how-to block ads
|
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| not on the wholesale level, really?
pretty insane.. its got to be at least HALF that price on the wholesale level, they probably aren't using enough of the latest generation fiber signaling equipment to bring economies of scale down to size. (either that or competition is not thriving on the internet backbone in UK) | |
Chiyo
Save Me Konata-Chan
Premium
join:2003-02-20
Minneapolis, MN
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| If they are going to charge the customer more money because they want HD content they I say F them. We pay and Im sure the UK pay a good amount for cable TV so asking us to pay more is insaine. When are people going to tell the cable co's NO MORE?
--
"Sure there have been injuries and deaths in boxing - but none of them serious."- Alan Minter, Boxer"I get to go to lots of overseas places, like Canada."- Britney Spears, Pop Singer | |
DrugSkill
join:2005-11-14
Saint-Jean-Sur-Richelieu, QC
·Videotron
| I don't get it.I'm not a network expert,but why would it cost more when there is data transfered? I mean it cost something to maintain an infrastructure period.The fact that this same infrastructure is used at full capacity just force them to upgrade it.If it's the case, I call this investments and we don't have to pay for this.We are already paying well enough. | |
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to tmc8080
problem is the ISP market is trying to apply a metered water system to something that doesnt really have any cost to create.(every gallon of water costs a city money, every megabit of data costs an ISP nothing to send over its own network).
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Chiyo
When did this become an issue with the cable co? I believe this is about "ISPs" in general. In fact, they are talking about HD movie files being downloaded from the internet, not the cable company... you've totally lost me.
Personally, I don't buy this article as it is anyway.. these 3rd party so-called 'looks into X" articles are usually meaningless or pointless. Seems like there is a new piece of drama coming out every 5 minutes these days. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to DrugSkill
You just made the phone company's point and case for why they want to charge more and tier the internet.
The internet is, in their words, becoming clogged up and as you say, "full capacity"... since many people are out there placing everything on line they can think of, why does the ISP have to pay to upgrade and not expect to pass the cost to the customer who is part of the congestion?
Are we paying enought? Let's look.. Dial up modems, circa $20 a month per one computer. It also usually meant holding your phone line hostage or a second line for the computer.. that was for ONE computer. Dial up and a phone line was about $45 a month for about 30k on average. Cable HSI (since people like to bitch so much about it's price) is often LESS than most people paid for a dial up modem + phone line. Now, let's add to this that HSI can be shared among multiple computers, where dial up wasn't feasable to do so. In some homes, people had multiple dial up accounts even so the cost gets higher.
Now let's look at what you do with a 56K line vs. a 6 or 8mb line. (Many DSL customers are STILL trying to get beyond 1.5).. look at all you are doing and getting with that $45 cable modem line and how many computers in the home are using it at one time. So, please tell me again how that $45 is "already paying well enough" again?
As to the internet,... the internet, in my opinion, needs to slow down for a moment. There is a reason we have Cable TV and Satellite companies... they provide television viewing services. There is a reason that phone companies exists.. to provide telephone services. I personally want the internet, today, to remain what it is... a place to transfer data.. and not the kind that I can get on TV or the phone. The internet is trying to become EVERYTHING over night and it just isn't going to happen the way people want it to. Everyone wants to throw everything on it at one time and then cry foul when it can't hanlde it! No kidding!
So, the ISP is the one to foot the bill for everyone else's desire to explode and, again, as you say "we already pay enough"? I hate to say this, I have been against tiering of the internet as SBC started talking about a few months back, but with this thinking of yours, you have given me reason to now see a valid argument on the other side.
I still want net nutrality, don't get me wrong, but comapnies are not in business to just exist and break even. Innovation comes with more than an idea - they have to be backed with money. Upgrades come with money.. that money comes with the fact that your product makes a profit.. profits go back into the system to enhance the network. If the product is flat, there is no money.. no money, no upgrade.. no upgrades - internet will max out and stay that way and BBR will continue to get pleanty of hits for people looking for a place to bitch. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd  :problem is the ISP market is trying to apply a metered water system to something that doesnt really have any cost to create.(every gallon of water costs a city money, every megabit of data costs an ISP nothing to send over its own network). Try again... it does cost money to move data.. the internet IS a metered water system. I suppose the fiber lines, the routers, switches, and, well EVERYTHING doesn't cost a dime to purchase, install, run, maintain, replace, and upgrade to meet the growing demands? | |
FiL
Premium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD
| reply to fiberguy
"As to the internet,... the internet, in my opinion, needs to slow down for a moment. There is a reason we have Cable TV and Satellite companies... they provide television viewing services. There is a reason that phone companies exists.. to provide telephone services. I personally want the internet, today, to remain what it is... a place to transfer data.. and not the kind that I can get on TV or the phone. The internet is trying to become EVERYTHING over night and it just isn't going to happen the way people want it to"
what are you talking about man?!
