Topic 'metered billing means' in forum '' - dslreports.com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/metered-billing-means-22417752 en Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:26:42 EDT Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:26:42 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22423289 said by baineschile:

No, I am completely for higher speeds and competition. But, at the day and age, i think the caps imposed are semi-reasonable. I do think though, that any ISp has the right to manage their network however they see fit; and if .1% of their customers eat 25% of the bandwidth, and caps is a way to kick them off, then so be it; or pay for commercial rates. If they are willing to sell it, then they do have the capacity. They are the ones that chose the billing model, not us. You either bill flat rate, and deal with the spectrum of usage habits, or bill by the byte. If you bill by the byte, I for one expect it to be similar to electricity. There is a connection fee, and usage per byte. The problem is that they want it both ways. They don't want to lose the $$ from people who barely use their connections, but still want to gouge the people who do. People who use 2 - 5 gigs per month should be paying $15 a month, not $50. But the greedy pigs want more....

It's liks saying that you are an hourly employee until you hit 40 hours. Then you switch to Salary. You can't have your cake and eat it too!!!

cw]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22423289 Thu, 21 May 2009 14:59:22 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22423212 said by espaeth:

The median traffic usage level for most ISPs in the US and Europe is somewhere in the 2-5GB/mo range. That means that at least 50% of the subscriber base is using 2-5GB/mo or less. So that leaves some fraction up to 50% of broadband users that would be affected by this approach, instead of the industry claims that the shift to metered billing would only impact 1% of their customers. It's very interesting that they chose to use the median, and not the mean. I wonder how much worse that number looked... Can we exclude Europe to get a real number that is useful here?

cw]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22423212 Thu, 21 May 2009 14:49:43 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22421984 said by baineschile:

who browses the internet and checks email, doesnt use that many gigs.


what is the point in getting a 15/2 for that?

that is like getting a super fast car and driveing it at 25mph]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22421984 Thu, 21 May 2009 11:11:55 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22421508
I agree with fireflier that the 5 GB per capita would be grossly inaccurate to represent usage of typical usage for an average household/user. If you take that "monthly Internet traffic estimate" for the US and divide it by the entire US population then you get roughly 5 GB per capita figure...

Of course, not everyone in the US even have a computer let alone internet access... A quick Google search suggests that to be as high as 30% (2005 figures) so you are lowering the average of people that actually uses the internet... 5 GB/.7 = 7 GB would be slightly better figure. I would argue that is still too low for board band users as 5 GB should be pretty hard to hit on 56k dial up (assuming 8hrs per day; still takes over a week 24/7 to hit 5 GB). My guess is board band is more like 10 to 12 GB and dial up is 1 to 3 GB per month. And Yeah there are still people in the US that uses dial up... Just my guess tho...

Still as pointed out, you need to know the standard deviation to use the normal/bell curve to figure out where say ~68% to ~95% of the population lies. It would seem fair to me if they had a reasonable/cheap plan to cover ~68% of users, and a more expensive plan to cover ~95%, and then very expensive plans... If it really is all about consumers as they claim...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22421508 Thu, 21 May 2009 09:29:44 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22421277 said by tubbynet:

since you have dug through the links (and i'm really not feeling up to it after today), you have mentioned this

said by espaeth:

they are still only looking at about 20GB/mo per capita for Internet usage
per capita (to me atleast) could be construed as misleading. are we looking at total bandwidth consumption against *total* population or are we looking at total bandwidth consumption against *connected* population?

q.
Yes, they are, and it's an invalid quantity to use for this purpose. You are correct. It is misleading.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22421277 Thu, 21 May 2009 08:34:56 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22421257 --
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22421257 Thu, 21 May 2009 08:30:23 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22421251
It does not in any way accurately or completely represent the distribution of people who use the bandwidth, nor does it represent what the outliers are on that data.

One COULD assume a few use a great deal of bandwidth and to make per capita numbers on a standard normal curve, many would use very little.

The reality without seeing the distribution is that a significant proportion could be using a moderate amount with very few using a great deal and a few using a small amount. That also most likely assumes a standard normal distribution which has also not been confirmed. The distribution of bandwidth users may follow a different curve.

