how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to espaeth
Re: metered billing means 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
 ·Clear Wireless
| 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. | |
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. | |
 RallyBah HumbugPremium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to espaeth
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. | |
|
