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 |
|
 whfsdudePremium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC
 ·T-Mobile US
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. |
|
4 edits | said by whfsdude 
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.
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. |
|
|
|
| reply to whfsdude
said by whfsdude
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 |
|
whfsdudePremium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC | said by ExoticFish:Bandwidth, no... Resources, maybe. Derp on my part. Thanks for the correction. |
|
 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
·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:2
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:2 | 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:2 | 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:2 | 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 |
|
| That's a joke - here's the most important and truthful part of the article:
Disputing the paper’s 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. |
|
 NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to telcodad
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 |
|
| 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. |
|
 removedPremium,VIP
join:2002-02-08
Houston, TX
kudos:37 | 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 |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 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:2 | 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 |
|
| 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 don’t have TV businesses. They have finite bandwidth resources that they’re 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. |
|