Distribution of the data is what's important here, not per capita. Per capita is a summary used to represent quantities whose deeper analysis is irrelevant. That is not the case with bandwidth use.

The fact that companies like TWC aren't using (are they even calculating?) Q3 as a potential cap point (They're using something closer to Q1) either indicates they have no freaking clue about statistical application to system design or they understand it and are ignoring it because to do so guarantees higher income.

Now can we please dispense with the per capita numbers. They may appear favorable for ISPs trying to bolster their position but they are not accurately indicative of bandwidth use as it applies to engineering design for their networks.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22421251 Thu, 21 May 2009 08:28:20 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22421086 per capita and does not represent a statistical model of the population. Rather, it represents a simple division of the total traffic in the country by the number of users in that country. In the same manner that per-capita is used to represent per-capita income. It doesn't mean everyone on average makes the per capita amount. A per-capita breakdown unfortunately provides no useful information on the average, mean, standard deviation, or outlier data in a set. It also provides no insight into the distribution of that data (users), i.e. normal, binary, chi squared, lognormal, inverse gaussian, etc.

"In spite of the widespread claims of continuing and even accelerating growth rates, Internet traffic growth appears to be decelerating. In the United States, there was a brief period of "Internet traffic doubling every 100 days" back in 1995-96, but already by 1997 growth subsided towards an approximate doubling every year CO1998, and more recently even that growth rate has declined towards 50-60% per year. "

"The press is full of alarms about "exafloods" of traffic, primarily video, that might overwhelm the Internet. This is motivating calls for new business models, with many implications for issues such as "net neutrality" (see MW2007, And2007, MI2007, and McC2006). But there is very little solid data about what is happening on the network, and many conflicting estimates. As one striking example, at the end of 2005, John Chambers, the CEO of Cisco, claimed that Internet traffic was growing at about 100% per year Boslet2005, and similar claims are common (e.g., Roberts2006). Chambers also predicted both in 2005 and in a keynote at the NXTcomm conference in June 2007 Chambers2007, Duffy2007 that growth might accelerate towards 300 to 500% per year, and that the internal Cisco corporate network traffic load is currently growing at such rates"

ISPs bemoan the coming bandwidth crunch using one source, and use other sources to validate their claims of what is statistically normal while simultaneously ignoring contradicting facts from those sources that are inconvenient when applied against their proposed business models?

The MINTS project data indicates that data is "Year-end 2008 estimates for monthly Internet traffic (GB per capita)" and clarifies that is extrapolated data. Based on that number, and assuming it is accurate per capita it would still put most users over 5GB and render RR's proposed lowest tier obsolete right out of the gate.

If ISP execs are using data like that provided from MINTS and making the typical arguments using that data that their business model needs to change, then they're morons. They should at least hire a mathematician qualified in statistics and probability to interpret the data for them so they can make informed decisions.

MINTS also claims that their numbers are not entirely reliable because ISPs typically do not share detailed information that could be used to obtain reliable statistics.

The repetition of ISPs claiming that the "typical" user requires x GB and that traffic on the internet will increase to y EB does nothing to support their position for those who understand what data is relevant when the ISPs won't provide raw numbers to prove it.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22421086 Thu, 21 May 2009 07:06:04 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420859 said by espaeth:

said by BF69:

And of course it will stay 5 GB forever. Um have you noticed the ads for Hulu on TV a lot? What happens as more and more peole start using that.
You start having a lot more indicators popping up about how the current model isn't sustainable.

Insurance rates are based on statistical evaluation of past events. What do you suppose the impact would be to home owners insurance rates if instead of a major hurricane every few years to having, say, 2 major high-claim hurricanes a season? Pricing will need to adjust to new reality of the situation.

