how-to block ads
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
4 edits | July 3, 2009 topic summary ~by Sofa King~ We are almost on page 90 and this thread is getting a bit repetitive. What have I learned so far?
• Businesses AND Consumers are Greedy.
• Video is changing and it is logical for everyone to be concerned while this gets figured out.
• Broadband is not currently an entitlement, although some may feel that it should be.
• CAPS are concerning, but do have some logic. In a flat-fee billing model they help ensure the majority does not pay for the minority. That said, the minority needs a solution where they get to pay for the usage they want.
• Unlimited bandwidth is not free, but lets make sure CAPs are relative to changing user profiles
• Network management is OK as long as it is non-discriminatory and/or the user is in control of their traffic decisions
• Speed and Usage have different costs based on how they are combined.
• Net neutrality has less to do with consumers and more to do with big business (ISPs and major content distributors)
• Bit's cost money and traffic flows need to be funded.
• All Internet is shared (and oversubscribed)
• "Fiber" is also marketing
• FTTH and DOCSIS3 are base infrastructures and do not provide some sort of huge available capacity.
• Networks are constantly upgraded within their base infrastructures to keep up with growth
• 20Mb FTTH and a 20Mb DOCSIS service have a similar user experience (which is really what is important)
• There are no good data examples of the exaflood, but there are leading indicators of major changes on the Internet around video
• A Meter is needed, but it is understood that if you don't do it right the first time, there are some that will make you regret it (those that probably already have meters). That said, hurry up.
• Broadband is not a monopoly but the barrier to entry for new business is expensive (as are many large businesses) and while there is usually choice, some solutions are more expensive than others.
• If you choose to live in an area that is not well served, that is your choice, not someone elses responsibility
• The government should keep watch, but not sure we need another nationalized industry to follow banking, health care and the auto industry. While those are important issues to addres, this trend is a bit concerning.
And lastly I have learned that people need to lighten up a bit and look at all sides of an issue vs. only repeating the same old tired rhetoric. Picking a nit, single issue above or piling on is easy. Look at the entire issue from all sides to better understand Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management and all that goes with this discussion. | |
| 
1 edit | Re: July 3, 2009 topic summary ~by Sofa King~ Good summary, although I do disagree on some points. My favourite is: • The government should keep watch, but not sure we need another nationalized industry to follow banking, health care and the auto industry.
I believe that the government should intervene. We have seen in the cases you mentioned that those industries were unable to correct their greed that ripped off their customers and eventually brought the industries to failure. I do not believe that cable is able to do it right. By spending money on marketing instead of solid upgrades, by deceiving their customers with so called management techniques, they show that the only way is to bring in a larger entity that may be able to correct those trends.
After all, seems that the government intervention is the only thing that worked so far after the traffic shaping debacle or the "soft" cap disclosure. If we see on one side a pattern of what I believe to be deceit and definite corrections after government intervention, why should we not continue with measures that obviously worked ?
Would you like to bet if an attorney general opened a lawsuit about the "delayed" usage meter, that meter would quickly be provided ?
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. | |
|  IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1 | Here's something else that I want to point out to you....
When Comcast boots an "excessive user" in the residential tier, it's interesting that they'd rather give that user the boot than continue to derive subscription revenue from that person for the year that they're booted for...
Does an excessive "residential" user really costs Comcast more than a Business tier user? I find it hard to believe that the 20-40 dollars a month difference between the business/residential tiers, especially given the Microsoft Mail/Domain Service, etc. is enough to cover the extra bandwidth cost over 250GB anyway....
And furthermore, in the case of Sturmvogel, they don't do upgrades to the Business Tier from the residential tier.
Doesn't make sense to me at all how Comcast handles this...
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army | |
| | AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
1 edit | Re: July 3, 2009 topic summary ~by Sofa King~ said by IPPlanMan:And furthermore, in the case of Sturmvogel, they don't do upgrades to the Business Tier from the residential tier. To be specific, I believe the case is they would not let him migrate from residential to business after he had been contacted about his consumption.
Which speaking of that, hasn't it been a year already? | |
| | | | | Re: July 3, 2009 topic summary ~by Sofa King~ said by AVonGauss:Which speaking of that, hasn't it been a year already? Yes.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. | |
| | | | AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL | Re: July 3, 2009 topic summary ~by Sofa King~ said by sturmvogel:said by AVonGauss:Which speaking of that, hasn't it been a year already? Yes. Have you reestablished service with Comcast? Just curious. I would perfectly understand if you never wanted to do business with them again.
| |
| | | | | | | Re: July 3, 2009 topic summary ~by Sofa King~ said by AVonGauss:said by sturmvogel:said by AVonGauss:Which speaking of that, hasn't it been a year already? Yes. Have you reestablished service with Comcast? Just curious. I would perfectly understand if you never wanted to do business with them again. No. I would not have an issue with re establishing service at that address, but having to go through the arrogant "abuse" department is not something I want to do. I do have service with CC at two other addresses and I monitor my usage to be under 250. If that arrogant guy would have simply said "keep it under 250" we would have never gotten into this excellent relationship.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. | |
|
| | IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1
1 edit | Exactly.... I don't understand why they don't allow upgrades in that case. | |
|
| |
|
