dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4
share rss forum feed
« Wasted Money
This is a sub-selection from Cap limits eh?


mmay149q
Premium
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
kudos:48
reply to Crookshanks

Re: Cap limits eh?

said by Crookshanks:

said by mmay149q:

This is 2012, and with 4TB drives being sold now, 500GB should be the cap for g-ma, and 1 - 2TB for everyone else.

At what point in computing history has anyone (other than porn addicts) needed to routinely download such a large fraction of their hard drive capacity on a monthly basis? Regarding "g-ma", I deploy dd-wrt routers as a matter of course for friends/family/colleagues who ask me. The "g-ma" users I have are lucky to use 1GB/mo. The streaming video people range in the 100GB to 200GB range.

Bellyache about caps all you want but they've been very carefully calibrated to only ensnare a small fraction of the total user base. It's a win-win for the ISPs, they either drive the heavy users off their network and get to postpone upgrades, or they monetize those users and gain additional revenue to fund upgrades.

Or they just kill off the idea of online video all together, oops guess you forgot about that one... Again, this is 2012, where the minimum speed tiers are reaching 10 - 15Mbps in a ton of areas, fast enough to at least stream 1 1080p HD stream, with that being said (and blu-ray's compressed taking up 10 + gigs at that HD ratio) 250GB is a joke, stop living in the past.

Matt
--
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. -Albert Einstein

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

You just don't get it, do you? Nobody gives a damn about caps so long as they only impact a small minority of the user base. They are not set in stone and will be adjusted as time goes on, technology matures, and HD streaming video becomes more mainstream. Until the latter happens, they are only impacting an extremely small minority of "legitimate" (loaded word, I know) customers, most of the rest are porn/bittorrent addicts.

In any event, you should stop being such a pessimist, we have made and will continue to make tremendous progress on internet connectivity. In the last 15 years I've watched my available connectivity options go from a 14.4kbit modem to a 50mbit/s DOCSIS 3.0 cable connection.



mmay149q
Premium
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
kudos:48

said by Crookshanks:

You just don't get it, do you? Nobody gives a damn about caps so long as they only impact a small minority of the user base. They are not set in stone and will be adjusted as time goes on, technology matures, and HD streaming video becomes more mainstream. Until the latter happens, they are only impacting an extremely small minority of "legitimate" (loaded word, I know) customers, most of the rest are porn/bittorrent addicts.

In any event, you should stop being such a pessimist, we have made and will continue to make tremendous progress on internet connectivity. In the last 15 years I've watched my available connectivity options go from a 14.4kbit modem to a 50mbit/s DOCSIS 3.0 cable connection.

No, I get it, you don't get it, it's a way to stop tomorrow's online competition so they remain in control, because it's kind of funny 10 + years of unlimited internet and now all the sudden we need caps, and the reason is because some small minority of 2% makes the experience horrible for the other 98%...

Matt
--
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. -Albert Einstein


mmay149q
Premium
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
kudos:48
reply to Crookshanks

said by Crookshanks:

They are not set in stone and will be adjusted as time goes on

Really, so a 50GB increase in 6/7 years is "progress" when hard drives have increased in TB's over the past few years? Keep drinking that koolaid... Maybe the koolaid man will bust through your wall screaming "OH YEAH!!!" for you every once in a while

Matt
--
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. -Albert Einstein

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to mmay149q

said by mmay149q:

No, I get it, you don't get it, it's a way to stop tomorrow's online competition so they remain in control

You call me a kool-aid drinker while you ramble on about conspiracy theories? How do you account for telco ISPs that have zero connection to the video industry but whom still have AUP language against excessive use? What status quo business model are they seeking to protect?

said by mmay149q:

because it's kind of funny 10 + years of unlimited internet and now all the sudden we need caps, and the reason is because some small minority of 2% makes the experience horrible for the other 98%...

There has always been a clause in the AUP of your ISP about engaging in behavior that degrades the experience of others. All they've done with caps is codify a hard limit rather than having the policy implemented differently depending on the whims of the local network administrators.

