for a GigE circuit, determine that it can theoretically move 324,000GB/mo, and use that to determine a $0.05 - $0.10/GB value. The problem is that nowhere in the world can you give someone even $0.25 and move 1GB of traffic. You also don't get 100% use out of every circuit because latency climbs sharply due to queuing delay as the line starts getting above 90% utilization.
The cost is determined by the expensive of providing the circuit, and your level of usage relative to capacity available on the local segment. | |
| | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Watch Out Actually you can. It's called Amazon S3.
Additionally, we're talking about equipment costs here, not costs for the data. The marginal cost of moving data to the point of saturation? Near nil. As to local loop bandwidth, AT&T has a GigE going to each VRAD for internet, so I hear. That's actually more bandwidth than Verizon has on BPON systems, though GPON blows AT&T out of the water. AT&T has more capacity on the node than any cable provider does, but caps lower than Comcast. FAIL. | |
| | | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: Watch Out said by iansltx:Actually you can. It's called Amazon S3. Which is great if you live in an Amazon datacenter. For the rest of us, you're not getting bandwidth to an otherwise random business/residential location at that price.
said by iansltx:Additionally, we're talking about equipment costs here, not costs for the data. The marginal cost of moving data to the point of saturation? Near nil. Traffic isn't point A to point B. If you take in 10gbps of traffic in Chicago, that traffic all needs to go somewhere. That means upgrading connections throughout the network, as well as constantly renegotiating peering contracts as bandwidth quantities change. If it were just a matter of upgrading a single circuit at a time, I agree this could indeed be much less expensive.
said by iansltx:As to local loop bandwidth, AT&T has a GigE going to each VRAD for internet, so I hear. That's actually more bandwidth than Verizon has on BPON systems, though GPON blows AT&T out of the water. What percentage of the ATT DSL network has VRAD access? | |
| | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Watch Out What percentage of Comcast's network has coax access? All of it. You can get 250GB-cap internet anywhere on their footprint. AT&T could upgrade non-UVerse markets to ADSL2+, thus allowing for a 10 Mbit (albeit without the 1.5 Mbit upload) tier. Instead, the max allowed on AT&T DSL is 6 Mbps. Which is fine if they allowed for a 150GB cap like on the 10 Mbps tier, even at the higher price point. But they don't. | |
| | | | | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: Watch Out said by iansltx:What percentage of Comcast's network has coax access? All of it. You can get 250GB-cap internet anywhere on their footprint. Let's be careful with how we state this, because the 250GB is also somewhat of a BS number.
Even assuming the absolute best case scenario of 4 x 38mbps channels in the Comcast DOCSIS 3.0 world, there are still approximately 250 people per downstream channel group per the filing that Comcast made with the FCC.
So 324GB/mo per megabit, 38mbps per DOCSIS channel x 4 DOCSIS channels = 49,248GB/mo total downstream, assuming 100% efficiency (ie, highly unlikely). That's still only 196GB/mo per subscriber on an even divide, and that's the absolute best-case dream scenario for Comcast right now. With more realistic plant numbers there's no way they can really keep up with 250GB for each and every subscriber. | |
| | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Watch Out Welcome to the world of oversubscription. Since most people won't use near 250GB per month, they can afford to oversubscribe their nodes, and people can still have their 250GB if they want, since most users only use 2GB of data or so".
Hey, better than the 25GB cap on ye olde Bee Creek Communications wireless service. Yech. | |
|
|  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by towerdave:As a percentage of their user base, the # of people this will affect is almost nothing. NOW. But remember bandwidth useage is growing exponentially. Sites like Hulu are becoming more popular. More networks are putting content online because they know it INCREASES viewership. In 13 days xbox users will be able to stream movies form Netflix.
It's not only more people are watching more video online is that this video is also being streamed at higher bitrates. For example in 2005 when you watched MLB.tv the games were streamed at 300 kbps in 2008 they can be streamed at 1.2 Mbps. What will they be streamed at in 2-3-4 years? Watching 26 games month with the average game lasting 3 hours is 40 GB a month. If they start streaming games in real SD which would require 2 Mbps and use 67 GB a month. To stream in 720p would require close to 5 Mbps and raise useage 150 GB a month just for that. So no maybe 80 GB is more than enough for NOW, in 2010 who knows. | |
|
| |
|
