dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
12
share rss forum feed

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to 28619103

Re: Wireless Data Caps and Data Prices....

You are right, wireline caps have nothing to do with extracting more money. It is just a side benefit of trying to protect video revenues and delaying network upgrades.



28619103
Premium
join:2009-03-01
21435

1 edit

said by Skippy25:

You are right, wireline caps have nothing to do with extracting more money. It is just a side benefit of trying to protect video revenues and delaying network upgrades.

I call BS on that. Network operators spend billions on network upgrades every year (read their financial reports). Most also have caps that are well in excess of most Internet video needs. Cord cutters work, Netflix works, etc. Read the reports and do the math.

It's wireless that you can't do any real traffic (esp. video) and which drives their users to use someone else's network at someone else's cost.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

You call what you want as ignorance is bliss.

Just out of curiosity if you do not believe that it is because of video revenues (which the caps came just before or right after) and delaying network upgrades, why do you suppose they have caps at all on wired connections? Especially if you are going to claim they invest billions into their wired network every year to improve capacity.

Verizon and AT&T both make billions every quarter and could roll out fiber paying cash as they couldn't deploy it fast enough to eat through their quarter profits. So why have they scaled back deployments? That's right, they dont have to deploy, they just put artificial limits on it to contain capacity. Yet it is OK to use as much as you want, just as long as you are willing to pay for it because then that bandwidth problem suddenly isnt a problem.



28619103
Premium
join:2009-03-01
21435

1 edit

said by Skippy25:

Just out of curiosity if you do not believe that it is because of video revenues (which the caps came just before or right after) and delaying network upgrades, why do you suppose they have caps at all on wired connections? Especially if you are going to claim they invest billions into their wired network every year to improve capacity.

I'm looking at it from pure economics. Anything that has cost to grow should have a basic cost to use. An all you can eat buffet works in Chinese food restaurants because no one can actually eat enough to make material difference across their customers. Now if they allowed their family and friends to trade off their seat every 15 min, that would be a different story.

With broadband a single user can "consume" the equivalent of 10, 50, 100 average users. They can consume (or share) far more content then they actually use (full usenet feeds, TB p2p video libraries, etc). They could use their 100% of the pipe far more than any other user; therefore contribute more to the cost of growth than any other user. I think there are a number of studies which show something like 1% contributes to 25% of the peak.

Understanding that network usage has some cost is valuable. It changes the way people think and develop applications. Perhaps we should use mpeg4 vs mpeg2. Maybe we should invest in better CDN technology. Perhaps that video feed should stop when the HDMI signal stops from the TV power. That HD camera running 7x24 on my fish tank may not be a bright idea. Incremental vs full backups, etc

The flip side of that is innovation and really, really you can do A LOT with what people have on wireline today. People cut the cord, cloud is taking off, HD skype, etc. Just do it efficiently.

All that said.. wireless usage really ISN'T a problem for consumers. While it should be watched closely, the data says things are going OK (»www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-···#Chart20)

Wireless on the other hand is a different story...There I think there is an issue as the caps impact 99% of users vs 1%. Wireline gets the most notoriety, but wireless is most impacted

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

OK, show me a single diagram, chart or graph that shows a single large ISP's network is being ran to full capacity over any kind of extended time before and/or after the implementation of caps. How about a single region or area? Not just a node, as that is poor network management period.

Can you do it? No because they want to claim they are being saturated by so few people but want us to take their word for it without providing a single bit of evidence of such.

Also, a network that is not at a consistent 75-85% utilization average is a wasted network that was a waste of money to put in.

Wireless is a whole other ball of wax and really not even worth discussing. Spectrum is the issue, back haul is a minor inconvenience that they should easily be on top of to feed their towers.

Bottom line is that CAPS do not prevent high utilization and arent truly designed to do such on a wired network.



28619103
Premium
join:2009-03-01
21435

4 edits

1 recommendation

said by Skippy25:

OK, show me a single diagram, chart or graph that shows a single large ISP's network is being ran to full capacity over any kind of extended time before and/or after the implementation of caps. How about a single region or area? Not just a node, as that is poor network management period.

I will show you several, but I don't think any amount of facts or data will change your mind (but they may help others)

The reason there is no impact is because networks are spending billions to upgrade and keep ahead of the curve so they have good customer experience and good FCC reporting... If you want a graph of how upgrades keep up with growth, look at the YoY bandwidth usage in FCC MBA

»www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-···#Chart19
vs
»www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-···#Chart20

and look at how often providers give the advertised speeds.

»www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-···#Figure2

said by Skippy25:

Can you do it? No because they want to claim they are being saturated by so few people but want us to take their word for it without providing a single bit of evidence of such.

I think the public data speaks for itself.

said by Skippy25:

Also, a network that is not at a consistent 75-85% utilization average is a wasted network that was a waste of money to put in.

That is a ridiculous statement and shows your lack of network knowledge. If a network was at 80% on AVERAGE it would be 100% for many hours per day causing major customer impact.

When networks reach 70-80% at PEAK, it trigger upgrades = more $$!! or they cannot deliver the advertised speed 100% of the time.

Users which drive the peak more than others trigger upgrades quicker than others. Let me say that again. Users which drive the peak trigger upgrades.

said by Skippy25:

Wireless is a whole other ball of wax and really not even worth discussing. Spectrum is the issue, back haul is a minor inconvenience that they should easily be on top of to feed their towers.

All networks have spectrum issues. Capacity on cable triggers a node split as there is not enough spectrum for data... Capacity on wireless triggers a tower split... Capacity on DSL triggers a DSLAM split.. Capacity on FTTH triggers a OTN split. Capacity is very similar across technologies.

said by Skippy25:

Bottom line is that CAPS do not prevent high utilization and arent truly designed to do such on a wired network.

The facts and data does not agree with your opinions and rhetoric.

EDIT: I've debated with people like this before and it is like debating a religious zealot. One can provide facts and data all day long, but there is no way they will believe that dinosaurs were real. On top of that, zealots don't have to provide any data themselves, just just throw insults, corner cases and opinionated declarations that others are wrong and they are right. Sound familiar?


Booger52

@mycingular.net

pwned !


sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to 28619103

None of your charts have *anything* to do with network utilization/saturation and traffic congestion. Do you realize how ridiculous your argument is? Bandwidth costs have dropped year over year according to moore's law, and is just dirt cheap. Just look at the bandwidth costs associated with renting a 3rd party server. And costs just keep dropping. Caps on wireline are utterly unjustified.