Mind you, I don't think caps are the best way to go here, QoS and different contention ratios would be more logical. I'm just hard pressed to see the existing caps as overly restrictive when such a small number of users encounter them.


mmay149q
Premium
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
kudos:48

said by mmay149q:

No, I get it, you don't get it, it's a way to stop tomorrow's online competition so they remain in control


said by Crookshanks:

You call me a kool-aid drinker while you ramble on about conspiracy theories? How do you account for telco ISPs that have zero connection to the video industry but whom still have AUP language against excessive use? What status quo business model are they seeking to protect?

Conspiracy theory? Can you provide evidence to show where people using their connection 24/7 degrades network performance for others on the same node when it's properly maintained and not overloaded with too many subscribers? If you can find evidence of this, I bet it's rare, not common that's for sure.

said by mmay149q:

because it's kind of funny 10 + years of unlimited internet and now all the sudden we need caps, and the reason is because some small minority of 2% makes the experience horrible for the other 98%...

said by Crookshanks:

There has always been a clause in the AUP of your ISP about engaging in behavior that degrades the experience of others. All they've done with caps is codify a hard limit rather than having the policy implemented differently depending on the whims of the local network administrators.

Mind you, I don't think caps are the best way to go here, QoS and different contention ratios would be more logical. I'm just hard pressed to see the existing caps as overly restrictive when such a small number of users encounter them.

You're right about the clause in the AUP and etc, however those are 2 totally different things, people using 3 - 5 different Netflix accounts in 1 home all at the same time will not be billed $10 per 50GB, if all of these caps were due to actual network issues, then the conclusion would be to cap at XGB's and then throttle the connection back after the cap is surpassed. By the method of the current which is to pay $10 per 50GB, it's pretty much like saying "well if this person wants to pay us a huge premium, then we don't care if they degrade everyone else's service" this is just completely backwards in moving forward with new advancements.

Matt
--
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. -Albert Einstein

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

said by mmay149q:

Can you provide evidence to show where people using their connection 24/7 degrades network performance for others on the same node when it's properly maintained and not overloaded with too many subscribers? If you can find evidence of this, I bet it's rare, not common that's for sure.

I don't have to provide any such evidence. It's indisputable that someone who uses their connection 24/7 imposes a greater capital cost on an ISP than someone whose usage is closer to the median. You say "properly maintained" but fail to define what that is. Would it require a 1:1 contention ratio in your mind, so that everybody could use their connection at full speed 24/7?

said by mmay149q:

You're right about the clause in the AUP and etc, however those are 2 totally different things, people using 3 - 5 different Netflix accounts in 1 home all at the same time will not be billed $10 per 50GB

This example is silly, few people are going to have 3 to 5 Netflix accounts simultaneously streaming on the same connection. Those that do should probably be paying more than I do anyway, they are imposing a much greater burden on the network than I am. If they can pay for five Netflix accounts they can pay for a higher tier of service from their ISP.

said by mmay149q:

if all of these caps were due to actual network issues, then the conclusion would be to cap at XGB's and then throttle the connection back after the cap is surpassed. By the method of the current which is to pay $10 per 50GB, it's pretty much like saying "well if this person wants to pay us a huge premium, then we don't care if they degrade everyone else's service" this is just completely backwards in moving forward with new advancements.

No, they pay a "huge" premium ($10 is "huge" to you?) because they require a greater infrastructure investment on the part of the ISP. Who should pay for the required infrastructure upgrades to support such users? I used a grand total of 22GB last month, I should have to pay more to help fund network upgrades because of my porn/bittorrent addict neighbor?


mmay149q
Premium
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
kudos:48

said by Crookshanks:

said by mmay149q:

Can you provide evidence to show where people using their connection 24/7 degrades network performance for others on the same node when it's properly maintained and not overloaded with too many subscribers? If you can find evidence of this, I bet it's rare, not common that's for sure.

