dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
447
coreyography
Premium Member
join:2010-01-15
Houston, TX

coreyography

Premium Member

Caps scaring users?

I have Verizon grandfathered unlimited as well. Aside from the fact that I don't watch a lot of video on my too-small-to-watch-much-video phone screen, I use the 3G/LTE for what it is: backup/mobile Internet. I don't consider it a replacement for my wireline service (I often update my phone on wifi at my house), and don't want to even entertain that mindset, as I don't believe I'll be unlimited indefinitely.

I wonder how many people are "scared off" by their capped plans, or feel, as I do, that one day they will be capped.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

said by coreyography:

I have Verizon grandfathered unlimited as well. Aside from the fact that I don't watch a lot of video on my too-small-to-watch-much-video phone screen, I use the 3G/LTE for what it is: backup/mobile Internet. I don't consider it a replacement for my wireline service (I often update my phone on wifi at my house), and don't want to even entertain that mindset, as I don't believe I'll be unlimited indefinitely.

I wonder how many people are "scared off" by their capped plans, or feel, as I do, that one day they will be capped.

You're right on the money. Contrary to the dribble we read here daily, caps are not intended to create overage charges, but to train subscribers to keep their consumption in check - far below the "up to" ceiling.

Far away from the DSLR forum crowd, the average consumer simply doesn't use that much, to begin with, but without the introduction of caps, would learn to expect to watch full-length HD movies on their QXGA tablets.

And while the caps chosen are arbitrary, and far far below the theoretical capacity of the airwaves, given the pathetic spectrum allocation methods our government has chosen, they remain perhaps the best tool to educate the masses and keep response times and throughput reasonable.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

When it comes to caps on wireless, I agree with you. Battling congestion is the main goal in mind when it comes to wireless caps. As we have seen it has not proven to be as effective as the companies wished it would. This is especially true on satellite. But at this point there is really nothing more effective out there. Throttling and QoS can improve overall performance, but they have little impact on eliminating congestion.

However, when it comes to wired services I think it is more about money than anything else. We are seeing caps on even FTTH services. The caps on these services are high enough that they do essentially nothing to counter peak usage, but are excellent at raking in money for usage used on off-peak times. With the exception of some DSL providers that have copper-fed DSLAMs, congestion on wired services is really not that big of an issue. Especially on some of the major providers we have, such as Comcast.

Now with that said, I honestly have a hard time feeling sorry for people who complain about 300GB+ caps. The overwhelming majority of people will not use that much data at all, and if they do, more often than not a large amount of that traffic is illegally acquired content that was downloaded in violation of your ToS anyway.

Heh213
join:2012-06-16

Heh213

Member

said by silbaco:

Now with that said, I honestly have a hard time feeling sorry for people who complain about 300GB+ caps. The overwhelming majority of people will not use that much data at all, and if they do, more often than not a large amount of that traffic is illegally acquired content that was downloaded in violation of your ToS anyway.

I can somewhat see where you're coming from, but I am pretty data hungry .

I think it can (even at 300GB+) become a bigger issue with more people in a household. (even more so as data needs increase).

Takes a healthy bit of effort to use up 300GB as a single person even with steam, Netflix, and whatnot, even at fairly high speeds. Divide that by a household of 4 and that leaves you with 75GB per person, or roughly 2.5GB a day which is far from impossible to do in the age of streaming media, large games, and more.

The answer I hear a lot is people should go to a business plan etc, which I think is a silly to have to go to unless you're actually running a business.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory to elray

Member

to elray
Problem is these services are being marketed as a replacement for wireline services to some, particularly those in rural areas. They also have crazy low caps even though they're the alternative to DSL marketed to the masses in the "sticks".

PapaMidnight
join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD

PapaMidnight to coreyography

Member

to coreyography
said by coreyography:

I wonder how many people are "scared off" by their capped plans, or feel, as I do, that one day they will be capped.

I know my co-worker is. He's on AT&T with a 2GB cap.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray to jjeffeory

Member

to jjeffeory
said by jjeffeory:

Problem is these services are being marketed as a replacement for wireline services to some, particularly those in rural areas. They also have crazy low caps even though they're the alternative to DSL marketed to the masses in the "sticks".

Welcome to the 21st century. Wireless deployment means you can have a high-speed connection where wired is cost-prohibitive.

The rural folk aren't, by and large, willing to pay what it would cost to provide higher speed wireline broadband service. And when LTE is deployed in those areas, wired services will begin to fold without monopoly powers.

