funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
1 edit | reply to RR User
Re: Statistics are fun
said by RR User :
If U.S users paid the AVERAGE prices listed....
Comcast's 16mbps tier would be $90 a month, their 50 mbps tier would be $278 a month. Not quite. With a 250 GB monthly limit, Comcast's service has a capacity of about 750 Kbps.
said by RR User :
TWC's 15 mbps tier would be $84 a month. TWC users are getting warning calls for 40 GB/wk usages. That makes them even cheaper quality (more expensive) than Comcast.
So looking at worldwide averages, clearly American cable companies are undercharging for their higher tiers while Verizon's overcharging for their tiers.
No, they're all overcharging. The last paragraph of the article linked above says, "However, prices in the U.S. have been relatively flat, which Johnson blames on local markets that are still monopolies or duopolies."
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
edit 1: cheaper quality (more expensive) |
|
baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
 ·Comcast
·magicjack.com
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
| said by funchords  :said by RR User :
If U.S users paid the AVERAGE prices listed....
Comcast's 16mbps tier would be $90 a month, their 50 mbps tier would be $278 a month. Not quite. With a 250 GB monthly limit, Comcast's service has a capacity of about 750 Kbps. Assuming you run your connection 24/7, yes. If one is doing that though, maybe one should upgrade to business class, where caps are not an issue. |
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·surpasshosting
·ViaTalk
| reply to funchords
said by funchords :No, they're all overcharging. The last paragraph of the article linked above says, "However, prices in the U.S. have been relatively flat, which Johnson blames on local markets that are still monopolies or duopolies." Static prices while speeds increase = NOT FLAT PRICES (the entire story is about dollars per Mbps).
If they were overcharging they'd be hemorraging customers, and they aren't. More accurate would be to say "They're charging more than Robb thinks is fair."  |
|
RR User
@rr.com
| reply to funchords
said by funchords :Not quite. With a 250 GB monthly limit, Comcast's service has a capacity of about 750 Kbps. Now you're mixing data RATE and CAPACITY. The article was about RATE, not CAPACITY. My comment was about RATE, not CAPACITY.
said by funchords :TWC users are getting warning calls for 40 GB/wk usages. That makes them even cheaper quality (more expensive) than Comcast. These "warning calls" and caps DO NOT physically affects data RATE, so it doesn't make any difference in this situation which is not about CAPACITY.
said by funchords :No, they're all overcharging. The last paragraph of the article linked above says, "However, prices in the U.S. have been relatively flat, which Johnson blames on local markets that are still monopolies or duopolies." Prices are flat but data RATES are going up, so cost per bit is dropping same as the rest of the world. Below worldwide average costs for the higher cable data RATES, in fact. |
|
RR User
@rr.com
| reply to funchords
said by funchords :Not quite. With a 250 GB monthly limit, Comcast's service has a capacity of about 750 Kbps. BTW, Comcast's data CAPACITY for residential users is 250 GB, not 750 Kbps. In my example, it's data RATE is 16 mbps.
IF you divide the capacity by the data rate, like you and others do to calculate "capacity", you get "the data rate needed to reach capacity in a month". What you call "capacity" is a meaningless number to end users. Do you also calculate the "capacity" of your car by dividing your monthly mileage by the speed limit?
2000 miles/60mph = 33 mph
...but wait, if you drive further you get a higher "capacity"...
4000 miles/60mph=66mph
Doesn't make much sense does it?
If I only download 120 GB in a month at 15 mbps, is my capacity 375kbps? Obviously not... |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to jester121
said by jester121 :If they were overcharging they'd be hemorraging customers, and they aren't. More accurate would be to say "They're charging more than Robb thinks is fair." Well that line is also true. 
I did the calc once showing that, for $40/mo, we all ought to be running 30 Mbps connections (and that was more than a year ago). This is given the typical costs and capabilities of delivery in telecom equipment. The gatekeeper, in most areas, has been the last-mile ISPs.
