dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2
share rss forum feed

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
reply to Karl Bode

Re: Mediacom

...and their tier caps actually scale up with price in a reasonable fashion. You may have to upgrade a tier if you use a lot of data and aren't paying a lot per month, but after 999GB you really want a business class connection anyway, and I'll bet Mediacom would be happy to sell you one.

Any way you slice it, these caps are more sensible than Comcast's various trials, Suddenlink's caps, or TWC's attempts.

Klarth

join:2005-09-16
Oronogo, MO
Reviews:
·Mediacom
I agree, for what it's worth. Personally, I don't really need a 50mbps line (but respect people who do), but like you say it's the cost you pay for the cap that you do need. I also personally think that 1TB is a reasonable cap (again, your mileage may vary). That part is OK, but the problem is when they don't offer their Ultra tier in many areas (well, that and insulting our intelligence with such transparent lies as to why they are adding caps). Though that said, like you say, there are worse companies out there, for now.


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

1 recommendation

Whether a cap is "reasonable" doesn't really change the fact that these companies are using a lack of competition to impose rate hikes on already pricey tiers (by global developed country standards). They can already push excessive users on to business tiers. All these caps do is encourage upselling and abuse, especially if your only competitor is a low-quality DSL provider that offers capped 3 Mbps DSL.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Well, yes.

On the bright side, they're mainly competing against providers who have DSL as their bread and butter. Which is more than can be said of the likes of Comcast in many areas (ahem, Verizon).


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:

Whether a cap is "reasonable" doesn't really change the fact that these companies are using a lack of competition to impose rate hikes on already pricey tiers (by global developed country standards).

Please. Look at TV. Some people have cable, TWO satellite companies and either u-verse or FiOS as options. Not to mention OTA and internet viewing. Yet good luck getting cable, satellite or U-verse/FiOS under $70 a month at regular price. So having 4 pay TV options( and the threat of cord cutting via OTA and internet viewing ) has not done a thing to lower pricing. What makes you think having more ISPs in an area would be any different?

TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
It works but only in select areas with select companies.


RyanThaDude
Indiana's No. 1 Zero

join:2004-01-24
Walkerton, IN
Reviews:
·Mediacom
reply to Karl Bode
Exactly. I have no other choice as CenturyLink won't offer us DSL because of being too far (even though I live in a populated town), and we have no other means of higher caps since they don't offer any higher speeds other than 20mbps. Very anti-competitive, shit service. It's been the WORST company I've dealt with, for sure!

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to iansltx
Except there is no relation between the speed of the connection and the amount of traffic transferred. There is zero justification for caps. Caps have nothing to do with congestion management. If they didn't want congestion to happen then they shouldn't be overselling the nodes to squeeze out more profit.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to 88615298
It works elsewhere and in other countries.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
reply to 34764170
There is a positive correlation between the speed of someone's connection and the amount of data that they transfer over it, probably because there's a positive correlation between price and amount of transfer used, all else equal.

Yes, caps low enough that people hit them are a revenue source. If you don't like it, you should build your own ISP and find out what the cost of last-mile bandwidth really is. The same economies of scale that make you reluctant to do that also allow Mediacom to come up with a number that represents the overall cost per GB that crosses their network, and it's not as close to zero as you might think.

Also, in an ideal world (not saying this is happening with Mediacom) higher-end users pay for the network upgrades for the node. A bunch of 10M users would probably be just fine with a couple of DOCSIS channels bonded per node. Add in a few 50M and 105M high-end folks and you now need four, six or even eight channels. Those line cards cost money. So Mediacom matches incremental revenue to incremental expenses and makes a profit.

Would they be able to add in as much profit in a more competitive environment? Nope. But it's downright scary to become a new competitor in wireline communications, unless you're coming in with a tech that others can't match without significant effort. Marginal costs for the incumbent, sans upgrades, are just too low. So it takes someone with balls like Google to do this these days.