 fireflierCoffee. . .Need CoffeePremium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
1 edit | reply to baineschile
Re: metered billing means 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. 1. Most internet users are still below 40GB huh? Your statistics to support this can be found where? I'm not a a constant video downloader/gamer/traffic user but my router shows I'm hitting 40+/month. If your definition of "most" internet users are grandmothers who check email, then your claim could be correct but the definition is not. Remember, part of that 40GB consists of various OS patches (along with patches for endless numbers of software packages), Game system updates, etc. And if a person has multiple PCs with similar configuration then it's a x2, x3, x4 scenario. Many households do have more than one PC now.
2. 40GB was TWCs HIGHEST tier at one point in their "suggested" new pricing structure unless you wanted the uber supermondoall-you-can-eat tier for a ridiculous $100 or so a month. 5GB per month for the lower tiers WILL affect MANY households which will force them to higher tiers. It will also become a bigger problem to people as additional bandwidth-using apps appear. I didn't see anything from TWCs spin doctors claiming they'd promise to raise those caps as needs required.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com |
|
 Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
 ·Time Warner VOIP
2 edits | said by fireflier: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. 1. Most internet users are still below 40GB huh? Your statistics to support this can be found where? I'm not a a constant video downloader/gamer/traffic user but my router shows I'm hitting 40+/month. If your definition of "most" internet users are grandmothers who check email, then your claim could be correct but the definition is not. Remember, part of that 40GB consists of various OS patches (along with patches for endless numbers of software packages), Game system updates, etc. And if a person has multiple PCs with similar configuration then it's a x2, x3, x4 scenario. Many households do have more than one PC now. 2. 40GB was TWCs HIGHEST tier at one point in their "suggested" new pricing structure unless you wanted the uber supermondoall-you-can-eat tier for a ridiculous $100 or so a month. 5GB per month for the lower tiers WILL affect MANY households which will force them to higher tiers. It will also become a bigger problem to people as additional bandwidth-using apps appear. I didn't see anything from TWCs spin doctors claiming they'd promise to raise those caps as needs required. heh but if you got more then one person using it you can use upto 400GB permonth
cable modem Noise Traffic is 5GB to 6GB all ready |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| 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. |
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
2 edits | 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. 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.
|
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| reply to fireflier
said by fireflier:1. Most internet users are still below 40GB huh? Your statistics to support this can be found where?
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.
said by fireflier:If your definition of "most" internet users are grandmothers who check email, then your claim could be correct but the definition is not. 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. These numbers have been published in closed-data sources like those from Comcast, open statistics from major ISPs in Japan, and by research groups like MINTS.
You have to realize that as a member of this site, you're not representative of most broadband customers. |
|
| 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!
The more they pay the less they use...then the cablecos would reclaim some of that precious bandwidth they're supposedly losing. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to Romney2012
And if you have a 5 GB cap that's 65% of your cap. |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to espaeth
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? |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| reply to S_engineer
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. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| reply to BF69
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. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·Charter
·Clearwire Wireless
3 edits | 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. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| 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.
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. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to espaeth
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. |
|
| reply to Romney2012
bit off topic but where is that traffic graph from? program or router? thanks |
|
| Photoshop |
|
| reply to Anonymous_
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?" |
|
| reply to espaeth
Your missing the point. The 60 or 70 or 80 percent of the people that are only utilizing 5 or 10 or even 20 gig per month are more than adequately making up for the 5 % of the people that use into the 100s of gigs. By stating that they don't, they are admitting that they have an oversold inferior network!
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 |
|
 winsyrstrifeRiver City BouncePremium
join:2002-04-30
Brooklyn, NY | reply to AnonUser1
Looks like DD-WRT's live bandwidth monitoring. |
|
Mark F
join:2007-08-01
Fort Wayne, IN | reply to BF69
More and more people are watching TV shows and movies from TV.com. CBS, AOLin2TV, IMDB, ABC, YouTube, and many are trying to find an economical way to watch such internet content on their TVs.
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. |
|
 beerbumobscurum per obscuriusPremium
join:2000-05-06
Eastern PA
1 edit | reply to S_engineer
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.. |
|