The argument made here is that your usage should be able to dramatically increase, but your monthly bill should stay the same or be lower. That position has obvious inconsistencies with reality.

said by BF69:

I have a subscription to MLB.tv where I can watch live games on the internet. They even have them in HD at 3 Mbps stream. Watching my favorite team play their 26 games a month will use 100 GB. I wouldn't consider watching 1 baseball game a day excessive.
Sure, but MLB.tv had around 500,000 subscribers last year, out of 200-some million broadband subscribers in the US. That's practically a rounding error in the grand scheme of Internet statistics.

said by BF69:

You link also eldues to a 50% yearly increase. Within 5 years that's 38 GB per month average. Within 8 years it's 128 GB average. Within 12 years it's 649 GB average.
5 years is a long way away. 5 years ago we were just being introduced to the first DOCSIS 2.0 hardware that was capable of turning the 9mbps shared upstream into 27mbps shared upstream on cable plants. Keep in mind that is average growth; the demand of some folks is significantly greater than that year-to-year.

said by BF69:

By the way how come no cap on TV watching? How much bandwidth am I using when I'm watching that average 151 hours of TV per month?
Because broadcast TV is infinitely more efficient. There are a vast array of one-way delivery technologies (OTA ATSC, QAM, 8PSK/QPSK, etc) that are able to push massive amounts of content to your house economically. 2-way systems are more expensive, and have the detractor of having to manage separate flows per viewer.

Broadcast TV is easy to plan for, the downstream bitrate is constant no matter how many viewers there are, and efficiently only goes up when more people are watching the same thing at the same time.
If my cable was still the same 10 years ago, and i didnt get a nice increase every year, then yes I would understand your point. They make money, it's been show time and time again that MSOs/Cable CO's hate to spend capital. Because they'd rather make their sheets look good.

The only MSO is Cablevision, who actually spends capital on such investments.
--
The more you talk, the less you listen.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420859 Thu, 21 May 2009 02:36:51 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420841
So if your cap was 100GB, suddenly people in the 80GB are abusing the cap.

If your cap is 40GB, suddenly people in the 30GB are abusing the cap.

Most internet users are not by any circumstance under 40Gig; companies are deliberately avoiding the reality of their bandwidth capability. Once we do IPTV, what do you suppose happens to the excess of bandwidth for HDTV? Why should we pay extra for that? Oh right, added value isn' tit?

Their goal isn't to deter competition as there is none. their goal is to degrade service to up profit margins.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420841 Thu, 21 May 2009 02:26:19 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420381
said by espaeth:

they are still only looking at about 20GB/mo per capita for Internet usage
per capita (to me atleast) could be construed as misleading. are we looking at total bandwidth consumption against *total* population or are we looking at total bandwidth consumption against *connected* population?

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420381 Wed, 20 May 2009 23:33:55 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420360 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420360 Wed, 20 May 2009 23:27:48 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420330 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420330 Wed, 20 May 2009 23:17:17 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420210 said by ThrowDemsOut:

said by beerbum:

said by S_engineer:

The more they pay the less they use...then the cablecos would reclaim some of that precious bandwidth they're supposedly losing.
Speaking of bandwidth.. won't the cablecos have mad bandwidth freed up this coming June 12 when all video broadcast/transmissions are supposed to switch to all data?

I'm sure they'll then start to drop their analog simulcast, slowly moving all subscribers needing a cable box to get all channels..
They can't drop their analog simulcast on basic channels for a couple years by FCC mandate.
yes this is true.. however Comcast has a basic package and what they call expanded basic, or enhanced, or standard depending on what your region calls it - it is made up of those channels above the 20 or so channel basic plan that a DCT is not needed - those they can and have already start moving them to digital only to free up that 8MHz the analog channel was using..]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420210 Wed, 20 May 2009 22:50:02 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420156 said by S_engineer:

By stating that they don't, they are admitting that they have an oversold inferior network!That's one way to phrase it -- the other way is to say the oversubscription ratio is starting to change a bit faster than what they can budget for expansion. Network growth is planned every year for every major ISP out there -- the problem is when demand exceeds planned growth based on budget.

said by S_engineer:

With that admission in mind, why is it the responsibility of the consumer to upgrade a network all at once rather than over time like it should have been done in the first place.
You have to remember in the cable world DOCSIS systems started out with 2,000+ cable modems attached per downstream channel when they were being deployed at the start of the decade. Now it's typical to see 250 modems or less on a downstream channel, and 125 or less per upstream channel.

