dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
23
share rss forum feed


morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to tanzam75

Re: Yeah, let's just ignore the access charges

You are not consistent with your own flawed analogy so this discussion is going no where.

With cable admitting that caps are not about congestion, your point is completely debunked. It's also not about fairness. Until grandma is paying $5 a month for checking her email and the torrent users pay $1000 a month for their heavily used connection, this isn't about fairness. It's about cable companies wanting to double dip for services that are already provided and paid for.


tanzam75

join:2012-07-19

3 edits

Yes, it's unfair that grandma doesn't get to pay $5 for cable Internet, while the bandwidth hog pays $1000. But surely it's fairer to charge grandma $50 and the bandwidth hog $100, rather than charging everyone $60.

The problem is that bits are not like molecules -- they're free to transport, until you have to do a node split. So do you price them like they're free, with a fixed infrastructure charge? Or do you price them like they're expensive, with a metered charge? Why not a combination of both, to account for their hybrid nature?

To point to the lack of a $5 grandma rate as a reason not to charge overage fees is illogical. You think it's unfair not to charge pure usage-based pricing, so you instead advocate a flat rate in which it's even less fair?

I don't understand this "gotcha" mentality when it comes to the guy's comments on congestion. The reason that there is no congestion today is precisely because the cable companies have spent money in the past -- on DOCSIS 3, on logical node splits, on physical node splits. Plus, the fairness argument isn't exactly new.



Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

1 edit

said by tanzam75:

Yes, it's unfair that grandma doesn't get to pay $5 for cable Internet, while the bandwidth hog pays $1000. But surely it's fairer to charge grandma $50 and the bandwidth hog $100, rather than charging everyone $60.

That's why we have price tiers. If "grandma" wants to just check her email, stick her on the cheapest plan available (ours is 1.5mbps). If you're a power user, get the fastest one (ours is 30mbps). I don't see the blasted problem here.

Unfortunately, in some areas, that no longer applies. Now you have to buy a "byte" package and risk overages. This isn't "network management". This is just a new way of squeezing more money out of their customers.

..and if they can't handle multiple customers having super/ultra-fast tiers, why did they offer it in the first place?
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.2G,8G RAM,500G+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1G,2G RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital DE504,Sun X1034A,2xSun X4444A,SMC 8432BTA,Gentoo]

tanzam75

join:2012-07-19

said by Simba7:

..and if they can't handle multiple customers having super/ultra-fast tiers, why did they offer it in the first place?

Because residential services are priced on the assumption that you will only burst to the max speed.

Max speed is not the only part of the equation. Average speed also matters. A 1.5 Mbps user who continually maxes out the connection is actually using more network resources than a 20 Mbps burst user who averages less than 1 Mbps.

Of course, the 10 Mbps user -- on average -- should use more data in a given month than the 20 Mbps user. So they ought to get a higher cap to go along with the higher speeds. But it still can't be unlimited, because the pricing of residential cable Internet is only made possible by the fact that people do not max out their connections.


Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

said by tanzam75:

Because residential services are priced on the assumption that you will only burst to the max speed.

Um.. If I'm paying for a 18mbps connection and I'm only getting 4, it becomes an issue. I should be getting at least between 12-18mbps constant, not whatever they feel like.
said by tanzam75:

Max speed is not the only part of the equation. Average speed also matters. A 1.5 Mbps user who continually maxes out the connection is actually using more network resources than a 20 Mbps burst user who averages less than 1 Mbps.

Depending on the technology. If you do it right, it shouldn't matter.
said by tanzam75:

But it still can't be unlimited, because the pricing of residential cable Internet is only made possible by the fact that people do not max out their connections.

This is the 21st century. More and more services are becoming internet-based instead. Also the bandwidth (mbps) is getting cheaper to deliver. The ISP's need to adapt or their customers will find other providers. Unfortunately, some people can't switch and are stuck with only a single ISP, that doesn't give a sh*t. There are a few that do, so I have to give them kudos.
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.2G,8G RAM,500G+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1G,2G RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital DE504,Sun X1034A,2xSun X4444A,SMC 8432BTA,Gentoo]

tanzam75

join:2012-07-19

said by Simba7:

Um.. If I'm paying for a 18mbps connection and I'm only getting 4, it becomes an issue. I should be getting at least between 12-18mbps constant, not whatever they feel like.