Wireless caps are arbitrary, but I wouldn't call them "crazy low".

It is the expectations of this forum, that ultra-low-density rural subscribers should enjoy "universal service" that includes FTTH, at our collective expense, so they can use their Roku/Netflix and Vonage - that's crazy!

Heh213
join:2012-06-16

Heh213

Member

said by elray:

Welcome to the 21st century. Wireless deployment means you can have a high-speed connection where wired is cost-prohibitive.

The rural folk aren't, by and large, willing to pay what it would cost to provide higher speed wireline broadband service. And when LTE is deployed in those areas, wired services will begin to fold without monopoly powers.

Wireless caps are arbitrary, but I wouldn't call them "crazy low".

Being forced to because there is no other options for service is hardly "willing". Many areas don't have any "wired services" other than phone lines for dialup.

As far as the caps go I still call them crazy low, even if we did have 4G service out here w/ Home Fusion it's $60/month for 10GB, $6 a GB isn't cheap. Highest plan is 30GB with home Fusion for a small $120/month. And that's ignoring the expensive overages.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

1 edit

elray

Member

said by Heh213:

Being forced to because there is no other options for service is hardly "willing". Many areas don't have any "wired services" other than phone lines for dialup.

As far as the caps go I still call them crazy low, even if we did have 4G service out here w/ Home Fusion it's $60/month for 10GB, $6 a GB isn't cheap. Highest plan is 30GB with home Fusion for a small $120/month. And that's ignoring the expensive overages.

You didn't shop very well. You can get 50GB for $70/month.

But I do agree that the initial rollout of fixed-LTE is a bit stingy. That will change.

Rural folks do have options.

But it remains simple fact that a majority of non-subscribing rural households are simply disinterested, or unwilling to pay - even when offered urban rates.

Heh213
join:2012-06-16

Heh213

Member

said by elray:

Rural folks do have options.

But it remains simple fact that a majority of non-subscribing rural households are simply disinterested, or unwilling to pay - even when offered urban rates.

Fair enough, going to be interesting to see what things are like in a few years. Who knows what might come along and change the playing field.

I really wish I could get something lower latency than sat without massive restrictions (I've pulled 60GB in a month due to Hughes' free zone), but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Probably will happen a day after I move out of here :P.

trparky
Premium Member
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
·AT&T U-Verse

trparky to coreyography

Premium Member

to coreyography
I have unlimited on Verizon 4G LTE too. But I usually stay below 2 GBs of usage anyways. Last month I used only 1 GB. The month before that, half a GB.

I don't even come close to the 2 GB caps that most users have now. I'm not really worried. Will I give up unlimited? No, because I don't want to have to worry about some arbitrary number just yet.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

2 edits

silbaco to elray

Premium Member

to elray
My rural telecom is now running fiber to every customer in their service area, no matter how remote they are. The beauty of small companies. They are willing to invest in infrastructure and make long term investments. By mid next-year I will have ftth and I am in the middle of a corn field on a gravel road with my nearest neighbor over a half mile away. It will take a long time for my telco to make a serious return on their investment, but they have all the numbers figured out and strongly disagree with you. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that rural households are unwilling to pay urban rates. That simply is not true. At least not in this area. And when it comes down to price per mbps, it is even more so.

BTW, EVDO sucks as your only internet connection. Especially in rural areas where a single T1 feeds the tower and is shared by all. But most rural people cannot get that plan anyway because Sprint does not target rural people.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory to elray

Member

to elray
Thanks, been here (21st Century) for a while. The caps are pretty low for regular home usage for a family of 4.

The rural folks, by and large, probably can't pay what they would be charged for the services. I dunno, I'm not rural, but I've been there and understand that they also need some higher speeds. Nothing insane, just something along the lines of 10 Mbps would be great and shouldn't be that expensive to provide...
jjeffeory

jjeffeory to elray

Member

to elray
elray,

Looks like you're in Santa Monica, CA. Funny thing with California: Even in the sticks ( You know, like Oxnard or Indio) there, you can get FiOS...

You simply live in a different world with little frame of reference.

Heh213
join:2012-06-16

Heh213

Member

said by jjeffeory:

elray,
Looks like you're in Santa Monica, CA. Funny thing with California: Even in the sticks ( You know, like Oxnard or Indio) there, you can get FiOS...

You simply live in a different world with little frame of reference.

Didn't know Oxnard was the sticks xD.

