dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7522
share rss forum feed

boontonflyer

join:2004-07-05
Ringoes, NJ
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to whfsdude

Re: [BW Meter] New Limit on BW Meter?

FYI
We're located in Central New Jersey. Looked up "My Current Data Usage" . It shows the data for the prior three months which is ~~ 170 GB/mo. (~~ 130 GB/down and 40 GB/up). This data essentially agrees with the data collected in the "Traffic Meter of the SamKnows/FCC Router for monitoring the ISP's delivery of services ".

Paul



whfsdude
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 edit
reply to MSauk

said by MSauk:

Because they are not harming the pipe. That is the whole point. They just use more, while others use way less. Why should they pay more to use? Guess I don't understand why they should have to pay more.

You've falsely made the assumption that bandwidth usage equals costs. A consumer doing 250 gigs during peak hours vs. a user using 2 terabytes during off-peak hours. The user doing 250 gigs is going to consume the most resources [edit/correction: fixed wording].

Network engineers (hopefully) design networks to handle the peak traffic load which says nothing about the amount transfer, but rather transfer w/time period.


28619103
Premium
join:2009-03-01
21435

4 edits

said by whfsdude See Profile
You've falsely made the assumption that bandwidth usage equals costs. A consumer doing 250 gigs during peak hours vs. a user using 2 terabytes during off-peak hours. The user doing 250 gigs is going to consume the most bandwidth.

Network engineers (hopefully) design networks to handle the peak traffic load which says nothing about the amount transfer, but rather transfer w/time period.

While this is a good academic analysis for discussion, the reality is the 2TB users ARE using their connection during peak time FAR MORE than any other user.

Even if one did configure their download/upload system to use only off-peak utilization, the complexity and cost to build a billing system around this for the extreme minority of users that would use it and then try to explain how it works to the rest is not smart business.

ExoticFish

join:2008-08-31
Stuarts Draft, VA
reply to whfsdude

said by whfsdude See Profile
You've falsely made the assumption that bandwidth usage equals costs. A consumer doing 250 gigs during peak hours vs. a user using 2 terabytes during off-peak hours. The user doing 250 gigs is going to consume the most bandwidth.
[/BQUOTE :

Bandwidth, no... Resources, maybe.
--
»www.VAJeeps.com



whfsdude
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC

said by ExoticFish:

Bandwidth, no... Resources, maybe.

Derp on my part. Thanks for the correction.


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to MSauk

said by MSauk:

If you are going to do it that way than it should be like a utility. But the meter they use has to actually work properly and be regulated.

But currently they don't have regulated utility status, so like any other business "No Shirt, No shoes, No Service" they can REFUSE service to anyone they please (based on franchise terms) if they see that customers actions to be detremental to their business, or disruptive to their network.
even with the cap "suspended" they still say

Does this mean you're going to stop cutting people off who exceed your allowance?

On May 17, 2012, we announced the suspension of our 250 GB usage allowance and that we would launch new data usage plans. We will continue to contact the very small number of excessive users about their usage, which can be indicative of security or related issues.
It can also mean they are just using too much, and costing more than they pay i.e. an undesirable customer.



telcodad

join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:6

1 edit
reply to telcodad

said by telcodad:

Looks like the FCC is now looking into this "much higher data speeds now being offered vs. only slightly higher data caps/allowances being set" issue:

FCC to study data caps, and may raise broadband speed threshold
By Steve Donohue, FierceCable - August 22, 2012
»www.fiercecable.com/story/fcc-st···12-08-22

As the article says, one of the things the FCC is asking:
"What data capacity limits do most fixed broadband providers offer today? How often, and under what circumstances, do consumers exceed these limits?"

Link to the FCC notice of inquiry: »transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Release···91A1.pdf

An article on the Broadcasting & Cable site today:

Genachowski: Consumers Need Sufficient 'Monthly' Broadband Capacity
Signals FCC has its eye on impact of usage-based pricing on broadband ecosystem

By John Eggerton, Broadcasting & Cable - September 25, 2012
»www.broadcastingcable.com/articl···city.php

EDIT: The full text of Genachowski's remarks can be seen here: »www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-ge···ox-media


telcodad

join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:6

A pair of articles on the GigaOM site today about ISP caps:

As broadband caps turn 4, it’s time for the FCC to take action
By Stacey Higginbotham, GigaOM - October 1, 2012
»gigaom.com/2012/10/01/data-caps-fcc/

and:

Which ISPs are capping your broadband, and why?
By Stacey Higginbotham, GigaOM - October 1, 2012
»gigaom.com/2012/10/01/data-caps-chart/



telcodad

join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:6

FCC commissioner Ajit Pai has warned that they could attempt to regulate the pricing of usage-based broadband packages next year if its net neutrality rules are upheld by an appellate court:

FCC could attempt to regulate usage-based broadband pricing, commissioner Pai warns
By Steve Donohue, FierceCable - December 7, 2012
»www.fiercecable.com/story/fcc-co···12-12-07



telcodad

join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:6

An article on the Multichannel News site today:

NCTA Funds Study Claiming Usage-Based Broadband Pricing Is Pro-Consumer
Free Press Disputes Findings of Paper Authored by Michigan State Professors

By Todd Spangler, Multichannel News - December 14, 2012
»www.multichannel.com/cable-opera···r/140728


GTFan

join:2004-12-03

That's a joke - here's the most important and truthful part of the article:

Disputing the papers findings, Matt Wood, policy director of consumer-advocacy group Free Press, said usage-based pricing models are designed simply to make more money for ISPs.

The idea that the cable industry would charge people less for broadband access, if only it were allowed to do so, is laughable, Wood said. So is the claim that higher cable profits will result in savings and benefits that trickle down to consumers. Nothing but effective competition will drive prices down, and cable operators already make exorbitant returns on their Internet offerings should they care to pass some of that cash back along to their paying customers.


In other words - without effective competition for wired HSI, metered plans will only be a money grab. No more, no less. No one should be surprised by this, because the FCC and Congress blew it long ago when they had a chance to make cable a common carrier open to all ISPs but didn't. As long as they're closed pipes with effective monopolies and little oversight, they can do whatever they want pricing-wise and the FCC will look the other way.



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to telcodad

said by telcodad:

Which ISPs are capping your broadband, and why?
By Stacey Higginbotham, GigaOM - October 1, 2012
»gigaom.com/2012/10/01/data-caps-chart/

Very interesting. Not all cable companies have implemented caps. But I think it is more telling that, among the DSL providers, only AT&T (U-verse TV) and CenturyLink (Prism TV) have implemented caps. This looks suspiciously like preserving the TV revenue stream.

But we already knew that ...
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

GTFan

join:2004-12-03

U-Verse does not have an enforced cap because they still don't have an accurate way of separating TV traffic from internet traffic. Go figure, but the stated 250GB cap is not in place right now.

AT&T DSL on the other hand has a 150GB cap and it is used to charge you extra at $10 per 50GB.



removed
Premium,VIP
join:2002-02-08
Houston, TX
kudos:40

said by GTFan:

AT&T DSL on the other hand has a 150GB cap and it is used to charge you extra at $10 per 50GB.

That cap is not enforced, either.
--
irc.removed.us - #dslr


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to GTFan

The fact that AT&T and Comcast are not, currently, enforcing their caps does not mitigate the fact that they have implemented caps.

BTW, I was not one of AT&T's "bandwidth hogs"; my last full month with them I only had 95GB reported on their meter, but I quit service over their caps. I could have gone with Comcast, whose caps are more generous, but I chose a CLEC DSL provider, Sonic.net, LLC, which does not have caps.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum



telcodad

join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:6
reply to telcodad

said by telcodad:

An article on the Multichannel News site today:

NCTA Funds Study Claiming Usage-Based Broadband Pricing Is Pro-Consumer
Free Press Disputes Findings of Paper Authored by Michigan State Professors

By Todd Spangler, Multichannel News - December 14, 2012
»www.multichannel.com/cable-opera···r/140728

A blog item by Todd Spangler of Multichannel News discussing both sides of the issue:

Broadband Usage Pricing: Let It Flourish
By Todd Spangler, Multichannel News - December 20, 2012
»www.multichannel.com/blogs/bit-r···flourish

GTFan

join:2004-12-03

Another Spangler article worth ignoring. I love this part:

Critics have cooked up the conspiracy theory that usage-based pricing is a way for cable or telco TV operators to protect their TV businesses (by making watching online video less attractive). But FreedomPop and ViaSat dont have TV businesses. They have finite bandwidth resources that theyre trying to monetize in the best possible way.

Um yeah, apple meet orange. Cableco caps have nothing to do with wireless ISP caps. It is not a 'conspiracy' theory to suggest that cable might want to protect the video side of the house with caps, and it has nothing to do with a non-TV provider's reasons for doing so.