Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX | reply to iFail 5G
Re: A 10 GB cap? What a joke. said by iFail 5G:Ill take the 10GB cap for usable service any day
That doesn't make it any less of a joke though. |
|
|
|
| said by Kamus:said by iFail 5G:Ill take the 10GB cap for usable service any day
That doesn't make it any less of a joke though. No, it doesn't. Its still ridiculous, and overpriced. But the buildout they have done in rural Alabama is amazing, and its a lot of people's only source of internet besides satellite so I am thinking it will be a hit. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | said by iFail 5G:said by Kamus:said by iFail 5G:Ill take the 10GB cap for usable service any day
That doesn't make it any less of a joke though. No, it doesn't. Its still ridiculous, and overpriced. Not just overpriced, Verizon is charging at least 5 times what they should for an overage. If this is the result of de-regulation then we really need more regulation of companies like Verizon just to protect consumers. |
|
| 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. |
|
 dennismurphyPut me on hold? I'll put YOU on holdPremium
join:2002-11-19
Parsippany, NJ
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·Optimum Online
| 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? |
|
 EvelKubKitty is crazyPremium
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? |
|
| 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
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | 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.  |
|
fiberguyMy 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.  |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| 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. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Air Advantage
 ·HughesNet Satell..
| 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 |
|
Reviews:
·Air Advantage
·HughesNet Satell..
| 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 |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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.
So how expensive is your wireless network, sign me up for your unlimited LTE  |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to chances14
And I agree with you.. and I accept that. But the problem is that when they go beyond just a "thought" and try to push it out as a matter of fact.. that's where I will take on the debate. |
|
| reply to iansltx
said by iansltx: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.
The reason they're not doing it is because they want to profit heartily off of idiots who don't know what a "cap" is. Provide people with the low latency and high bandwidth required to watch videos, and watch the overage profits pour in. They won't even considering just throttling users instead of overcharging them.
Off-peak hours makes perfect sense only if you don't care about maximizing profits at the expense of your customers. Throttling only on congested hours while offering unlimited is also quite possible, especially in these very sparsely populated rural areas. |
|