But you're not paying for 18 Mbps of sustained bandwidth. You're paying for 18 Mbps burst, and "whatever they feel like" average speed.

Go to a Metro Ethernet company and see how much it costs to get 18 Mbps of dedicated bandwidth.


Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

1 edit

said by tanzam75:

But you're not paying for 18 Mbps of sustained bandwidth. You're paying for 18 Mbps burst, and "whatever they feel like" average speed.

Go to a Metro Ethernet company and see how much it costs to get 18 Mbps of dedicated bandwidth.

Did you read any of my post? I did not say I'm expecting 18Mbps all the time. I'm saying it should be at least in the same ballpark instead of half or less.

It's like me offering "up to" 100Mbps service (and charging for it), but only delivering 1/10 of that. Of course, to me, that's ethically wrong.

tanzam75

join:2012-07-19

said by Simba7:

Did you read any of my post? I did not say I'm expecting 18Mbps all the time. I'm saying it should be at least in the same ballpark instead of half or less.

Yes, I read all of it. You said that you "should be getting at least between 12-18mbps constant."

Since you said it should be "constant," then it should never fall below 12 mbps. That's dedicated bandwidth.

If you're saying that they should underpromise and overdeliver, then yes, that would be good business practice. Advertise a lower bandwidth than you're actually capable of providing, so that people get the advertised number much more often.

The problem is that you can never tell when a bandwidth hog will move in and wreck the calculations. Well, unless you put in caps, to keep the bandwidth hogs out.

And you're opposed to caps.


Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

said by tanzam75:

The problem is that you can never tell when a bandwidth hog will move in and wreck the calculations. Well, unless you put in caps, to keep the bandwidth hogs out.

And you're opposed to caps.

Caps don't do sh*t. It's just another way for them to make even more money without fixing the problem. Upgrading your infrastructure and backbone investment does.

..and the whole "bandwidth hog" thing is crap anyway. So, you have an OC3 connection feeding hundreds of customers that have purchased a 5mbps connection. Then a "bandwidth hog" comes in and uses a bit of it. Hey, he's paying for the 5mbps connection that you advertised. Then everyone's connection slows down because you failed to account for people actually using their connection speeds.

It's simple math. 5Mbps * 100 customers = 500Mbps. There is no way a single OC3 can handle that. You also have to account for growth if you get more customers. So if you get 150-200 customers, YOU NEED at least a GbE connection to handle that traffic, not the same OC3.

The point is, don't advertise the speeds you can't deliver. Sure, you can advertise "up to 1000Mbps", but if you can't deliver anywhere close to those speeds, your customers are going to hate you and there's the possibility of a lawsuit (false advertising).

Also, don't expect to minimally invest in your infrastructure and expect massive returns. I've seen plenty of ISP's and companies fail because of that.
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.2G,8G RAM,500G+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1G,2G RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital DE504,Sun X1034A,2xSun X4444A,SMC 8432BTA,Gentoo]

tanzam75

join:2012-07-19

3 edits

said by Simba7:

..and the whole "bandwidth hog" thing is crap anyway. So, you have an OC3 connection feeding hundreds of customers that have purchased a 5mbps connection. Then a "bandwidth hog" comes in and uses a bit of it. Hey, he's paying for the 5mbps connection that you advertised. Then everyone's connection slows down because you failed to account for people actually using their connection speeds.

We're going around in circles here.

said by Simba7:

It's simple math. 5Mbps * 100 customers = 500Mbps.

Again, you're talking about dedicated connections. A dedicated 5 Mbps connection would cost hundreds of dollars a month from a Metro Ethernet provider. (Although these days, they'd probably start you out at 10 Mbps.)

5 Mbps for 100 customers would never be provisioned at 500 Mbps in a residential setting -- more like 50. Which means that each user would have 500 Kbps of dedicated bandwidth. They can burst up to 5 Mbps, to download an ISO or watch a movie. What they cannot do is to use 5 Mbps all the time.

Average bandwidth consumption from residential customers is much, much lower than the burst demand. This is what makes oversubscription possible, and it is also why residential broadband can cost double-digits instead of triple-digits.

That 10x cost difference is supplied by the 10x oversubscription. That's what the caps are for. If you try to use a shared connection like a dedicated connection, then you should pay for it.