I hardly blame them for not wanting to get into a continuous upgrade cycle. But we don't have anything near the competition that would otherwise create fair market prices. I think the article above reflects that. We're stuck in a duopoly where our leverage is low.
When both players have kept prices high and speeds low despite reductions in their own costs or improvements in their own equipment, then consumers have no place to go but to their wallets.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to RR User
said by RR User :said by funchords :Not quite. With a 250 GB monthly limit, Comcast's service has a capacity of about 750 Kbps. Now you're mixing data RATE and CAPACITY. The article was about RATE, not CAPACITY. My comment was about RATE, not CAPACITY. 1 Mbps is both a rate and a capacity.
250 GB/mo is also both a rate and a capacity. Sure, it may be managed manually rather than by physical technical limits, but it's a rate and capacity none-the-less.
(That said, the article and the report are silent as to whether any of the services considers are capped -- and they probably are. The point is probably yours, but it also means that the report itself is less meaningful.)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL |
|
PapaMidnight
join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD | reply to baineschile
Irrelevant. Persons who live in residential areas, although they may choose a business class account, will to still be subject to the 250GB cap, as well as traffic shaping. Considering this makes up roughly 35% of America, the point is irrelevant. |
|
PapaMidnight
join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD
| reply to jester121
said by jester121 :said by funchords :No, they're all overcharging. The last paragraph of the article linked above says, "However, prices in the U.S. have been relatively flat, which Johnson blames on local markets that are still monopolies or duopolies." Static prices while speeds increase = NOT FLAT PRICES (the entire story is about dollars per Mbps). If they were overcharging they'd be hemorraging customers, and they aren't. More accurate would be to say "They're charging more than Robb thinks is fair." I disagree, I believe the reason they are not hemorrhaging customers is simple, and for two reasons: 1) There's no other place for said customers to go, and 2) Said customers don't even know how much they're being taken for. |
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·surpasshosting
·ViaTalk
1 edit | reply to funchords
I know you've worked in the biz, so your calc probably has more validity than a PIOYASWAG* but it's still based on your assumptions, industry-wide averages, and who knows what else. While DC and Chicago might have similar costs, the thousands of small towns spread across the country are drastically different, and aren't served by wide-sweeping generalizations.
Furthermore, your calculations probably didn't take into account the elasticity of broadband pricing. Clearly the duopolies have identified the roughly $40-50 per month price point as the comfort zone for most customers in most places, and they're not willing to budge too much.
I, for one, think it's fair so I pay the price, and in fact I think it's a great deal given what I do with my Comcast connection at home, and the enjoyment and utility I get from it each month. Other people think caps are too low or prices are too high or there's too much latency or newsgroups should be included or whatever else, and they're welcome to their opinion, but that doesn't make the ISP evil or greedy (in a bad way) or draconian.
* - pull it outa your ass scientific wild-ass guess |
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·surpasshosting
·ViaTalk
| reply to PapaMidnight
said by PapaMidnight :I disagree, I believe the reason they are not hemorrhaging customers is simple, and for two reasons: 1) There's no other place for said customers to go, and 2) Said customers don't even know how much they're being taken for. 1. Sure there is. All customers have a choice to no longer be customers.
2. Sure they do. It's on their monthly bill.
(Oh, did you mean "taken for" as in, "taken advantage of" or "hoodwinked"? Well that's a pretty subjective view isn't it?) |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | reply to jester121
Prices have decreased and speeds have increased.
I paid about $80/month for IDSL 10 years ago. I pay $25 for 3meg dsl now. That is a significant price difference. |
|
RR User
@rr.com
| reply to PapaMidnight
said by PapaMidnight :Irrelevant. Persons who live in residential areas, although they may choose a business class account, will to still be subject to the 250GB cap, as well as traffic shaping. Considering this makes up roughly 35% of America, the point is irrelevant. Irrelevant is the cap itself since 99% of users won't ever hit it.
