Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to me1212
Re: If it slowing why do we need caps? "We" don't need caps at all; neither do the ISPs.
The ISPs badly want caps (and throttling and deep packet inspection), but not because of bandwidth issues.
This quote from the article pretty much nails it:
quote:
SaveOurNet.ca, which wants to see network management rules imposed on ISPs, seized on the data. "If traffic growth is slowing, then it is hard to imagine why the ISPs need to suddenly selectively throttle Internet traffic," said co-founder Steve Anderson. "The fact that ISPs are slowing access to Internet technologies that compete with their own services seems like more than just a coincidence."
The ISPs want ways to control bandwidth, either to prevent video competition with their own offerings or to further monetize their network without adding further value. |
|
|
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | I kinda lareayd knew that, but thanks anyway.
How much does 1GB cost them? I think I read that it was like a $0.10 so we need a PAYG ISP like 1gb is $0.20(a 100% profit) so like 250g is $50 and 500gb is $100. |
|
 RallyBah HumbugPremium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Bandwidth doesnt cost them much at all. Its something like 5-10 cents per gigabyte, during peak times. And very much lower through non-peak times. What costs them money is last mile run from homes to the network. Take cablevision out of the equation, but MSOs do not like to spend the needed funds to improve and upgrade that sector.
Cablevision on the other hand, is pretty quick on jumping to the newer tech, i'll give them credit. And I'll wager they'll have most of their systems with Docsis 3.0 by the end of the year. TimeWarner on the other hand? Probably wont even have 1% of Docsis 3.0 implemented until 2011. |
|
 ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4
2 edits | said by Rally:Cablevision on the other hand, is pretty quick on jumping to the newer tech, i'll give them credit. And I'll wager they'll have most of their systems with Docsis 3.0 by the end of the year. TimeWarner on the other hand? Probably wont even have 1% of Docsis 3.0 implemented until 2011. That is much easier to do when all they have to cover is the NYC metro area instead of much of the US like Comcast, TWC, etc.
Cablevision coverage area
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to nasadude
Thats why a lot of DSLs have no cap. They have no tv, so they won't loose money if people use them for IPTV, they may even make money. If people want to use IPTV only they need more speed and more speed costs more so DSLs make more money, so some DSLs could be hurting them selves with caps. |
|
RallyBah HumbugPremium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to ThrowDemsOut
said by ThrowDemsOut:said by Rally:Cablevision on the other hand, is pretty quick on jumping to the newer tech, i'll give them credit. And I'll wager they'll have most of their systems with Docsis 3.0 by the end of the year. TimeWarner on the other hand? Probably wont even have 1% of Docsis 3.0 implemented until 2011. That is much easier to do when all they have to cover is the NYC metro area instead of much of the US like Comcast, TWC, etc. [att=1] Sure Cablevision isnt as huge as Comcast/TimeWarner - but they doesn't change anything. They've spent money to keep their last mile runs pretty on par with growth. They took some loses in doing so if you read their reports. There is no excuse for Comcast/TimeWarner at all, for not improving their last mile runs. Coverage areas mean nothing, not one iota. |
|