That made absoulty NO SENSE to me. The internet is trying to do anything, its users that determine whats going on. You seem to like to clump EVERYTHING into one thing, and that "thing" really isnt "anything" at all.
lol. Ur confusing meh. In your view, there should be some internet cop program that would only allow "data" to be shared, and nothing else. Then, what the hell is "data"? How could you ever proclaim "THATS data; this on the other hand isnt." Im not sure you could do that without stomping on someones right to share what they "want". You lobbying for the RIAA/MPAA? Cuase IMO, thats EXACTLY what they wanna hear! | |
keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA
 ·Teliax VOIP
 ·WestPAnet Inc.
·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
| It made sense to me, I had trouble reading your post though.
I think the basic point and ideal I really agree with is the internet is not an infinite "thing". Mainly money limits how big and how fast it is. Everybody has to pay some body to connect to the internet somewhere. Even tier 1 providers have enourmous costs.
Now, what I got from the post was this... The internet is not "upgrading". For that to happen everyone in the world would have to upgrade. That means more cost in a world when everyone feels entitled to pay less. We want more out of the same old internet. It is the same as loading up your old 88 chevy with 10 fat people, not going to go well no matter how much you want to move those damn fat people. | |
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy :You just made the phone company's point and case for why they want to charge more and tier the internet. The internet is, in their words, becoming clogged up and as you say, "full capacity"... since many people are out there placing everything on line they can think of, why does the ISP have to pay to upgrade and not expect to pass the cost to the customer who is part of the congestion? The same could be said for Comcast, Cox, TWC, etc. How many of these players have cut off or sent warning letters to "bandwidth hogs?"
Cable companies chose to use their system to pass internet traffic as a means of extra income. Now, since the internet has matured and more and more data goes online, they are finding out that there needs to be more capacity just like there needed to be more than just the 3 TV networks.
said by fiberguy :Are we paying enough? Let's look.. Dial up modems, circa $20 a month per one computer. It also usually meant holding your phone line hostage or a second line for the computer.. that was for ONE computer. Dial up and a phone line was about $45 a month for about 30k on average. Cable HSI (since people like to bitch so much about it's price) is often LESS than most people paid for a dial up modem + phone line. Now, let's add to this that HSI can be shared among multiple computers, where dial up wasn't feasible to do so. In some homes, people had multiple dial up accounts even so the cost gets higher. And the more people you put online, in the same household, the greater demand is for that same bandwidth. Also, there was a time when the cable companies fought to keep routers off their networks because of the loss of revenue selling additional IP addresses.
said by fiberguy :As to the internet,... the internet, in my opinion, needs to slow down for a moment. There is a reason we have Cable TV and Satellite companies... they provide television viewing services. There is a reason that phone companies exists.. to provide telephone services. I personally want the internet, today, to remain what it is... a place to transfer data.. and not the kind that I can get on TV or the phone. The internet is trying to become EVERYTHING over night and it just isn't going to happen the way people want it to. Everyone wants to throw everything on it at one time and then cry foul when it can't handle it! No kidding! Then why are the cable companies trying to sell phone service too on those same lines? Maybe Comcast needs to stop selling their phone service. 