I don't have to provide any such evidence. It's indisputable that someone who uses their connection 24/7 imposes a greater capital cost on an ISP than someone whose usage is closer to the median. You say "properly maintained" but fail to define what that is. Would it require a 1:1 contention ratio in your mind, so that everybody could use their connection at full speed 24/7?

said by mmay149q:

You're right about the clause in the AUP and etc, however those are 2 totally different things, people using 3 - 5 different Netflix accounts in 1 home all at the same time will not be billed $10 per 50GB

This example is silly, few people are going to have 3 to 5 Netflix accounts simultaneously streaming on the same connection. Those that do should probably be paying more than I do anyway, they are imposing a much greater burden on the network than I am. If they can pay for five Netflix accounts they can pay for a higher tier of service from their ISP.

said by mmay149q:

if all of these caps were due to actual network issues, then the conclusion would be to cap at XGB's and then throttle the connection back after the cap is surpassed. By the method of the current which is to pay $10 per 50GB, it's pretty much like saying "well if this person wants to pay us a huge premium, then we don't care if they degrade everyone else's service" this is just completely backwards in moving forward with new advancements.

No, they pay a "huge" premium ($10 is "huge" to you?) because they require a greater infrastructure investment on the part of the ISP. Who should pay for the required infrastructure upgrades to support such users? I used a grand total of 22GB last month, I should have to pay more to help fund network upgrades because of my porn/bittorrent addict neighbor?

/sigh

So paying for internet with caps regardless of your speed is paying for an allotment of data (otherwise if you can provide proof of a billing statement showing you've saved money since the implementation of caps I'd be happy to see it, or anyone has saved money or has a lower bill)

Example:
Customer A buys 20Mbps internet service at $30 a month with 300GB cap

Customer B buy's 50Mbps internet service at $50 a month with 300GB cap

Customer A pays 10 cents per GB up to 300GB's and then $10 per ever 50GB after (or 20 cents per GB)

Customer B pays 16 cents per GB, and then $10 per additional 50GB after the cap (or 20 cents per GB)

So what you're saying is that it's ok for people who already pay more for internet than the norm, and use the internet more than the norm, pay more for the same amount of GB's even though they already pay more than the norm, as well as give the lower tiers a cap they may never hit, and in addition offer no subsidies or lower cost even though it's already evident due to math that there's no reason for them to have a higher bill anyway... This makes no sense, at all, not to mention, I've never seen it be good business sense to offer customers that "buy in bulk" or "get bulk" to not get discounts or etc, unless you count the 4 cents per GB instead of 10 cents per GB for overages, but even then there's still 6 cents difference being taken from those on lower tiers.

In fact, this is exactly why this whole plan is screwed up, if you really look at it, people on lower speed tiers are being completely screwed because they are paying high up front premiums, can maybe only use 1 - 3 devices at a time (which may not include streaming on 3 devices depending on the speed tier) and are forced to watch consumption like a hawk when the family is in town. In addition the people on higher speed tiers are also being screwed because now they could be paying $100 a month to get a 100Mbps connection, could be a family of 5, (husband, wife, and 3 kids, which isn't uncommon now a days) but can't even let everyone use the internet to watch videos at once, even though the connection should be able to support it.

Would it require a 1:1 contention ratio in your mind, so that everybody could use their connection at full speed 24/7? I think you meant to type "Connection ratio" there, but I'll still answer the question anyway.

In short, yes, there should be a 1:1 connection ratio, or infrastructure in place to allow everyone to use full speed 24/7, otherwise what's the point in selling the speeds? I mean I understand paying for 100Mbps and only getting 50 - 70Mbps out of it because of the server you're downloading from, but paying for 100Mbps and only getting 50 - 70Mbps because your ISP didn't do proper planning? That's just sad, plus it's equivalent to walking into a store, buying a new t-shirt, and then them cutting it in half and saying "Here's your shirt!" oh well, guess I should just find out how to live in alternate universes...

Matt
--
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. -Albert Einstein