dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
36
share rss forum feed


The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to Nightfall

Re: Reasonable

If only 1%, then why the caps? That sure is a small amount, shouldn't affect a mammoth like Comcast.


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
It would depend how far over that 1% went, suppose that 1% all had 105-305 accounts a thus staturated the channels in their areas causing ComCast to do 100-1000's of physical node splits, with costs far exceeding what they'll recieve during the 2-3 year contracts of that 1%.
There are a number of scenrios that would make network management difficult, or cause comcast to spend more on those customers than they return in overage fees, but the hope is the costs will average out AND the cost will make it undesireable for any users to regularly use comcast HSI as an UNLIMITED service.

see it doesn't matter where the actual breakeven point is, it is a private network, they are current selecting an included bandwidth level for each tier that
1}they believe the network can support
2}that they believe covers typical useage of their customers
3}that charge people who exceed that level a small portion of the cost of additional expansion
4}that serves the majority of their customers at a reasonable price point
5}That allows them to continue as a sucessful for profit business

all out in the open, no need to read the fine print
service level x includes XXXGB, if you need more it's $10 for each 50gb more.

if you don't like it you are free to find something else that fits your needs.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to The Limit
said by The Limit:

If only 1%, then why the caps? That sure is a small amount, shouldn't affect a mammoth like Comcast.

Don't expect the peebs around here to understand that. They've drank too much kool aid and just keep repeating the same party line nonsense.


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
said by 34764170:

said by The Limit:

If only 1%, then why the caps? That sure is a small amount, shouldn't affect a mammoth like Comcast.

Don't expect the peebs around here to understand that. They've drank too much kool aid and just keep repeating the same party line nonsense.

If you need an answer to that question, then you need to go back and research shared services, nodes, and broadband history.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
said by Nightfall:

If you need an answer to that question, then you need to go back and research shared services, nodes, and broadband history.

You need to get a clue.


The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Windstream
reply to Nightfall
Thanks for the helpful, and informative, reply.

In reply to tshirt: I'm not asking Comcast to break the trend, I'm requesting that companies like Comcast to be "fair". Sure, have caps, but enforce them EVERYWHERE. I don't think it's necessarily fair to cherry pick where they enforce said caps because of "competition".

For future reference, I'd rather pay for broadband like I pay for a utility, but alas, can't break that "free market" we have going for us.

Nightfall, I've read about broadband history, shared resources, and nodes. This shouldn't be a problem if usage pattern are accurately measured. Don't complain about my short answer if you are going to give me the run around on "researching" said topics. I don't doubt your experience, but I do doubt that giving consumers choices rather than letting our "free market" decide, which many companies like this have their hand in the cookie jar but then complain they can't have their cake and cookies at the same time, is not the correct way to approach this.
--
"We will evaluate these integrals rigorously if we can, and non-rigorously if we must".
---Victor Moll, invited talk, Tom Osler Fest (April 17, 2010)


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
said by The Limit:

Thanks for the helpful, and informative, reply.

In reply to tshirt: I'm not asking Comcast to break the trend, I'm requesting that companies like Comcast to be "fair". Sure, have caps, but enforce them EVERYWHERE. I don't think it's necessarily fair to cherry pick where they enforce said caps because of "competition".

For future reference, I'd rather pay for broadband like I pay for a utility, but alas, can't break that "free market" we have going for us.

Nightfall, I've read about broadband history, shared resources, and nodes. This shouldn't be a problem if usage pattern are accurately measured. Don't complain about my short answer if you are going to give me the run around on "researching" said topics. I don't doubt your experience, but I do doubt that giving consumers choices rather than letting our "free market" decide, which many companies like this have their hand in the cookie jar but then complain they can't have their cake and cookies at the same time, is not the correct way to approach this.

Tshirt put it better than I could in the time he had. Very helpful post and it should help you and others here see the answer to your question.

Its all about infrastructure and the way that shared services were built. I agree with you on usage patterns, but what happens when a node is being overused due to the actions of 5-6 people on the node? When the few hurt the experience of hundreds or thousands on a node, there is a problem.

I don't like caps anymore than the next person, but after working as a contractor in the ISP industry for a few years, I have seen the other side of the issue.

Case in point, there was a cable node that serviced about 100 subscribers. On that node, we had 2 users who kept torrents running on their connections 24/7. No problem, the node was not even close to full. Then, a new neighborhood was added to the node, a new development. In four years, the node tripled. The bandwidth was sized correctly, but now there were 20 people on the node that were running 24/7.

This comes down less to "usage patterns" and more to conservation of a shared service.

The free market decision is all about other ISPs not going this route and getting the people who want unlimited bandwidth as their customers. So far, every major ISP is going down this road right now, so it will have to be a new startup, like Google.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
reply to 34764170
said by 34764170:

said by Nightfall:

If you need an answer to that question, then you need to go back and research shared services, nodes, and broadband history.

You need to get a clue.

Thats what you came up from your research? Makes sense as to why all you have to come back with is an attempted insult.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net


The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Windstream
reply to Nightfall
Here we can agree. I think that the collectively mentality is to cash in on said usage increase, and that is just my hypothesis. I have no data to prove said hypthesis, and I'm sure data like that will never see the light of day.

I see where you are coming from, which is why intelligent network management should be in place for such cases as a stop gap measure until additional capacity can be added, whether that be upgrading backhaul, splitting nodes, etc. I'm not going to pretend that I'm an expert, because I most certainly am not one, but logically it doesn't make sense for these companies to complain about bandwidth crunch but then advertise the product as a "DOWNLOAD MOVIES! STREAM!" when this does nothing more than increase usage exponentially.