As for the Satellite companies, they are competing with cable and offering pay TV services to those where cable was not offered. They are not only competing but filling a niche.
said by fiberguy :So, the ISP is the one to foot the bill for everyone else's desire to explode and, again, as you say "we already pay enough"? I hate to say this, I have been against tiering of the internet as SBC started talking about a few months back, but with this thinking of yours, you have given me reason to now see a valid argument on the other side. SBC is doing what all telcos do. They want more income but don't want to invest in their own infrastructure. They are still going back to the days of their monopoly. I still remember the days when you had to rent phones and there were no plug in jacks. Answering machines finally hit the public in the 70's when they were out in the 40's.
said by fiberguy :I still want net neutrality, don't get me wrong, but companies are not in business to just exist and break even. Innovation comes with more than an idea - they have to be backed with money. Upgrades come with money.. that money comes with the fact that your product makes a profit.. profits go back into the system to enhance the network. If the product is flat, there is no money.. no money, no upgrade.. no upgrades - internet will max out and stay that way and BBR will continue to get plenty of hits for people looking for a place to bitch. Technology gets cheaper with volume. Almost always, early adopters will pay more. As more people subscribe to high speed, then the cost per subscriber goes down (depending on many other factors of course: competition, age of system, etc.)
| |
pb5k
more cowbell
Premium
join:2005-11-16
Glendale, AZ
·Cox HSI
| reply to fiberguy
You see this is what I don't get. Over in the EU where you can often get 20/1 ADSL2+ for $35 USD a month, there is no push for tiered internet access, despite the increased bandwidth consumption by consumers. This is also the case in Asia as well, where many consumers have had access to 50M/50M broadband at enviable prices while we're slobbering over 15/2 FIOs. This leads me to believe that this tiered internet nonsense is the product of American telco PR B.S.
--
"When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.'" --
Theodore Roosevelt | |
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd :every megabit of data costs an ISP nothing to send over its own network). {sarcasm}Sure, employees and benefits cost nothing; connections to backbone providers cost nothing; switches and routers and fiber cost nothing.{/sarcasm}
Ever hear of amortizing capital costs over a period of time so that the infrastructure can be paid for? Ever hear of the concept of "cost of capital"? Ever hear of return on investment?
Ever venture into the world of reality where everything isn't free because that is what you want or feel is your right?
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to fiberguy
Internet bandwidth is not a physical measurement. You cant save or store "unused" internet capacity. The internet is a bunch of circuits, you dont "save" any money or reduce costs by having a 50% filled fiber transmission line or a 80%, either the bandwidth is used in the moment or its lost forever. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to moonpuppy
MP,
you basically said the same thing I did. However, at the same time, you also dove a little deeper into what I was getting at.
Cable sending out the "bandwidth hog" messages is exactly what I am getting at. It's a way to control the use of the internet so that EVERYONE's traffic goes through, and not just that of the few resource intensive people. Remember, and regardless of what you can calculate out a constant stream of tranfer at 24 /7/ 30 days a month based on your speed, the user agreement spells it out pretty clear.. the service is for the average residential use. What is average? Simple - average out what the over all use of the home use is and that's average. It's not a constant stream of data transfer.
But, you are turning my post into a cable vs telephone argument; I was not. I was pointing out that everyone wants the internet to be everything. they want EVERYTHING shoved down the internet pipes as fast as yesterday. The internet is not ready to handle that.
What do I want on it? I don't mind video downloads, typical surving, file transfers.. but to stream television? NO! Not now.. it's not ready. Can you imagine what it would be like if everyone wanted to watch TV streams today? It's not going to happen.
As for telephone calls? No.. I don't like them either, however, telephone conversations of the cable company go over the last mile WHERE THERE IS capacity available. Even then, a telephone call uses a significantly low amount of BW. Still, I am not an advocate of telephone calls over the internet either - if you were reading, it's why I stated the very reason why the telephone company is in business.
Again, I agree with about 90% of what you are saying, however, like many, you are trying to read into a post more than you should.. you are trying to assume and tie me into a "party line" type of political discussion. If anyone knew me and actually followed me, my thoghts and reasons for things are my own. I do NOT follow what someone else wants me to think.. I am very capable of drawing my own conclusions and making my own decisions NO MATTER WHAT...
Oh, one last point to your reply - you spoke about "the more people you put on line, in the same household, the greater the demand... " Yea? no kidding. I was talking about the OP's comment of "we already pay enough" comment. I was talking about his silly comment and showing that people are getting FAR more for FAR less money as comapred to what they have evolved from over the past few years. As for routers being blocked? Yea.. at first.. the VERY firt launch of routers.. and why? Becuase many people couldn't figure them out to begin with and that so-called blockage was short lived.. VERY short lived. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to pb5k
Again, you make what appears to be a valid point, but you, like many, don't take into consideration the "whole picture" when it comes to broadband and deployemnt costs.
