dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5257
share rss forum feed


45612019

join:2004-02-05
New York, NY
reply to chances14

Re: A 10 GB cap? What a joke.

That post was unworthy of a rebuttal.

The minute someone starts harping about the government and stereotyping any civilized area as being some gang war shootout zone you know you're dealing with a conservative.


45612019

join:2004-02-05
New York, NY
reply to Sammer
Five times? Try 500 times.

If you believe Verizon is paying anything more than an average of 2 cents/gig for Internet traffic then you've been brainwashed.


45612019

join:2004-02-05
New York, NY
reply to Kearnstd
This. The burbs exist for a reason. Gives you some civilization without having people stacked on top of you.

rebus9

join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Bright House Net..

1 recommendation

reply to iFail 5G
said by iFail 5G:

With satellite I was never even able to hit 6 gig's in a month because its been so poor. So I can gladly watch my usage for 10GB and usable service lol.

So it's no mystery why VZ is deploying this in rural areas first.

Where else in the country can they charge high dollars for low caps, and get no push-back from users? Answer-- in areas where people are desperate for ANYTHING useable.

In the desert, you can charge any price for water.....


dennismurphy
Put me on hold? I'll put YOU on hold
Premium
join:2002-11-19
Parsippany, NJ
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 recommendation

reply to 45612019
said by 45612019:

Five times? Try 500 times.

If you believe Verizon is paying anything more than an average of 2 cents/gig for Internet traffic then you've been brainwashed.

... Because base stations are free, right?


EvelKub
Kitty is crazy
Premium
join:2002-03-17
Mesa, AZ
reply to 45612019
Consider how many towers must be installed in rural areas for this to work... The cost for the tower, antennas, cabinets, land, the cost for electricity, fiber runs and maintenance...

Now consider the number of people which will be served by each tower, which won't cover more than a 50 mile area. Each will likely opt for the lower package, as this is considered a luxury to most country-folk.

How long of a time-frame is okay in your mind for them to take to recover their initial investments?


45612019

join:2004-02-05
New York, NY

1 recommendation

reply to dennismurphy
No. They're paid for by having numerous subscribers forking out $60 or more a month for service.

Implementing low bandwidth caps with high overage fees is completely unnecessary to recoup deployment costs. That's what the subscriber fee is for. Vastly marked up bandwidth overage fees are just an opportunity to price gouge the consumer.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
reply to rebus9
And the problem with providing service that's better than the competition in an area that's underserved is...?

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
reply to 45612019
Have you been on an overcrowded (non-D3) cable node? If VZW had unlimited data on LTE, that's what it would feel like. They have 22MHz of spectrum, and you can only pack in ~71 Mbps of capacity on that.

$10 per GB for fixed service is definitely overpriced. However data centers charge 10 cents per GB for overage bandwidth...to say that $10 per GB is overpriced by a factor of 500 is uninformed.

rebus9

join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Bright House Net..
reply to iansltx
said by iansltx:

And the problem with providing service that's better than the competition in an area that's underserved is...?

You missed the point, which is, they chose areas where they can do the most price gouging with the least amount of push-back. And there will be little push-back because rural areas are desperate. Desperate for anything, even if the price is obscene.

Like I said, in the desert you can charge any price for water.

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

1 recommendation

reply to mythology
said by mythology:

I know some peeps that gotta use their phone for home broadband access. They would love to have this even with the caps. Tho 12mbit will eat up 10gb in no time streaming.

Then don't stream..

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to rebus9
said by rebus9:

said by iansltx:

And the problem with providing service that's better than the competition in an area that's underserved is...?

You missed the point, which is, they chose areas where they can do the most price gouging with the least amount of push-back. And there will be little push-back because rural areas are desperate. Desperate for anything, even if the price is obscene.

Like I said, in the desert you can charge any price for water.

He didn't miss the point at all... you did.

You're entire premise as to why is completely wrong.. and rather just whining. If this service had been deployed in an affluent area they'd be charged with cherry-picking.

The service is designed for rural areas with little options. I'm sorry their rationality on this doesn't suit your personal agenda. You need to get real.

This argument you make reminds me of accountants.. they master the art of taking any thing and making it be what you want.. just like this argument.


45612019

join:2004-02-05
New York, NY
reply to iansltx
Yes. I have been. And it was fine.

