 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 | TWC should just release their stats With median usage likely to be somewhere in the 2-3GB range, and average usage likely being well under 40GB, the number of people affected by overages should be small.
Of course, that small group of people is unusually well represented here. |
|
| said by espaeth:With median usage likely to be somewhere in the 2-3GB range, and average usage likely being well under 40GB, the number of people affected by overages should be small. Of course, that small group of people is unusually well represented here. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and leave it to one of the loudest squealers(Schumer) to add his typical populist rants to add more noise to the issue.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
| Common causes always breed strange bedfellows. However, even if he's doing this for publicity, Schumer may actually sit down and get informed on the topic. This may be the silver lining. A congressman actually getting informed on an issue!
--
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone |
|
|
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Clear Wireless
| Personally I would hope our representatives would be a little more focused on the $1 trillion in our taxpayer dollars they handed over to companies with pathetically few restrictions.
As utilization of broadband services continues to change and evolve, the oversubscription models that lead to the current pricing scheme are going to become less valid. The hit isn't going to come next month, or probably even next year, but the landscape could indeed be very different by 2011/2012. The current predicted utilization rates are increasing much faster than the price of capacity expansion is falling. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by espaeth:With median usage likely to be somewhere in the 2-3GB range, and average usage likely being well under 40GB, the number of people affected by overages should be small. Of course, that small group of people is unusually well represented here. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and leave it to one of the loudest squealers(Schumer) to add his typical populist rants to add more noise to the issue. Versus the cable shills here that generate noise all the time.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Chuckie Schumer speaks out against TWC ripping off consumers, yet says that consumers don't care about government rip-offs, err, I mean spendulus. |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:With median usage likely to be somewhere in the 2-3GB range, and average usage likely being well under 40GB, the number of people affected by overages should be small. Of course, that small group of people is unusually well represented here. Having personally worked with TWC here in Greensboro, I can assure you that typical usage is not 2GB-3GB. It is much, much higher than that. Especially for their lower tiers. Which is exactly why they won't release numbers. If they show that 50% of their RR Lite (1.5Mbps, 10GB cap) customers use 15-20GB a month, that means an instant $5-$10 a month for those customer. That is exactly why Mr. Britt has adamantly refused to release the statistics.
Couple that with the annual 10-k filing where they say that online delivery of content is affecting their revenue from customers AS WELL as advertisers and we have all the info we need for why they are implementing these caps.
I'm going to the protest and I'm also composing letters to my reps and city council. |
|
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:With median usage likely to be somewhere in the 2-3GB range, and average usage likely being well under 40GB, the number of people affected by overages should be small. Of course, that small group of people is unusually well represented here. Please provide proof of the 2-3 GB range you insist is average. (I would even settle for the top 20 ISP's info
The more likely answer is you just made these numbers up, or quoted a source that's questionable. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by DataRiker:Please provide proof of the 2-3 GB range you insist is average. (I would even settle for the top 20 ISP's info How about a compilation of data from all of the ISPs in Japan where 100mbps FTTH is rapidly becoming the dominant access method?
»www.caida.org/workshops/wide/080···ffic.pdf
Mode: 94.1MB/day (2.823GB/mo)
Average: 862.6MB/day (25.878GB/mo)
Based on June 2008 numbers.
Do you have reason to suspect that US broadband numbers are significantly higher? |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:The current predicted utilization rates are increasing much faster than the price of capacity expansion is falling. Yet once again you make up incredible "facts" that are in contradictory to articles posted here by experts.
So where are these "predicted utilization rates" (LOL)?
Some hard numbers?
How pathetic what a joke |
|
4 edits | reply to espaeth
Japan?
Your reply is Japan?
This is embarrasing
by the way 25 GB > 2 GB
Absolutely pathetic.
Still waiting for those numbers...(2-3 GB) |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | reply to espaeth
And from your same PDF you will see (page11) that they have a significant number of users downloading well over a TB per month. Still they manage to offer 100/100 speeds for under $50 a month (I pay $60 for 5/512). |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by Lazlow:And from your same PDF you will see (page11) that they have a significant number of users downloading well over a TB per month. Still they manage to offer 100/100 speeds for under $50 a month (I pay $60 for 5/512). Also a good point. espaeth's posts are becoming more and more ridiculous as he tries to prove something that is not true.