Same deal with expansion for DSL. The Remote Terminal DSLAM that feeds my house was installed in 2005 with a couple T1s feeding it to provide my ILEC the ability to sell 1.5mps DSL service. Just a few weeks back they started dropping in a brand new fiber distribution system that will serve as a potential platform for FTTP deployments in the future, but for now they've been able to expand capacity to the RT so they can offer 10mbps DSL in the meantime.

Upgrades are constant, and are done as part of planned tech refresh cycles under the annual budget. The problem is rapid expansion is more expensive than waiting for technology to mature and the price of equipment to come down. If people are going to drive traffic that forces broadband providers to get the newest equipment at top dollar prices, that money has to come from somewhere.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420156 Wed, 20 May 2009 22:39:48 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420154 said by beerbum:

said by S_engineer:

The more they pay the less they use...then the cablecos would reclaim some of that precious bandwidth they're supposedly losing.
Speaking of bandwidth.. won't the cablecos have mad bandwidth freed up this coming June 12 when all video broadcast/transmissions are supposed to switch to all data?

I'm sure they'll then start to drop their analog simulcast, slowly moving all subscribers needing a cable box to get all channels..
They can't drop their analog simulcast on basic channels for a couple years by FCC mandate.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420154 Wed, 20 May 2009 22:39:40 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420147 said by winsyrstrife:

Looks like DD-WRT's live bandwidth monitoring.
Yes. That is exactly what it is. It is running on a Linksys router.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420147 Wed, 20 May 2009 22:38:30 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420137 said by S_engineer:

The more they pay the less they use...then the cablecos would reclaim some of that precious bandwidth they're supposedly losing.
Speaking of bandwidth.. won't the cablecos have mad bandwidth freed up this coming June 12 when all video broadcast/transmissions are supposed to switch to all data?

I'm sure they'll then start to drop their analog simulcast, slowly moving all subscribers needing a cable box to get all channels..]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420137 Wed, 20 May 2009 22:36:03 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420126
But, Hulu, for example, doesn't mention caps or per byte billing in their ads. That could stifle internet video. Too bad that AOL's and Hulu's classic TV can't be in cable's On Demand section. Wouldn't that ease the caps problem?
Mark F.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420126 Wed, 20 May 2009 22:34:30 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420065 said by baineschile:

Way off Karl. A 40 Gig cap does not affect ALL households; as most internet users still are way under that threshold. I like to think of myself as an average user - that is I do not download everything just for the sake of downloading.. from 4/20/09 to 05/20/09 the traffic I received was 31GB and traffic sent is 2.5GB.. so I'm at 33.5GB..

On my other LAN segment, which one "average" user is connected to, received traffic was 19.5GB and traffic sent was 1.1GB..

That brings the total traffic to 54.1GB for two "average" users.. About the only largeness downloaded has been the Windows Seven RC..

It is very easy to exceed the "40GB" that you think is way off..]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420065 Wed, 20 May 2009 22:26:54 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420030 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420030 Wed, 20 May 2009 22:22:36 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420007 With that admission in mind, why is it the responsibility of the consumer to upgrade a network all at once rather than over time like it should have been done in the first place.
--
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420007 Wed, 20 May 2009 22:19:25 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420005 said by major marco:

said by espaeth:

said by JamesPC:

Its not the truth, just a speculation.
The statistical data is on his side that most people use far less than 40GB.

I want to see this wonderful statistical data that evidences your "most people" theory, AND I want it to be from an independent 3rd party not on the NCTA payroll, including, but not limited to TWC, Comcrap or industry suck asses like McSlarrow and/or the slavering sycophant who wrote the above referenced Ars Technica piece.Start with MINTS, and work your way through the links.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22420005 Wed, 20 May 2009 22:19:19 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419936 said by Anonymous_:

cable modem Noise Traffic is 5GB to 6GB all ready
Not even close to accurate.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419936 Wed, 20 May 2009 22:06:06 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419847 said by espaeth:

said by JamesPC:

Its not the truth, just a speculation.
The statistical data is on his side that most people use far less than 40GB.