I'd rather my connection drop down to half its speed during peak hours than be artificially limited to only using it for a tiny fraction of my billing period.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to iFail 5G
said by iFail 5G:

said by 45612019:

I like how Verizon is deploying this pointless shit instead of continuing to build a real broadband network like FiOS.

You can download more than 10 gigabytes in a month on dial up.

This isn't broadband. This is an abomination.

Clearly you have never lived in a rural area. Here in Birmingham where this is also one of their first markets for home fusion, a lot of rural areas can't even get LANDLINES. So the only option is is satellite which is horrible. This at least I pull down over 50mbit/s constantly.

Ill take the 10GB cap for usable service any day

So wait, you actually have the service and get 50 mbit/s?

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

1 recommendation

reply to 45612019
said by 45612019:

No. They're paid for by having numerous subscribers forking out $60 or more a month for service.

Implementing low bandwidth caps with high overage fees is completely unnecessary to recoup deployment costs. That's what the subscriber fee is for. Vastly marked up bandwidth overage fees are just an opportunity to price gouge the consumer.

Have you ever run a company? .. it sure doesn't sound like it. According to you, the activist however, anything that doesn't fit your agenda by any company is going to be foul.

Towers, power, backhaul, employees, workmans comp, insurance (health and liability) taxes of all sorts, advertising, customer service, installation expenses, maintenance, the data itself, government affairs, the cost of spectrum, fuel, vehicle maintenance, the list goes on.. those are expenses.. and as someone that DOES run a business I can tell you that arguments that people like you make just irritate the hell out of me. You think you have it all figured out.. you think it's all about bandwidth. Oh, and they are allowed to make a profit too.

Now please, go on to tell me how all the stuff I mentioned above has nothing to do with the cost of providing the service, for one reason or another.

I don't know where you people get these figures and formulas you come up with to justify your position, but you're FAR FAR FAR off the mark most of the time.

But yea.. it's all about punitive caps and overages so they can gouge the consumer.

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to 45612019
The only thing I can agree with you, so far, is that the way they impose the caps is a bit off the mark to me. They should only need to throttle or over-chage during peak times or on a "smart management" sort of system. Such as once you hit your ceiling and it's peak, then that usage could be charged as a "premium" rate in order to encourage the user to utilize the network during off peak or overnight hours when possible.

Outside of that, you're still way off.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to iansltx
said by iansltx:

Have you been on an overcrowded (non-D3) cable node? If VZW had unlimited data on LTE, that's what it would feel like. They have 22MHz of spectrum, and you can only pack in ~71 Mbps of capacity on that.

$10 per GB for fixed service is definitely overpriced. However data centers charge 10 cents per GB for overage bandwidth...to say that $10 per GB is overpriced by a factor of 500 is uninformed.

Do you know how they deal with unlimited 3G smartphone users? They throttle speeds when towers are congested.

Okay Ian, let's see these paltry caps are necessary. Then why doesn't Verizon offer unlimited off-peak hours? Say between 12 AM and 8 AM? No one's even awake at the time. Ultra congested satellite offers FAP free during those hours as well.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to EvelKub
said by EvelKub:

Consider how many towers must be installed in rural areas for this to work... The cost for the tower, antennas, cabinets, land, the cost for electricity, fiber runs and maintenance...

Now consider the number of people which will be served by each tower, which won't cover more than a 50 mile area. Each will likely opt for the lower package, as this is considered a luxury to most country-folk.

How long of a time-frame is okay in your mind for them to take to recover their initial investments?

Given much smaller WISPs are able to deploy wireless service to rural users on much smaller economies of scale and must rent bandwidth from Verizon, I think Verizon's costs aren't nearly as high you seem to believe.

If there are so few users, then congestion shouldn't be a problem. And if cost were high, they would simply raise the base price, not duplicitously trick users into paying massive overages when they accidentally go over their cap. Most of those rural folks don't even know what a "GB" is.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to iFail 5G
said by iFail 5G:

Its a deal breaker for me not being able to take my boats out anytime I want, being able to ride my ATV wherever the hell I want, and depending on the gov. for every single thing. If the city water supply gets contaminated which has happened before, I still have sanitary, clean, well water.

You realize your lifestyle is subsidized by federal tax money taken from the cities? Rural states are like black holes when it comes to tax money. Their economies feed on the trough of the military industrial complex and give nothing in return.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
reply to sonicmerlin
It's harder to market a product with cap-free times, maybe?

