Chaldo
join:2008-03-18
West Bloomfield, MI
| It is about making money
Yea dude, ill sell you unlimited water usage, oh wait I forgot to tell you if you use more then 2 gallons each other gallon costs 5 dollars ok, yea its not about making money its just to "control the flow". Man and people thought Comcast was bad, I don't think Congress will allow Timewarner to do this, people would hella complain and move to something else in the area mostly DSL probably. |
|
Phil
Rojo Sol
Premium
join:2001-06-11
Camarillo, CA | Water is a finite resource so that analogy just doesn't hold water. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
 ·Comcast
 ·Embarq
| said by Phil  :Water is a finite resource so that analogy just doesn't hold water. Water and bandwidth are pretty even scenarios. The cost isn't in the water (or the bits), it's in transporting it. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| said by espaeth :said by Phil :Water is a finite resource so that analogy just doesn't hold water. Water and bandwidth are pretty even scenarios. The cost isn't in the water (or the bits), it's in transporting it. The transporting cost is built into the initial monthly charge. It costs the company the same amount for the transport infrastructure if I use it for 0GB or 250GB (or 0 Gal or 2500 Gal). The cost of the bits/water is a different issue. I ask why the supposed cost (and thus the overage charge) of any usage over the arbitrary cap is more than that of the original capped usage (ie: Assigning a $0 cost to the ISP for the delivery infrastructure [AKA: "Last Mile"]). If you have two separate customers who each use xGB (ie: The Cap Amount) and each have a $Y/Month charge, why if Customer 2 does not exist and Customer 1 uses 2xGB, is he charged more than $Y for the second xGB since it is the EXACT SAME usage/load on the system as would occur with Customer 2 above and Customer 1 only doing xGB? Feeding Customer 1 the second xGB does not cost anything more (and actually less since there is no second last mile infrastructure) than feeding the xGB to Customer 2 yet the ISP is penalizing Customer 1 for the non-existence of a Customer 2. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Capacity upgrades are a step incremental cost, and the scaling isn't straight forward.
Say you start out with a 24 port switch that costs $240. You can bill everybody for a port charge of $10. What if you need 30 ports then? Well, you need 2 switches, but you end up with less than 24 ports of attachment because some ports need to be used to link the two switches together. So say you only use 2 ports to link the 2 switches, and for $480 you get 44 ports of edge user access, so your cost actually goes up to $10.90/port. Add a 3rd and 4th switch and the situation degrades further as ports are consumed for spanning.
In a DOCSIS world, capacity upgrades usually means node splits. That means more HFC media converters (nodes), more ports on the CMTS, which means the addition of more line cards (at $100k/each), which bumps your annual maintenance costs, etc.
Incremental usage turns out to be a pretty big deal when it reaches a level that forces your next round of infrastructure expansion. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to Chaldo
And Congress has the power to stop them how? I don't see any law that gives Congress any power over business.
But I'm sure you want your tax money being spent on court costs after TWC sues right? I mean what better way to spend it? Giving it to AIG? |
|
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs:
·BlueYonder Interne..
·Be There
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth :In a DOCSIS world, capacity upgrades usually means node splits. That means more HFC media converters (nodes), more ports on the CMTS, which means the addition of more line cards (at $100k/each), which bumps your annual maintenance costs, etc. If you pay 100k for a line card can I sell you a few?  |
|
Jaser
@rogers.com
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth :Incremental usage turns out to be a pretty big deal when it reaches a level that forces your next round of infrastructure expansion. Bingo.
But just what do these upgrades cost on a per-user basis? How about amortized over 5 years? So far, none of the companies proposing any kind of metered billing have even suggested what these actual costs are.
I think I know why... |
|
asdn3135
@dpw.com | reply to hottboiinnc
Huh? Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, and I've got to tell you, this qualifies. |
|
Pizz
Hi
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth :Capacity upgrades are a step incremental cost, and the scaling isn't straight forward. Say you start out with a 24 port switch that costs $240. You can bill everybody for a port charge of $10. What if you need 30 ports then? Well, you need 2 switches, but you end up with less than 24 ports of attachment because some ports need to be used to link the two switches together. So say you only use 2 ports to link the 2 switches, and for $480 you get 44 ports of edge user access, so your cost actually goes up to $10.90/port. Add a 3rd and 4th switch and the situation degrades further as ports are consumed for spanning. In a DOCSIS world, capacity upgrades usually means node splits. That means more HFC media converters (nodes), more ports on the CMTS, which means the addition of more line cards (at $100k/each), which bumps your annual maintenance costs, etc. Incremental usage turns out to be a pretty big deal when it reaches a level that forces your next round of infrastructure expansion. 100k for a line card? I'll use my company's vendor, and resell it to you at 100k  |
|
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs: | No way I got there first, he's my fool err customer. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to Pizz
said by Pizz :100k for a line card? I'll use my company's vendor, and resell it to you at 100k I was rounding up a bit.
UBR10-MC5X20H-D= uBR10K High-Performance Card, 5DS w/upx, 20US, MSRP $89,500
or
SPA-24XDS-SFP 24-port uBR10012 Wideband Downstream Shared Port Adapter MSRP $89,900
(Yeah, I know nobody pays list.)
My point is that it's bigger money than most people here are accounting for. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to espaeth
And the initial deployment costs.. ?
Planning for upgrades / capacity improvements (Docsis3 costs vs. node split?).
These costs are all built into the basic business model from the day of the first deployment. Some areas may need more capacity than others. If they chose to not plan out their expansion properly, or build for the future, that isn't 'our' fault, but poor planning.
Telco is paying their price by FTTH (VZ) or FTTN (AT&T), and its possible that AT&T will have to pay it over again.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
1 edit | reply to asdn3135
The Interestate Commerce does not include private networks.