I want to see this wonderful statistical data that evidences your "most people" theory, AND I want it to be from an independent 3rd party not on the NCTA payroll, including, but not limited to TWC, Comcrap or industry suck asses like McSlarrow and/or the slavering sycophant who wrote the above referenced Ars Technica piece.
--
The Toll

Tracking Lord Stanley
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419847 Wed, 20 May 2009 21:51:22 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419646 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419646 Wed, 20 May 2009 21:12:29 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419571 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419571 Wed, 20 May 2009 21:03:21 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419520
Once you put a meter on anything it becomes regulated. I can't think of any other service that is metered and isn't regulated. You are going to have local, state and fed governments come in put on all their new fees for each bit you transfer. Once you put a meter on bandwidth it is going to open the floodgate of new fees.

The whole ad thing I originally opened with was more of a joke then serious, but in a funny sort of way you are going to be paying for those ads, even with a ad blocker a few always get through. I guess that is how people who subscribe to cable or satellite tv feel. I wouldn't know since I don't subscribe to any video service.

There are a million things how meter billing on the net will have it's weird questions, like if I am in the middle of a big dl, the ISP has a outage, the file becomes corrupted or the site does not resume the file, will I get credit for the ISP's outage, more then likely the answer is of course not.

So in the end these ISPs want to meter you because they know they will make a killing, as they are already profitable as a all you can eat. But they also don't want the regulators to come in and tell them what they can and can't do. So they want our money, they don't want to provide anything extra for that money, and they don't want the government to come in and regulate what they can and can't do or charge or just about anything, seems fair to me.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419520 Wed, 20 May 2009 20:42:49 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419412 said by neowulf:

Already use, and there are ads that still get through. But that is besides the point, once you meter something it should be the responsibility of the company that meters to make sure garbage no longer gets through.

TWC wants all the gravy of what metered billing brings, but wants no added responsibility.
Water company isn't responsible for the leaking toilet in your house, why should TWC be responsible for the ads your computer pulls through?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419412 Wed, 20 May 2009 20:12:06 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419406 said by espaeth:

said by Anonymous_:

cable modem Noise Traffic is 5GB to 6GB all ready
The noise traffic is broadcast traffic, and shouldn't be counted against the unicast byte counters per associated MAC on the CMTS. I've had some "drive time" on the Cisco uBR CMTS in the lab, and that traffic is definitely excluded from the reported individual modem/MAC byte totals on that platform.
I'm sure they can be added as "common traffic" to all accounts, the users must pay for the basic traffic usage of any provisioned connection.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419406 Wed, 20 May 2009 20:10:26 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419373 said by Metatron2008:

The current business model is unsunstainable?At the current rate of bandwidth consumption compared to the growth of revenue, yes.

said by Metatron2008:

So we should send them more money huh? The same way we sent telcos tariffs for years so they would build out FTTP, and they did nothing but keep the money?
I didn't say we should "give" them anything, I'm just saying they might need to tweak their pricing to come in line with reality. You might want to fact check a bit; the telecom act of 1996 gave tax cuts (which is not the same as handing over money) to fuel network expansion. The telcos didn't just waste the credits -- they vastly expanded their footprint for DSL by investing in remote terminal DSLAMs to push the service radius further from the COs.

