Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to espaeth
Re: TWC should just release their stats 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
 ·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? |
|
4 edits | 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. |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | 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. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| reply to djrobx
said by djrobx: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. So pay $75 for the 100GB tier and call it a day? Worst case scenario is if you go vastly over that amount you'd potentially get stuck with an additional $75 in overages (maximum on the TWC system) for a maximum bill of $150. They're not going to cut you off, you're just going to end up paying for the extra you use. |
|
rcabor4
join:2007-04-17
Grand Prairie, TX | reply to espaeth
said by espaeth: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.phpEstimates 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. Time warner made 4 BILLION dollars profit from Internet Last year, they could afford a couple Ciscos. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by rcabor4:Time warner made 4 BILLION dollars profit from Internet Last year, they could afford a couple Ciscos. That's gross profit, which only tracks direct costs (hardware costs, maintenance contract costs, data vendor charges). It doesn't factor in payroll, employee benefits (ie, health insurance), taxes, interest on outstanding debt, and other overhead.
They were profitable, sure, but not quite in the way that you suggest. |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon Wireless..
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T U-Verse
·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
| reply to espaeth
No thanks. AT&T's proposed cap structure is 150GB for the $65/month that I pay for Max 18. That's a LOT better, so given a choice between these two evils I will go with AT&T. AT&T's cap system has problems too, but I'll save that for another topic.
Comcast allows 250GB/month on their standard $45/month tier.
So even if you believe caps are a fair or needed system, Time Warner looks to be establishing something well below the "reasonable market value" established by two of their closest business peers.
With limits this low, TWC ought to give users rollover gigs to deal with periodic spikes in usage. Even with a 3 month expiration, rollover gigs would be a big help in terms of managing periodic or unexpected rises consumption.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
|
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:]That's gross profit, which only tracks direct costs (hardware costs, maintenance contract costs, data vendor charges). It doesn't factor in payroll, employee benefits (ie, health insurance), taxes, interest on outstanding debt, and other overhead. They were profitable, sure, but not quite in the way that you suggest. They had a one time write down last year which pulled their entire financial into a loss, but if you look at 2007 and back they had a net profit of $7 billion+ each year. If you take away the one time write down last year, they would have broken their own profit record.
So they were actually more profitable than he was suggesting. |
|
rcabor4
join:2007-04-17
Grand Prairie, TX | reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:said by rcabor4:Time warner made 4 BILLION dollars profit from Internet Last year, they could afford a couple Ciscos. That's gross profit, which only tracks direct costs (hardware costs, maintenance contract costs, data vendor charges). It doesn't factor in payroll, employee benefits (ie, health insurance), taxes, interest on outstanding debt, and other overhead. They were profitable, sure, but not quite in the way that you suggest. Most of the overhead comes from cable TV. If they were just an Internet company, they would be drowning in Profit, the rest of the company brings the bottom line down. The point I was trying to make, for all the people who defend the cap rape, is the Broadband part of Time Warner is not in need of cashflow to upgrade or do anything else. This is not a case of people downloading too much that its costing them to go bankrupt. Its a pure take advantage of the situation and make as much money as possible. So the cost of hardware or other network upgrades is moot at this point.
The argument that those who use less pay less is not true.
The argument that the "bandwith hogs are degrading the system" is dumb due to the fact that if you pay the proposed overage, you will still cause other users to have poor performance and its OK cause Time Warner makes more profit, so who cares if your internet slows down. |
|
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:said by rcabor4:Time warner made 4 BILLION dollars profit from Internet Last year, they could afford a couple Ciscos. That's gross profit, which only tracks direct costs (hardware costs, maintenance contract costs, data vendor charges). It doesn't factor in payroll, employee benefits (ie, health insurance), taxes, interest on outstanding debt, and other overhead. They were profitable, sure, but not quite in the way that you suggest. Sure, with those execs salaries maybe they really operate at a net loss. Poor company, so sad.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. |
|