I'm in California also, but I'm still isolated enough to where I don't have any internet, next town is 50ish miles away. Nobody is going to bring service out here unless they're forced to.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco to jjeffeory

Premium Member

to jjeffeory
said by jjeffeory:

Thanks, been here (21st Century) for a while. The caps are pretty low for regular home usage for a family of 4.

The rural folks, by and large, probably can't pay what they would be charged for the services. I dunno, I'm not rural, but I've been there and understand that they also need some higher speeds. Nothing insane, just something along the lines of 10 Mbps would be great and shouldn't be that expensive to provide...

Slow speeds and low caps. It is nearly impossible to escape both in a rural area unless your telco deploys fiber. If you go the DSL route and can get it, it will probably be unlimited but only be ~1mbps. If you go the HomeFusion/Exede route it will be fast, but suffer from extremely low caps. A 30GB cap is very low, and it is the highest you can buy.

redxii
Mod
join:2001-02-26
Michigan

redxii to elray

Mod

to elray
The only option I have is 3G and get the best signal from Verizon. I would pay any monthly rate for DSL or cable but I don't have the cash (at least $10000) to pay the cable company to extend their service about 1500 feet.

djdanska
Rudie32
Premium Member
join:2001-04-21
San Diego, CA

djdanska to coreyography

Premium Member

to coreyography
said by coreyography:

I wonder how many people are "scared off" by their capped plans, or feel, as I do, that one day they will be capped.

It's easy to tell which people have what carriers. The higher the need for wifi, the worse his or her cap is. I have unlimited with t-mobile and i don't even think of using wifi anymore. Hell, my tmo connection is faster than any free wifi at starbucks or mcdonalds.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray to jjeffeory

Member

to jjeffeory
said by jjeffeory:

elray,
Looks like you're in Santa Monica, CA. Funny thing with California: Even in the sticks ( You know, like Oxnard or Indio) there, you can get FiOS...

You simply live in a different world with little frame of reference.

You would think so. But the last time I called Verizon (having seen the Fios trucks in the neighborhood for years), they still would not turn us up.

About six feet outside my window, there is a now-10Gbps municipal fiber loop. Its been there for over a decade. But neither the city nor AT&T will let us access it.

We are stuck with cable modem service as our only hard option - which in recent years has been a highly reliable and inexpensive service. I'm not complaining.

My "frame of reference" is simple economics.
I don't waste money on frivolous items, things I don't need.
We don't need "unlimited" broadband, we don't need FTTH speeds.
Don't need wireless broadband; "smart" phones have no appeal.

If, however, I "needed" any of the above, I would be willing to pay the market price to obtain same - not expect the taxpayers to underwrite my "need".
elray

elray to silbaco

Member

to silbaco
said by silbaco:

My rural telecom is now running fiber to every customer in their service area, no matter how remote they are. The beauty of small companies. They are willing to invest in infrastructure and make long term investments. By mid next-year I will have ftth and I am in the middle of a corn field on a gravel road with my nearest neighbor over a half mile away. It will take a long time for my telco to make a serious return on their investment, but they have all the numbers figured out and strongly disagree with you. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that rural households are unwilling to pay urban rates. That simply is not true. At least not in this area. And when it comes down to price per mbps, it is even more so.

BTW, EVDO sucks as your only internet connection. Especially in rural areas where a single T1 feeds the tower and is shared by all. But most rural people cannot get that plan anyway because Sprint does not target rural people.

There is plenty of evidence. Read the government surveys. Read the industry data. Read the articles Karl posts here on rural penetration rates. Examine Verizon's balance sheet.

That said, you're right, small, privately-held or cooperatively-run independent companies may prove that they can do better math than the MBA-driven big boys, and find a way to re-wire low density settings cost-effectively. Please let us know all the gory details when it is deployed.

Of course EVDO sucks as a primary connection, but if the real-world cost to reach your abode is $10K and up, and you and yours aren't willing to pay for it, what do you expect?
elray

elray to redxii

Member

to redxii
said by redxii:

The only option I have is 3G and get the best signal from Verizon. I would pay any monthly rate for DSL or cable but I don't have the cash (at least $10000) to pay the cable company to extend their service about 1500 feet.

If that 1500 feet is on your property, I'd think you could cut the cost substantially with a direct-bury cable. But if they have to plant 10 utility poles to bring in an aerial or trench and conduit, that's a realistic charge.

If you're not planning on moving, if you don't have the cash, but you're "willing to pay any monthly rate", why not finance the $10K - that's about $200/month to retire the debt on a five-year amortization?