It is, of course, easy to overlook the fact that it wasn't even remotely cost effective to deploy FTTP in the 90's. Passive optical distribution systems (like those used for FiOS) didn't start showing up as actual implementable products until the early to mid 2000's.

said by Metatron2008:

Who do you work for?
A large healthcare company. We have a network services organization that manages the design, implementation, and operation of network infrastructure built out using carrier MPLS services, private/leased fiber plant for metro DWDM / metro-E, and extensive Internet connectivity for hosting/B2B VPN/employee VPN/Work at Home call center agents/etc all over the US.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419373 Wed, 20 May 2009 20:01:36 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419188 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419188 Wed, 20 May 2009 19:18:39 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419154 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419154 Wed, 20 May 2009 19:13:02 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419141 said by PittsPgh:

said by ThrowDemsOut:

said by neowulf:

I also no longer want to pay for banner ads, or any ads for that matter as I would then now be paying for those ads...
Ad Block Plus for Firefox or IE7pro for IE.
Wouldn't matter what you use to block the ads. They still hit your modem.
Actually no they don't. You link to a web page and the ad block software prevents that page from calling all the ads in from different web sites. Ads are almost all served from web sites separate from the web page you are going to. Those ads are never even delivered. The add block software isn't suppressing the display of the ad, it is suppressing the retrieval of the ad completely. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419141 Wed, 20 May 2009 19:10:51 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419135
There are still 13 million households in the US that use dial up. DIAL UP. 56k. I am sure there are a few 28.8's left out there too.

The fact is, everyone on here is reasonably internet saavy, so obviously our use and consumption is higher at this point and time. But the general household, who browses the internet and checks email, doesnt use that many gigs.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419135 Wed, 20 May 2009 19:10:18 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419129
If this current business model is unsustainable, then At&t was also lying to the government.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419129 Wed, 20 May 2009 19:08:54 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419111 said by ThrowDemsOut:

said by neowulf:

I also no longer want to pay for banner ads, or any ads for that matter as I would then now be paying for those ads...
Ad Block Plus for Firefox or IE7pro for IE.
Wouldn't matter what you use to block the ads. They still hit your modem.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419111 Wed, 20 May 2009 19:06:35 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419106 said by espaeth:

said by BF69:

And of course it will stay 5 GB forever. Um have you noticed the ads for Hulu on TV a lot? What happens as more and more peole start using that.
You start having a lot more indicators popping up about how the current model isn't sustainable.

Insurance rates are based on statistical evaluation of past events. What do you suppose the impact would be to home owners insurance rates if instead of a major hurricane every few years to having, say, 2 major high-claim hurricanes a season? Pricing will need to adjust to new reality of the situation.

The argument made here is that your usage should be able to dramatically increase, but your monthly bill should stay the same or be lower. That position has obvious inconsistencies with reality.

said by BF69:

I have a subscription to MLB.tv where I can watch live games on the internet. They even have them in HD at 3 Mbps stream. Watching my favorite team play their 26 games a month will use 100 GB. I wouldn't consider watching 1 baseball game a day excessive.
Sure, but MLB.tv had around 500,000 subscribers last year, out of 200-some million broadband subscribers in the US. That's practically a rounding error in the grand scheme of Internet statistics.

said by BF69:

You link also eldues to a 50% yearly increase. Within 5 years that's 38 GB per month average. Within 8 years it's 128 GB average. Within 12 years it's 649 GB average.
5 years is a long way away. 5 years ago we were just being introduced to the first DOCSIS 2.0 hardware that was capable of turning the 9mbps shared upstream into 27mbps shared upstream on cable plants. Keep in mind that is average growth; the demand of some folks is significantly greater than that year-to-year.

said by BF69:

By the way how come no cap on TV watching? How much bandwidth am I using when I'm watching that average 151 hours of TV per month?
Because broadcast TV is infinitely more efficient. There are a vast array of one-way delivery technologies (OTA ATSC, QAM, 8PSK/QPSK, etc) that are able to push massive amounts of content to your house economically. 2-way systems are more expensive, and have the detractor of having to manage separate flows per viewer.

Broadcast TV is easy to plan for, the downstream bitrate is constant no matter how many viewers there are, and efficiently only goes up when more people are watching the same thing at the same time.
The current business model is unsunstainable?

So we should send them more money huh? The same way we sent telcos tariffs for years so they would build out FTTP, and they did nothing but keep the money?

Who do you work for?

