 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | 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. Clearly this is a troll post. |
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by morbo: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. Clearly this is a troll post. Why. He tells the truth. Just not a truth you want to hear or let be heard. |
|
| Its not the truth, just a speculation. |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| 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. |
|
| True, even though most of the statistical data is not accurate or could be manipulated.
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. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| 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. |
|
1 edit | They are more than profitable now. This is all a scheme to pretend that the internet is melting down, and the truth is that its running just fine.
»www.google.com/finance?q=comcast
»www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:TWC |
|
 baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
 ·Comcast
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to JamesPC
Look, on a website thats dedicated to all things braodband,, obviously the arguement will be that "most" people use XX gigs per month.
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. |
|
baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | reply to morbo
Clearly this is not; its factual based argument that you just happen to disagree with. |
|
| His is the factual argument. I've had to block websites pop ups because some carry trojans. If they were still uploaded you'd get trojans no matter what. |
|
 major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | reply to espaeth
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
|
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| 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. |
|
 tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | reply to espaeth
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.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." |
|
 fireflierCoffee. . .Need CoffeePremium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo | reply to espaeth
See my other post. Per Capita is NOT a useful statistical parameter without additional information. It is a simple division of one total quantity (total bandwidth) by a population (users). Thus, it is merely the mean of some population distribution on an assumed curve. We don't know what the median is, nor do we know the spread, variance, standard deviation or what are considered outliers. One useful way of representing this if the ISPs want to prove their point would be to provide the "Five-Number Summary" Minimum, Quartile 1, Median, Quartile 3, and Maximum. Mean by itself is pretty useless in this context.
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 |
|
fireflierCoffee. . .Need CoffeePremium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
1 edit | reply to espaeth
Been through MINTS. It's Per Capita numbers and they themselves claim that internet growth is not increasing at 100% or exponentially, it's (as of extrapolated year-end 2008) 50%-60%. Their only support for Exaflood is there's a lot of data out there that COULD hit the internet but a meltdown is dependent upon when it hits, how much hits, how fast, and what companies do in the mean time to their network in terms of upgrades.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com |
|
fireflierCoffee. . .Need CoffeePremium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo | reply to tubbynet
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 |
|
 Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
·Time Warner VOIP
| reply to baineschile
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 |
|