Especially when it comes down to commuications. Congress appointed and created the FCC to regulate that. And what happens when the FCC does something TWC and Comcast doesn't want. They sue. But NONE of this was an issue until TWC came on board. Nobody has a problem with ATT doing it, Fontier, Comcast or anyone else.
After all people wanted a set limit on caps, ESEPCAILLY the people on this board. You didnt like having a 350+ gig cap per month so you wanted it limited. Thank your self for that. Not the provider. Also if you want all you can eat bandwidth- go buy a T1 or higher. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to espaeth
If other countries can offer 50-100Mbps with +1TB cap for --
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
mmainprize
join:2001-12-06
Houghton Lake, MI
| reply to espaeth
We all know that you must work for a cable company.
Cause you seem to try an counter anyone sugesting the cable company is ripping us off.
Most cable companys have pulled this same logic you are sporting over and over again. It seem every other year they claim they need to upgrade the network and come up with some reason to charge us more. I get tripe play, but the cost for TV has doubled in four years. Internet has went from $15 a month to $50 a month in four years for the lowest speed. It tripled. They gave me the speed and said i needed it, but i would just as soon get 1.5meg for $15 a month instead of 60 meg for $140.
It cable company need to think bigger and put in fiber in the areas they have before someone comes along and dose it before them. That is where we are all going. Upgrading there network time after time over and over again and just increaseing the network just enough to say they did it is not going to fly anymore. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| said by mmainprize :We all know that you must work for a cable company. Cause you seem to try an counter anyone sugesting the cable company is ripping us off. I actually don't work for a cable company or telco; I'm a network architect for a large healthcare organization.
My objective is simply to inject some basis of reality into the discussion from my personal experience of large network design, implementation, and operation.
One common theme I've noticed in every one of these threads is that there tends to be a lot of "armchair quarterbacking" on provider costs and expansion by people who clearly have absolutely no operational history in a large network environment. |
|
axiomatic
join:2006-08-23
Tomball, TX
| reply to espaeth
I don't know. I'm still very skeptical. How is it that 15 years back they had no problems paying for these (MSRP $89,500) cards when TW was offering "unlimited" bandwidth for $29.99? Yet now with a much speedier DOCSIS 2.0 network and not that many more customers in a given area that they had before they need more money to upgrade their network. And let me be more specific, they need to speed up their network yet imply caps at the same time (counterproductive reasons?) to make ends meet? Yes yes, streaming media, downloading movies, bittorrent blah blah blah. Embrace existing technologies. I bet traffic could be seriously reduced if cable and telcos embraced bittorrent and "localized" more content and let the content be more dynamic it hosting itself locally to neighborhoods instead of downloading the media (again) from the originating host server.
I'll tell you why... because this has nothing to do really with data bandwidth or infrastructure. It has more to do with the cable co.s having an investment in Video On Demand that is tanking in a big way.
Just last weekend I pointed out to my daughter who was streaming a movie to her laptop. "Daughter, you know that same movie is on Comcast VOD and you could be watching it on your rather large HDTV instead of streaming it to your laptop." Her reply was "VOD sucks Dad, I can't watch it where I want too. In this case, by the pool. Get with the program Dad." (So I guess she told me!)
The public has spoken, VOD comes with too many "shackles" for most people. The cable companies need to wake up to this fact and embrace the change. And this is only one example of change, there are many more. |
|
bcoleman71
join:2007-09-18
Dallas, TX
| reply to espaeth
Water and bandwidth ARE NOT PRETTY EVEN SCENARIOS!
When you're talking about transporting bits over a wire, the cost to transport that data is relatively fixed. You have to maintain the network and usually maintenance is budgeted a certain amount. The same goes for transporting water.
The more bandwidth you use is not costing them any extra at all! IF it does cost more it has more to do with their peering agreements than anything else.
Water on the other hand is a finite resource. Also, it must first be filtered and purified up to EPA standards. That purification process costs money. The chemicals and processes used to purify the water will cost a certain amount per gallon. So knowing this, ask yourself, why do you think they charge by the gallon? It's because the costs can be directly broken down into what it costs to actually prepare that gallon of water to send to your home.
Now compare this to transporting data and make the correlation. The ISP's ARE NOT the ones producing the data that you access. They only PROVIDE ACCESS to that data. That data (usually in most cases) originates somewhere else and is produced and ALREADY PAID FOR! Now, ask yourself why do they need to charge by the byte? The only answers they can give is to guarantee fair access. That's a very ridiculous reason! If that is the REAL reason they want to institute these caps, they need to seriously examine their oversubscription model. What they NEED to be doing instead is to ADJUST their oversubscription model. Maybe even update their network so that they CAN EFFECTIVELY support the customers they manage to sign up. Don't sign them up and then tell them how much they can use the service and if they use more than a certain amount, there will be additional penalties. That's ridiculous!
WAKE UP PEOPLE!! Start thinking about the real reason why these companies want to do this! It's all about squeezing more money out of their customers. That's the ONLY reason that makes sense. |
|
fumosus
@cox.net
| reply to Phil
Technically, water isn't any more of a finite resource than bandwidth. We have more water on this planet than we can even begin to use... literally. There are technical and cost restrictions on converting salt water into potable water. Same story with bandwidth, to a degree. The discussion could then divert to if it is technically cost prohibitive to upgrade infrastructure to provide even more bandwidth, but that's another discussion. The real difference is that you need water to live and it would be difficult to get away with placing access to water out of the reach of the majority. Conversely, you don't need bandwidth to live... lot harder to make it criminal to make it financially out of reach for the majority. Instead, it's just stupid and annoys me to no end when they pull stunts like this. "Not to make more money... HA!!!" |
|