Sorry to say this, but if they kept a majority of payments to themselves, instead of using WHAT WE ALREADY PAID to build new infastructure, and the internet didn't die, it won't.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419106 Wed, 20 May 2009 19:05:27 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419053 said by BF69:

And of course it will stay 5 GB forever. Um have you noticed the ads for Hulu on TV a lot? What happens as more and more peole start using that.You start having a lot more indicators popping up about how the current model isn't sustainable.

Insurance rates are based on statistical evaluation of past events. What do you suppose the impact would be to home owners insurance rates if instead of a major hurricane every few years to having, say, 2 major high-claim hurricanes a season? Pricing will need to adjust to new reality of the situation.

The argument made here is that your usage should be able to dramatically increase, but your monthly bill should stay the same or be lower. That position has obvious inconsistencies with reality.

said by BF69:

I have a subscription to MLB.tv where I can watch live games on the internet. They even have them in HD at 3 Mbps stream. Watching my favorite team play their 26 games a month will use 100 GB. I wouldn't consider watching 1 baseball game a day excessive.
Sure, but MLB.tv had around 500,000 subscribers last year, out of 200-some million broadband subscribers in the US. That's practically a rounding error in the grand scheme of Internet statistics.

said by BF69:

You link also eldues to a 50% yearly increase. Within 5 years that's 38 GB per month average. Within 8 years it's 128 GB average. Within 12 years it's 649 GB average.
5 years is a long way away. 5 years ago we were just being introduced to the first DOCSIS 2.0 hardware that was capable of turning the 9mbps shared upstream into 27mbps shared upstream on cable plants. Keep in mind that is average growth; the demand of some folks is significantly greater than that year-to-year.

said by BF69:

By the way how come no cap on TV watching? How much bandwidth am I using when I'm watching that average 151 hours of TV per month?
Because broadcast TV is infinitely more efficient. There are a vast array of one-way delivery technologies (OTA ATSC, QAM, 8PSK/QPSK, etc) that are able to push massive amounts of content to your house economically. 2-way systems are more expensive, and have the detractor of having to manage separate flows per viewer.

Broadcast TV is easy to plan for, the downstream bitrate is constant no matter how many viewers there are, and efficiently only goes up when more people are watching the same thing at the same time.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22419053 Wed, 20 May 2009 18:56:36 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22418988 said by S_engineer:

So then if the best interest of the consumer was in the mind of the cablecos...then why not price ala carte? That would drop those 5gig users to about $8 a month and those vicious bandwidth hogs would be on the hook for what they use!For the same reason you can't offer $300k in auto insurance for $1/mo for the people who don't file a claim in a year. The system isn't sustainable if you drop the base price to $8, unless your folks using more than 5GB/mo are willing to kick in hundreds of dollars to re-balance the system.

said by S_engineer:

The more they pay the less they use...then the cablecos would reclaim some of that precious bandwidth they're supposedly losing.
It's not quite that simple. Subscriber monthly fees * {x} subscribers buys {y} amount of bandwidth. The problem is when the demand of {x} subscribers exceeds the amount of capacity {y} that can be built out using that money. The numbers are constantly shifting.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22418988 Wed, 20 May 2009 18:41:14 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22418971
»www.google.com/finance?q=comcast

»www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:TWC]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22418971 Wed, 20 May 2009 18:38:23 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22418963 said by JamesPC:

True, even though most of the statistical data is not accurate or could be manipulated.Sure, stats can be manipulated, but there are enough different sources out there that all come to similar numbers that it would require worldwide collusion at this point. The conclusions about an "Internet Meltdown" are obviously sensationalized; companies will change pricing and work harder on better QoS techniques long before it gets to that point.

said by JamesPC:

With all that is said on both sides, why limit growth?
I don't think anybody really wants to limit growth... as long as people are willing to pay for it. That's really the crux of the argument, people are expecting providers to upgrade their networks at a loss -- and that just isn't ever going to happen.

said by JamesPC:

This is nothing more than greed of a corporation.
These companies exist for the sole purpose to make money. They will offer any product you could possibly want, as long as there is a return on their investment and effort. If profitability cannot be maintained, the only option is to shut down the company.