It's the equivalent of putting a speed limiter on a car set to 120 mph. How many are actually going to hit it? |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to funchords
said by funchords :I did the calc once showing that, for $40/mo, we all ought to be running 30 Mbps connections (and that was more than a year ago). This is given the typical costs and capabilities of delivery in telecom equipment. The gatekeeper, in most areas, has been the last-mile ISPs. I'd love to see the math on that. Even with a much cheaper delivery solution like Ethernet you're still looking at $7/mbps carrier costs from the rock-bottom players like Telia and Cogent, and that's in a carrier neutral facility where they can put in a box like a Force10 E600 and provide 336 fiber hand-offs within the facility all on one single piece of hardware.
said by funchords :I hardly blame them for not wanting to get into a continuous upgrade cycle. But we don't have anything near the competition that would otherwise create fair market prices. Comparing privately funded and built networks in the US to those funded or heavily sponsored by government funding isn't a good way to arrive at fair market value. That's like comparing the pricing of a T-shirt at Target to the price of a T-Shirt at Good Will; the factors that lead to the pricing are so vastly different that you need to at least be conscious of the differences.
said by funchords :When both players have kept prices high and speeds low despite reductions in their own costs or improvements in their own equipment, then consumers have no place to go but to their wallets. Reductions in equipment costs doesn't help you when you're still paying off your current equipment. That only helps you on your next equipment refresh interval, which for infrastructure is a 3-6 year cycle if you're running things short, and as long as 10-15 years on a conservative cycle. |
|
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
| reply to RR User
Caps don't manage congestion during peak hours. The "heavy users" aren't affecting anyone if they're downloading during non-peak hours. And even the light users are slowing everyone down by checking their mail or listening to music during peak hours.
Caps are nonsensical and anti-competitive and there is absolutely no evidence that indicates they do anything to help manage network traffic. |
|
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
1 edit | reply to jester121
In the UK 71% of people surveyed felt that broadband was as essential a need as food and water. In many cases people's livelihoods depend on their access to the internet. And even when it doesn't, the internet connects people to the rest of the world. Cutting a person off is akin to cutting off phone service. So no, they don't have the "option" to quit.
This is evidenced by the fact that EVEN DURING A RECESSION more and more people are signing up for broadband, even though they're constantly being gouged. |
|
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
1 edit | reply to espaeth
In fact, the amount of money cable providers have spent on their equipment, BOTH OLD AND NEW, has decreased every quarter. So you're either misinformed or a bald-faced liar. Let me bequeath some more meaningful information.
Comcast, for instance, has an operating cash flow margin of 39 percent in the first quarter of 2009, up from 37.8 percent a year earlier and 37.4 percent in the first quarter of 2007—and it has been rolling out the (relatively cheap) DOCSIS 3.0 upgrades for some time already.
Time Warner Cable. Time Warner Cable, which kicked off the most recent debate over metered billing and Internet data caps, likewise posted some excellent first quarter numbers. The company's overall revenues were up five percent from a year before, but when broken down by category, Internet access did much better—11 percent higher. In its 2008 annual report, TWC also indicates that its Internet expenses had dropped by about 12 percent, even as the revenues increased.
Back when it was still issuing statements trying to justify its unpopular data caps, the company stressed that the business was a good one now, but that it needed plenty of future cash to pay for all the upgrades that higher Internet use was forcing on the company. But in the first quarter of 2009, the company substantially cut its capital expenditures, from $846 million a year ago to $769 million for this last three months. |
|
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
| reply to cwh
The flat rate referred to by the article is something that HAS HAPPENED IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. Your cherry picking of "the last 10 years" is so asinine it gives me a headache. No one in the technology industry, in ANY AREA, defines progress over a ten year period.
In my case I've had the same TWC service since 2003. My speed hasn't changed in 6 years. The previous incumbent, Cablevision, has repeatedly upgraded its customers' speeds in the areas that it now serves. Obviously there's something wrong with TWC. |
|
PapaMidnight
join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD | reply to RR User
Well...
Now that you ask... |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | reply to sonicmerlin
Well i have not had TW in 3 years. But in the 5 years I had them, I went to 1.5 to 6 without a price increase. This has been a typical consumer experience. |
|
