dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
8
share rss forum feed

Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to battleop

Re: Next time be careful of what you wish for...

caps have always been about profits.

It is why the telcos are killing off their DSL and trying to push fixed LTE. As so far the fixed LTE solutions have horribly low caps that would be passed merely by downloading a game on Steam.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports



battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

Absolutely. When you force them into upgrading their networks on their dime that breaks their current business model their bean counters are going to find a way to bring things back into their model. Since Net Neutrality pretty much prohibits them from charging people like Netflix then they will find a way to charge someone. It looks like they found a way for someone to pay for it.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.


davidhoffman
Premium
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA
kudos:1

I don't see how net neutrality hurts the ISPs. Netflix pays an ISP for its connections to the internet. There must be some ISP charging Netflix for the use of an OC-3072/STM-1024 connection or its equivalent. Users of Netflix pay an ISP for the use of an ADSL level of service or its equivalent. So the ISPs were getting paid. All kinds of video content could be stored on all kinds of servers that are accessible through the internet. Why would there need to be a special extra charge for Netflix users? What if universities and public schools had repositories of video courses that could be accessed? Would that require a special additional charge? Would that be charged to for profit universities and for profit K-12 schools?

The USA's telephone companies promised to build a 45Mbps symmetrical nationwide network in exchange for special rate hikes, tax deductions, accelerated depreciation, deregulation, tax credits, government backed loans, and taxpayer grants. They said it would handle two way video. What did they do with all that money? Where is the network we paid for?

I understand about the cable companies struggling with P2P. That prompted the simultaneous reset packet scandal. With the use of existing and new traffic management systems there is no more need for that crude behavior. So the congestion issue,P2P, has been significantly reduced. But the same traffic management that targets congestion in general catches Netflix users. If a lot of people are using Netflix and other World Wide Web video content through a hybrid fiber-coax node, the network is slow for all video users. The slowness is neutral. It effects everyone. It is similar to the way network congestion effected everyone when only text files were transmitted on the World Wide Web.

I do not think monthly, or daily caps are a bad idea in general. I absolutely understand the need for mobile/cellular caps and overage charges due to the extremely limited capabilities of the shared resource of wireless bandwidth. Explicit caps with third party verified usage meters for mobile and wired connections are a great tool to help subscribers understand their internet usage patterns. Previously you could be shut off from internet service for a vague issue of excessive usage. No one would tell you how much you had gone over. It is like getting a ticket at a truck weigh station for being overweight, but no indication of how much load you would need to remove to avoid getting a similar ticket next time. Explicit caps and overage fees or slow downs are just as necessary as explicit load limits for trucks with explicit fines or overweight usage fees. Both need third party verified measuring tools.



battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

The current pricing model that most all ISPs use today are based on an all you can eat model where there was a limited number of things on the buffet. Now there is a huge Las Vegas style buffet where there is more to consume than ever before but the pricing model won't change. Some where they need to make up the difference. For the small guy it's to take care of increased costs or for the big guy who has to keep shareholders happy.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET

said by battleop:

The current pricing model that most all ISPs use today are based on an all you can eat model where there was a limited number of things on the buffet. Now there is a huge Las Vegas style buffet where there is more to consume than ever before but the pricing model won't change. Some where they need to make up the difference.

Okaaaaaayyy ...

• Comcast 20 Mbps Internet - $64.95 per month.
• AT&T 24 Mbps Internet - $66.00 per month.
• Sonic.net 20 Mbps - $19.97 per month.

Sonic.net, LLC has sufficient positive cash flow to deploy FTTH; they are not close to bankruptcy. Yet, of the three listed, only they aren't proposing caps.

Try again ...
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

You are comparing two apples and an orange. That's like comparing the Federal Government's budget to that of a town with 20k people. At Sonic's size they are able to run a much leaner company which in turn will translate in to lower costs. When you get to the size of other two you become rater bloated to meet the demand of your customer base which in turn sky rockets your pricing.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET

OIC. "Economy of scale" is a myth. You can't reduce cost by serving more customers. Speaks volumes for calls to break up the big corporations, such as AT&T, CenturyLink, Comcast, and Verizon!
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum



battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

Been there, done that, and we didn't even get a t shirt in 1984.



JoeTennies

@centurytel.net
reply to NormanS

"Economy of scale" always has been a big opportunity and not a guarantee. It works out very well for production lines and purchasing power. Basically anything that's highly physical resource driven and producing widgets for customers and not systems for the customer to use. It fails quite heavily when there is a large amount of communication. It leads to misconstrued information that has been filtered too often (a la the telephone game) and too many meetings. It's also difficult to change that culture and to standardize it across a large number of people is difficult, but it's also difficult to deal with many different ways of things being done and determining how they are doing.

Basically, it's why Tesla Motors is even slightly competitive. Their engineering department can make changes quickly and produce a high quality design relatively cheaply even for something as innovative the Roadster at release. On the other hand, you could probably get the actual car built cheaper once you get the assembly lines built and not having to retool the line.

Building a properly working ISP is difficult as the issues occurring in WI are probably not the same as CA or Denver, but you probably have a small team in Lousiana choosing the "approved hardware choices."



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET

said by JoeTennies :

Building a properly working ISP is difficult as the issues occurring in WI are probably not the same as CA or Denver ...

I guess I am puzzled that nationwide service should cost more per subscriber than regional. The material cost of the wireline service can't be the difference, because of the economy of scale thing. AT&T charges my ISP "wire rent" for access to the "Last Mile"; and AT&T isn't going to give that away. Yet, somehow, my ISP is profitable at a lower fee.

If the difference in cost is the extra layers of personnel, then maybe both national corps, and national gov't should be pared back and let regional and local run things?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

davidhoffman
Premium
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA
kudos:1

I have always speculated that part of the issue is the payment of retirement benefits by legacy companies. It is part of the reason big corporations want to have defined contribution retirement plans instead of defined benefit retirement plans. It also explains why many USA corporations would love to put the health insurance issue into a national government regulated and managed framework like other countries have. It reduces their costs. Especially for their retirement programs. One of the reasons Southwest Airlines was so profitable when they started was the lack of an existing retiree population that they needed to fund. Compared to American, United, TWA, and others, Southwest had few retirees per million revenue passenger miles. I suspect some of the problem with AT&T's cost structure is retiree benefits that Sonic.Net may not have.