 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| reply to S_engineer
Re: TWC should just release their stats 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. |
|
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| 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 |
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth: 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. To me thats the entire fight. TW is trying to lay the foundation for how ISPs charge for Internet usage in 2011/2012. Its not just TW thats looking to see if this S**t sticks to the wall, its all broadband providers. We would rather have our carriers expand capacity via upgrades than degrade the utilization of our services via caps. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by S_engineer:To me thats the entire fight. TW is trying to lay the foundation for how ISPs charge for Internet usage in 2011/2012. Its not just TW thats looking to see if this S**t sticks to the wall, its all broadband providers. We would rather have our carriers expand capacity via upgrades than degrade the utilization of our services via caps. Where is the motivation to upgrade coming from though? The entire model for growth right now is about being the provider that sucks less. The reason is simple: currently they get your $50/mo for broadband whether you drive your connection to 100% utilization every minute of every day, or if you never even plug in your modem over the entire month.
Expansion costs money, subscriber growth is slowing, so the cash to fund future expansion needs to come from somewhere. That can be in the form of higher prices for everyone, which again will only encourage broadband providers to expand just enough to be slightly better than their competition so they can focus on cost competition. The other option is to pursue differential billing, which creates the incentive for providers to expand networks even in the absence of strong competition because they will be revenue limited unless they grow their network to support demand. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Espaeth
There is a difference between making a reasonable profit and being abusive. So far cable has been able to charge abusive rates. Just look at that PDF from Japan you are so fond of. There average usage rate is ten times what the US cable companies are CLAIMING it is in the US. Yet they are still able to provide 100/100 service for sub $50 per month(I pay $60 for 5/512). If you look in that same PDF (page 11) you will see there are roughly the same number of people downloading 2.5 GB/month as there are people downloading 2.5TB/month. Somehow they are able to offer service cheaper than what we have in the US and still are allowing TB(+) download levels. |
|
| said by Lazlow:Espaeth There is a difference between making a reasonable profit and being abusive. So far cable has been able to charge abusive rates. Just look at that PDF from Japan you are so fond of. There average usage rate is ten times what the US cable companies are CLAIMING it is in the US. Yet they are still able to provide 100/100 service for sub $50 per month(I pay $60 for 5/512). If you look in that same PDF (page 11) you will see there are roughly the same number of people downloading 2.5 GB/month as there are people downloading 2.5TB/month. Somehow they are able to offer service cheaper than what we have in the US and still are allowing TB(+) download levels. And that is because the infrastructure was gov't funded at taxpayer expense. The broadband company didn't have to expend their capital $'s and the expenses of paying back loans for expansion.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Almost all the backbone (transit) infrastructure was also funded here by the US government(1996 Tele act). There is still dark fiber from that being lit up.
The franchise agreements can also be viewed as government funding. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by Lazlow:Espaeth There is a difference between making a reasonable profit and being abusive. So far cable has been able to charge abusive rates. Just look at that PDF from Japan you are so fond of. There average usage rate is ten times what the US cable companies are CLAIMING it is in the US. Yet they are still able to provide 100/100 service for sub $50 per month(I pay $60 for 5/512). If you look in that same PDF (page 11) you will see there are roughly the same number of people downloading 2.5 GB/month as there are people downloading 2.5TB/month. Somehow they are able to offer service cheaper than what we have in the US and still are allowing TB(+) download levels. And that is because the infrastructure was gov't funded at taxpayer expense. The broadband company didn't have to expend their capital $'s and the expenses of paying back loans for expansion. Partially true: Japan let telecommunications companies write down about one-third of their investment in broadband the first year, rather than the usual policy, which requires them to spread the deductions over 22 years. The Japanese government also subsidized low-cost loans for broadband construction and paid for part of the wiring of rural areas.
»bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/1···de=print
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:And that is because the infrastructure was gov't funded at taxpayer expense. The broadband company didn't have to expend their capital $'s and the expenses of paying back loans for expansion. I would argue that private enterprise (when granted a near monopoly) is worse for consumers and costs us more than the government subsidizing it to begin with. |
|
| said by Matt:said by fAcEtIOUs:And that is because the infrastructure was gov't funded at taxpayer expense. The broadband company didn't have to expend their capital $'s and the expenses of paying back loans for expansion. I would argue that private enterprise (when granted a near monopoly) is worse for consumers and costs us more than the government subsidizing it to begin with. And that brings us to the major philosophical difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe that gov't is inherently less efficient and less responsive than private enterprise and therefore will ultimately cost more to do the same tasks. And liberals believe that government will be more egaltarian and responsive to the taxpayers and have the general good in mind. Se la vie!
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by fAcEtIOUs:]And that brings us to the major philosophical difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe that gov't is inherently less efficient and less responsive than private enterprise and therefore will ultimately cost more to do the same tasks. And liberals believe that government will be more egaltarian and responsive to the taxpayers and have the general good in mind. Se la vie! You know, I keep hearing about this elusive "fiscal conservative" but I don't think even the late Steve Irwin could ever dig one up -- have you seen one lately? 
Why can't there be a middle ground? Let private enterprise do it, but impose rules and regulations upon them to protect consumers. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| reply to Matt
said by Matt:I would argue that private enterprise (when granted a near monopoly) is worse for consumers and costs us more than the government subsidizing it to begin with. I challenge you to look at tariff sheets for PUC-regulated LEC-delivered data circuits and make that same statement again. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by espaeth:said by Matt:I would argue that private enterprise (when granted a near monopoly) is worse for consumers and costs us more than the government subsidizing it to begin with. I challenge you to look at tariff sheets for PUC-regulated LEC-delivered data circuits and make that same statement again. Are you saying that because of the tariffs that are paid to local government? You don't think those tariffs are built into the circuit fee and then passed along to the consumer? |
|
