Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | AVG off 11.4 GB/month shows caps not out of line The numbers have shown what many have said - that transfer caps at 250 GB/mo and above are very reasonable and not some anti-competitive throttle on the internet. The only ones complaining are those who SHOULD BE paying more per month if they use more than that. And if you are in the TOP 10% you should pay more. |
|
 tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
 ·T-Mobile US
1 edit | said by Romney2012:And if you are in the TOP 10% you should pay more. Why? What is the cost to ISPs? It's not like a road where increased traffic = increased wear and tear, decreasing longevity, and hurting investment. And this aint Pre-Docsis where a single user could destroy everyone else's bandwidth.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
gpmoo7
join:2009-01-03
Montreal, QC | reply to Romney2012
The problem is that people only use 10GB because they have caps ... if everyone were unlimited, they would use more data 
People don't want to check their bandwith usage every day to see if they can do or not do what they want. |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to Romney2012
I would venture a guess that these numbers are inflated a little bit too. After all, Cisco wants to sell gear to ISPs so they can deal with all that traffic.
--
"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?" - Abraham Lincoln |
|
|
|
 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | reply to Romney2012
You really should change your screename to "Boss Hogg". |
|
| reply to Romney2012
Well, with profit margins on Internet services at 80 percent and rising, I think the answer is more that those in the top percent maybe should pay more, but the rest of us should be paying less -- alot less.
Of course, in this market, prices only ever go up. |
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by ZappaF :
Well, with profit margins on Internet services at 80 percent and rising
Care to back up that estimate of profit margin? SEC filed financial statements come NOWHERE NEAR that number. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by Romney2012:said by ZappaF :
Well, with profit margins on Internet services at 80 percent and rising
Care to back up that estimate of profit margin? SEC filed financial statements come NOWHERE NEAR that number. Gross margins aren't even close to that number.
--
"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?" - Abraham Lincoln |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | reply to Romney2012
said by Romney2012: And if you are in the TOP 10% you should pay more. Any caps set to affect pricing will surely affect more than just the top 10%! |
|
approval from:
gpmoo7 
| reply to Romney2012
It is estimated that Cablevision enjoys “80 percent margins for wired high-speed Internet services.” See Jeff Baumgartner, “Does Cable Really Need Wireless?” Cable Digital News, Dec. 5, 2008. |
|
| reply to Romney2012
Link here:
»www.lightreading.com/document.as···site=cdn
"Moffett believes Cablevision can pay for the buildout through the subscribers gained or retained for its wired broadband service. At an ARPU (average revenue per user) of $35 per month and 80 percent margins for wired high-speed Internet services."
You don't see numbers like this, b/c most companies don't publish sub-segment data like this in their 10-Ks. They'll show "wireline", and "wireless", or if they have specific information for "data", it never discusses costs, only revenues. |
|
 tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | reply to Romney2012
said by Romney2012:The numbers have shown what many have said - that transfer caps at 250 GB/mo and above are very reasonable and not some anti-competitive throttle on the internet. The only ones complaining are those who SHOULD BE paying more per month if they use more than that. And if you are in the TOP 10% you should pay more. but, per the article (and the survey which the article is pulling information from), this is *global* usage, which could include areas that have little to no "local" web infrastructure (websites hosted within the country, providing faster responses); there is no point in surfing to youtube from lebanon if you can't get a decent video to play.
additionally, while the survey is quite light on details on which isps were in the survey and where they were located, this one fact makes me question the *true* accuracy of the article
Cisco collects anonymous, aggregate data about network usage from over 20 service providers worldwide participating in the Visual Networking Index Usage program. Participants in the program receive benchmarking reports comparing their traffic composition and growth to the average of the other participants.
without knowing the subscriber base size and location of each isp, i'd say there is room open for speculation. i'd be more interested in a breakdown of the usage *strictly* in the us by *all* hsi isps. this would be a little more relevant to how broadband policy in the us should be shaped. i mean, after all, weren't you just criticizing countries with "socialized" broadband and now you want to dictate your usage based on them? can't have it both ways
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." |
|
| reply to tiger72
said by tiger72:said by Romney2012:And if you are in the TOP 10% you should pay more. Why? What is the cost to ISPs? It's not like a road where increased traffic = increased wear and tear, decreasing longevity, and hurting investment. And this aint Pre-Docsis where a single user could destroy everyone else's bandwidth. Actually the problem is oversubscription. If everyone were on full throttle 24x7 no one would be able to use their connection.
The reality is that most people don't need a full throttle connection 24x7 which is why we can have affordable broadband for home use. |
|
tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | said by fifty nine:If everyone were on full throttle 24x7 no one would be able to use their connection. and a decent lot of isp gear would start dropping packets because even your switches/routers are oversubscribed.
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·DIRECTV
 ·Optimum Online
·Cablevision
| reply to Romney2012
The critical error in your logic is that that ISP's are making very good profits with the current unlimited model they have, they may need to apply some QoS to busy nodes, but there is no network need for a limit on Bits per month.
Also it is anti-competitive, when looking to forecast future bandwidth usage, you don't look at what the average is today, you look at what the early adopters / High Bandwidth users are using. A HD netflix movie is easily 5GB alone, and they have a lot of room for improvement still (surround sound please)
I don't use P2P and I easily go through 250gb a month when you consider my bandwidth and my roommates as well. Caps are designed to prevent adoption of future higher bandwidth replacements for traditional cable services like netflix etc. |
|
 jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | reply to gpmoo7
The data doesn't support that supposition at all. |
|
gpmoo7
join:2009-01-03
Montreal, QC | said by jester121:The data doesn't support that supposition at all. Which data? It's clear that the future is unlimited bandwidth for every one. That's it.
The future is FTTH starting à 100 Mb/s and going over Gb/s in a few years (that's a reality in some country, not in Canada).
All this bandwidth will be used by everyone ...
Of course, today, in Canada, people are stick to their 7Mb/s throttled Internet access with limited bandwidth so they just do IM, mails and Facebook ... who is going to rent an HD movie with this kind of Internet access ? |
|
| reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:Actually the problem is oversubscription. If everyone were on full throttle 24x7 no one would be able to use their connection. One of the issues that causes issues when oversubscription is done is that there is no option to get that kind of connection. Networks overtaxed: Have the heaviest users moved over to a more dedicated, pricier service: ooops! This is not available to most people to begin with.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | It's available for me. $3000 for a 100 Mbit connection. No thanks. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to gpmoo7
I'm pretty sure that the sample size was big enough that caps weren't an issue. Everyone except mobile broadband providers have caps much higher than 11.4GB. |
|