Making money isn't bad, but making money off deception is bad. Advertise the product as you would want customers to use it, rather than advertise more than promised. That's my argument. Like I said, I don't mind paying more, but I do mind having to deal with deception and smoke screens. I am in the minority, and I understand this.
--
"We will evaluate these integrals rigorously if we can, and non-rigorously if we must".
---Victor Moll, invited talk, Tom Osler Fest (April 17, 2010)


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
said by The Limit:

Here we can agree. I think that the collectively mentality is to cash in on said usage increase, and that is just my hypothesis. I have no data to prove said hypthesis, and I'm sure data like that will never see the light of day.

I see where you are coming from, which is why intelligent network management should be in place for such cases as a stop gap measure until additional capacity can be added, whether that be upgrading backhaul, splitting nodes, etc. I'm not going to pretend that I'm an expert, because I most certainly am not one, but logically it doesn't make sense for these companies to complain about bandwidth crunch but then advertise the product as a "DOWNLOAD MOVIES! STREAM!" when this does nothing more than increase usage exponentially.

Making money isn't bad, but making money off deception is bad. Advertise the product as you would want customers to use it, rather than advertise more than promised. That's my argument. Like I said, I don't mind paying more, but I do mind having to deal with deception and smoke screens. I am in the minority, and I understand this.

You and I are in agreement. As for your last point, I believe that the days of smoke and mirrors are over. ISPs are no longer advertising "unlimited" use. Anyone who believes bandwidth to be unlimited are operating under a false assumption. I would understand your point if ISPs were saying that data was unlimited and use was unlimited, but that isn't the case.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net


The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Windstream
You are correct in that ISPs don't explicitly advertise unlimited, but they sure do advertise the product as more than promised, because the average user has no idea how much he/she consumes, let alone the speed they pay for in the end. When caps become more standard, people will start seeing nice overage charges on their bills if my hypothesis is correct.

I feel that better education would actually fix our situation rather than regulation, even though I've advocated for regulation in the past. I've given up on the FCC, as well as any government agency, to fix our problems for us.
--
"We will evaluate these integrals rigorously if we can, and non-rigorously if we must".
---Victor Moll, invited talk, Tom Osler Fest (April 17, 2010)


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
said by The Limit:

You are correct in that ISPs don't explicitly advertise unlimited, but they sure do advertise the product as more than promised, because the average user has no idea how much he/she consumes, let alone the speed they pay for in the end. When caps become more standard, people will start seeing nice overage charges on their bills if my hypothesis is correct.

I feel that better education would actually fix our situation rather than regulation, even though I've advocated for regulation in the past. I've given up on the FCC, as well as any government agency, to fix our problems for us.

I agree. I think there should be some kind of "easy to find" meter that users can use to see how much that they have used and if they are close. Its in their billing system, but how many people actively look for it?

At the same time though, I am sure you will agree that with the caps set so high that there is virtually no risk of common consumers hitting them. I believe your hypothesis would be correct if the caps were set low. When Comcast is setting caps at the 250-300gb level, just based on the usage statistics I have seen and that have been posted here, you won't be correct.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall:

Thats what you came up from your research? Makes sense as to why all you have to come back with is an attempted insult.

You keep saying the same stupid shit supposedly having a brain in your head..


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
said by 34764170:

said by Nightfall:

Thats what you came up from your research? Makes sense as to why all you have to come back with is an attempted insult.

You keep saying the same stupid shit supposedly having a brain in your head..

Let me know when you have something of some substance to say. Trolling is so overrated.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net


The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Windstream
Just ignore him.

Anywho, I speak of future things to come. Sure, at this instant the majority of consumers aren't hitting that cap, but what's stopping them from bumping into it in the next few years. I mean you have way more information on usage patterns than I do (which I covet, by the way), so my problem is inherently distrusting a for profit company that "engaged" in deceptive advertising a few years ago, and then lied about its cap, and then set a cap across the board that they do not enforce everywhere. I know this happened a while back, but you know what they say, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

I mean it's like trusting a car salesman to tell you the reasonable worth of a car with profit included. It's just not safe. I know that this can be implied across all industries, but this is something that really bothers me.
--
"We will evaluate these integrals rigorously if we can, and non-rigorously if we must".
---Victor Moll, invited talk, Tom Osler Fest (April 17, 2010)


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
said by The Limit:

Just ignore him.

Anywho, I speak of future things to come. Sure, at this instant the majority of consumers aren't hitting that cap, but what's stopping them from bumping into it in the next few years. I mean you have way more information on usage patterns than I do (which I covet, by the way), so my problem is inherently distrusting a for profit company that "engaged" in deceptive advertising a few years ago, and then lied about its cap, and then set a cap across the board that they do not enforce everywhere. I know this happened a while back, but you know what they say, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

I mean it's like trusting a car salesman to tell you the reasonable worth of a car with profit included. It's just not safe. I know that this can be implied across all industries, but this is something that really bothers me.

I do agree with you. Who knows what will happen in the next couple years. Broadband use is increasing. More streaming services will be out by then. If there is anything I have learned from the broadband industry, they will change to adapt to what the mainstream wants. If something new comes out that everyone uses and broadband use goes through the roof, then Comcast and the rest of the companies will adjust the cap up. The cap has already been adjusted up 50gb.

I think we have a good chart on usage patterns already.

»www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-···#Chart19

There really needs to be an education of the userbase though. I have told my dad about it and he checks it now. He doesn't go over 100gb in a month but they stream a lot of Netflix.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net