That is, of course, until non-profit entities like the United Way and UNICEF get into the business of building broadband networks.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22418963 Wed, 20 May 2009 18:36:01 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22418951 said by espaeth:

These statistics can be found various places. The MINTS project, for example, cites approximately 5GB per capita on average in the US for Internet traffic.
And of course it will stay 5 GB forever. Um have you noticed the ads for Hulu on TV a lot? What happens as more and more peole start using that. I have a subscription to MLB.tv where I can watch live games on the internet. They even have them in HD at 3 Mbps stream. Watching my favorite team play their 26 games a month will use 100 GB. I wouldn't consider watching 1 baseball game a day excessive.

You link also eldues to a 50% yearly increase. Within 5 years that's 38 GB per month average. Within 8 years it's 128 GB average. Within 12 years it's 649 GB average.

By the way how come no cap on TV watching? How much bandwidth am I using when I'm watching that average 151 hours of TV per month?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22418951 Wed, 20 May 2009 18:33:01 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22418920
The best part is that we talk about it likes it costs them alot for bandwidth. There marketing budgets are more than there bandwidth costs.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22418920 Wed, 20 May 2009 18:26:23 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22418900 said by ThrowDemsOut:

And if it was counted, the background noise runs about 10 kbps based on my router WAN statistics. That comes to about 3.24 GB/month »www23.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=···000+bits & not 5 or 6 as claimed.
[att=1]
And if you have a 5 GB cap that's 65% of your cap.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22418900 Wed, 20 May 2009 18:24:12 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22418882 said by baineschile:

Way off Karl. A 40 Gig cap does not affect ALL households; as most internet users still are way under that threshold.A) Doesn't affect them NOW. Usage per household is growing exponentially. Within a few years 40 GB will be nothing for most.

B) TW caps were as low as 5 GB and that DOES affect most households.

Until Broadband becomes a utility, we have to deal with a competitive, capitalistic market; which means that if a company want to do caps and overages, thats what we will have to deal with (or go to a different company)
That would be nice if there was an actual free market. There isn't and if you think there is you're deluded. Just because I own the only gas station around for miles doesn't mean I can legally charge $100 a gallon for gas.

Also, your claim that it was to deter internet video; if that was the case, why would FiOs even bother having TV service if broadband and IPTV is the future? I will give you that no company has supported data that shows they SHOULD have caps; but that doesnt mean the sole reason is to deter competition.
Sure it does. Say if I decide to cut my cable and go with watch all TV thru Hulu and other legal internet sources. Now say I want to watch them in HD. The average person watches 151 hours of TV a month. 151 hours at 2 Mbps stream is 130 GB a month and that's if you're a 1 person household and don't have any other internet useage( which is doubtful ). Now you have a 40 GB cap so you are 90 GB over which TW will charge you $90. Well that's more expensive than cable. So the incentive to cut cable is now gone. If that isn't deterring internet video I'm not sure what is.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22418882 Wed, 20 May 2009 18:22:12 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22418881
The more they pay the less they use...then the cablecos would reclaim some of that precious bandwidth they're supposedly losing.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22418881 Wed, 20 May 2009 18:22:09 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22418858
With all that is said on both sides, why limit growth? And in my opinion this will kill the internet. But I dont think the consumer will let it happen unless the broadband companies want to go out of business. As soon as they try this in my market, bye TWC. This is nothing more than greed of a corporation.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22418858 Wed, 20 May 2009 18:18:35 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22418806 said by JamesPC:

Its not the truth, just a speculation. The statistical data is on his side that most people use far less than 40GB.

I'm not saying that some (maybe even as much as 10-15% of subscribers) don't use more, but the data simply doesn't support the position that average usage is over 40GB/mo. Even in South Korea where Internet traffic growth has been explosive, they are still only looking at about 20GB/mo per capita for Internet usage. Clearly there are folks that use a vast amount more than that, but they are more than offset by the massive number of people at the low-end of the usage spectrum.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22418806 Wed, 20 May 2009 18:08:54 EDT Re: metered billing means http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22418762 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-metered-billing-means-22418762 Wed, 20 May 2009 17:57:21 EDT