reply to Crookshanks
Re: Cap limits eh?
said by Crookshanks:/sigh 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?
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)
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...
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. -Albert Einstein