If I was running a network with relatively low capacity at peak but low off-peak usage, I'd offer some sort of incentive for off-peak usage. Verizon not doing this (just like WildBlue has never done this) is there prerogative. HughesNet is the only major provider to offer a cap-free period in the US.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
reply to fiberguy
While the system may be designed for rural areas, the fact that it creates a broadband monopoly in those area (which allows artificially high pricing) is indisputable.

talos4

join:2002-01-30
Manassas, VA
Presuming satellite would be available to most as well, it would be another duopoly. If no satellite, then i agree they will be a monopoly for the time being. In theory, the first to market with any new service would be a monopoly. Those areas will have some competition if AT&T or another wireless service provider deploys a similar product.

chances14

join:2010-03-03
Michigan
reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy:

said by 45612019:

No. They're paid for by having numerous subscribers forking out $60 or more a month for service.

Implementing low bandwidth caps with high overage fees is completely unnecessary to recoup deployment costs. That's what the subscriber fee is for. Vastly marked up bandwidth overage fees are just an opportunity to price gouge the consumer.

Have you ever run a company? .. it sure doesn't sound like it. According to you, the activist however, anything that doesn't fit your agenda by any company is going to be foul.

Towers, power, backhaul, employees, workmans comp, insurance (health and liability) taxes of all sorts, advertising, customer service, installation expenses, maintenance, the data itself, government affairs, the cost of spectrum, fuel, vehicle maintenance, the list goes on.. those are expenses.. and as someone that DOES run a business I can tell you that arguments that people like you make just irritate the hell out of me. You think you have it all figured out.. you think it's all about bandwidth. Oh, and they are allowed to make a profit too.

Now please, go on to tell me how all the stuff I mentioned above has nothing to do with the cost of providing the service, for one reason or another.

I don't know where you people get these figures and formulas you come up with to justify your position, but you're FAR FAR FAR off the mark most of the time.

But yea.. it's all about punitive caps and overages so they can gouge the consumer.

you gotta remember though that the majority of people on here do not/have not run their own business so they only look at stuff through a consumer point of view so it's understandable why people are uninformed and have no clue about underlying expenses

and remember around here any business that makes a profit is consider evil and greedy

chances14

join:2010-03-03
Michigan
reply to 45612019
said by 45612019:

Five times? Try 500 times.

If you believe Verizon is paying anything more than an average of 2 cents/gig for Internet traffic then you've been brainwashed.

can you give real, cold hard solid evidence to back that up that it only costs 2 cents a gig to deliver internet traffic or are you just doing what Karl does and guessing and making assumptions


N3OGH
Yo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:2
reply to iFail 5G
Where I live used to be rural. I can see center city Philadelphia from my back deck yet I still have a well & a septic tank.

My well is 700ft deep (no bullshit). So, the water is a little hard, but I just run it through a Zero Water pitcher and it's awesome...
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
reply to talos4
Yes, true... I forgot about satellite. So they will have some limiting factor in their pricing. I bet that the overhead for satellite (no pun intended) is much higher than for fixed LTE and that Verizon will be able to profit accordingly.


shortyd999

join:2008-10-21
Birmingham, AL
reply to iFail 5G
Why do people consider Birmingham "rural"? I mean its a city of at 200K+ people (i know thats not large but still sizable). Or are they referring to the surrounding area?

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to CXM_Splicer
So VZ is damned if they do, damned if they don't?

courty3210

join:2004-03-29
Wilmington, DE
reply to EvelKub
yeah, they should run wires into every house and maintain that infrastructure....instead of a towers servicing hundreds of people at a time.

this is why they aren't running fiber anymore, towers are much cheaper to keep operating with hundreds of techs than thousands of techs servicing house calls.


mech1164
I'll Be Back

join:2001-11-19
Lodi, NJ
reply to 45612019
said by 45612019:

That post was unworthy of a rebuttal.

The minute someone starts harping about the government and stereotyping any civilized area as being some gang war shootout zone you know you're dealing with a conservative.

Oh that's a bunch of CR@P. It just shows your political leanings. You inferred they were conservative. Nothing that was said could be construed that way unless that's what you think all people think that way are that. You lost that argument before you even opened yor trap.