Why would someone refer to a Japanese statistic when talking about US isp's? Because its the only numbers he could find.
Pathetic. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| reply to DataRiker
Congratulations, you can read.
said by DataRiker:How could I possible know if those are even remotely relevant? (which i highly doubt they are given how something as personal as internet viewing is) They connect to the same Internet you do, and are using the same applications. The cities are also more technology forward than much of the US, so if anything I would expect their numbers to be higher. |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
4 edits | Ethnocentric assumptions are usually wrong. Japanese also have cars, does that mean they drive like we do? (hardly not)
Ethnocentric assumptions aside your still wrong, it was a nice try though.
So where are the numbers showing 2-3 GB's per month?
P.S. - we are also still waiting for your "predicted utilization rates" numbers from your first post. (that was also made up...)
Thanks ! |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
·Verizon Wireless..
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
1 edit | reply to DataRiker
said by DataRiker:Also a good point. espaeth's posts are becoming more and more ridiculous as he tries to prove something that is not true. Why would someone refer to a Japanese statistic when talking about US isp's? Because its the only numbers he could find. Pathetic. The best part, the numbers he posted show an average use of roughly 25GB/month, which is higher than TWC's proposed cap on standard users!
I probably use on average around 50GB/month. However, I have light and heavy months, and I'm sure I'm not alone. I don't want to be limited to my "average" consumption. Nor do I want an artificially low number because a whole bunch of people use it just to check their email. As a heavy user I already opt to pay more - I buy the fastest tier available.
I doubt even a light user wants to worry about getting hit with overages on a tier limited to 5GB/month. Sort of like how the majority of landline customers prefer unlimited local calling despite the fact that measured rate service is usually cheaper for them.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
|
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| reply to DataRiker
said by DataRiker:Ethnocentric assumptions are usually wrong. Japanese also have cars, does that mean they drive like we do? (hardly not) Ethnocentric assumptions aside your still wrong, it was a nice try though. So where are the numbers showing 2-3 GB's per month? Use those numbers in combination with those compiled by the Minnesota Internet Traffic Study (MINTS) project at the U of MN:
»www.dtc.umn.edu/mints/home.php
Estimates on monthly traffic utilization, represented as GB per capita:
Japan: 3.5GB
US: 5GB
That data also shows a current growth of 50% per year, yet the pricing of network hardware is not decreasing at the same rate.
For example, Cisco 6500 chassis & SUP720s are the same price today as they were in 2003. Network hardware doesn't follow the same Moore's Law growth model because of very different restricting factors.
I'm not saying there aren't a subset of people using vast amounts more than 2-5GB -- the averages certainly reflect heavy weighting by the top few percent of subscribers. The current pricing model, however, is based on having a very large portion of the userbase being low use customers. |
|
| reply to DataRiker
It never fails to amaze me how every company who claims caps or per byte billing is a necessity always make an argument which lacks the one thing they are in a unique position to provide: facts.
If your network is congested, if demand is exceeding supply or if the so-called "bandwidth hogs" are swamping your network then show us numbers to support your claim. Releasing accurate, timely network info would allow us to know if this truly is a necessity or just a money grab. The uproar would be silenced immediately if they had the numbers to back up their claims.
From the info we do have access to, TW's financial statements, it doesn't seem necessary at all. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:For example, Cisco 6500 chassis & SUP720s are the same price today as they were in 2003. Network hardware doesn't follow the same Moore's Law growth model because of very different restricting factors. Yep, luckily they haven't upgraded their equipment since it was first installed over 10-11 years ago. I think via depreciation and monthly service fees they've recouped their investment.
And FWIW, the Triad area runs on Cisco 10000 series UBR's. All the data customers in the area are served on less than $500,000 worth of UBR equipment. Half of it has even been EoL'd by Cisco: »www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/···ist.html |
|
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:For example, Cisco 6500 chassis & SUP720s are the same price today as they were in 2003. Network hardware doesn't follow the same Moore's Law growth model because of very different restricting factors. Except that cable companies get HUGE discounts, over 60% off list price and those discounts get better with more equipment bought and years as a customer, so the actual prices paid DO decrease.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. |
|