It always comes back to the EU or an Asian country. The US is not as dense as these other countries. Asia stacks their people one above the other and the U.S. is more spread out.
Ok... Let me give you an example... look at a city like NY or SF. Compare that to a city like Norman Oklahoma or any city in CO. The landscape is spread out in the U.S. as in even the major metros are very spread out from one another. Sure, the last mile isn't a huge deal in many cases, but to connect all those cities together is. Not to mention that fact that we have that thing called the Single Family home where these other countries everyone wants to compare us to is big on the Multi Dwelling Unit.
People that like to see the greener grass on the other side need to realize that ours is just as green for our own make up.
If you will recall, as well, internet access in some of these other countries has ALWAYS been much more expensive that ours until recently. Don't you recal the 1.5 ADSL line that gave you X amount of transfer per month (sometimes as low as 5 or 10gb) before throttle down to 56k modem speed? And that was about $50 a month.
Moral of the story, - you can't compare one country to another and expect to get a valid outcome.
Simply look at these costs to JUST PASS a home here in the U.S. - that doesn't mean the house is connected,.. JUST PASSED with the feeder cables. Add another cost to hook them up. Now, add the cost to supply those services, and factor in the competition lowered prices, the prmotional give outs.. how much money has to be tied up by eager for return investors and the company profit pots to provide these services.. not to mention the U.S. consumer that wants everything for virtually nothing... or the greedy consumer that doesn't play by the rules (though want the providers to play by the rules) buy abusing the "new customer" promotion and hopping between companies. It all drives up the costs to all people using the service.. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to patcat88
:sigh:
You know, as I said before, there was a very well educated user here a few months back that broke it down as to HOW and WHY there is a cost to move the data and how a price can and IS placed on the measured movement of data. I only wish I could find that post again.
You can play symantecs here all you want, but the truth is that YES, it DOES cost to move the data.
End users are sold a certain speed. The more and more people that want to use the internet and move the data, the more and more data needs to be moved at one time. In order to keep up with that demand, more capacity has to be installed and maintained. There is a cost to purchase that equipment, etc. (read above, this is a message forum and there is no need for me to repeat that)
Bottom line, you are making alot of assumptions and guesses and theory comments about the internet and how it works. You are trying to make a justification and fact about something that it's clear you don't understand entirely.
We aren't talking about your home network or even your corporate intranet.. we are talking about the public and global internet here. Based on the cost to install and maintain the equipment, and the amount of data that has to be moved, (and a few other factors) they are going to place a cost on moving that data - it's how it works.
No one ever said anything about saving, storing, used, unused.. that's irrelevant here. The more demand, the more resources are needed. And, since we arne't putting up Linksys routers as $69 a pop with a $10 mail in rebate, these pieces of equipment run into the millions... if you don't put a cost per byte to transfer (which is what they do) then how do you sell the transport?
Therefore, it's METERED. And yes, it IS a physical measurement. Data physically takes up space. | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Look, even if water itself were free, if a city went from everyone drinking four glasses a day and using no other water to half the people constantly flushing toilets, taking showers, and washing cars, there would be significant costs to "upgrade the pipes". (Heard that phrase before?)
Where better to collect upgrade costs than from the heavy users, who are causing the need for the upgrade?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Oh, and I might add that trying to collect broadband upgrade fees from content providers would be like the city trying to collect pipe upgrade costs from the makers of toilets, showerheads, and car-wash wands.
Charging the user makes far more sense than trying to indirectly charge what they are using.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy :MP, you basically said the same thing I did. However, at the same time, you also dove a little deeper into what I was getting at. You want to see the "whole picture" then you need to dive in deeper.
said by fiberguy :Cable sending out the "bandwidth hog" messages is exactly what I am getting at. It's a way to control the use of the internet so that EVERYONE's traffic goes through, and not just that of the few resource intensive people. Remember, and regardless of what you can calculate out a constant stream of transfer at 24 /7/ 30 days a month based on your speed, the user agreement spells it out pretty clear.. the service is for the average residential use. What is average? Simple - average out what the over all use of the home use is and that's average. It's not a constant stream of data transfer. First it was P2P, then it was VOIP. Is video conferencing next? My point is that broadband is capable of so much more however, because companies do not want to upgrade their infrastructures, they keep throttling back the speed and capacity. I augured that with the speed increase, there would be less traffic. Each packet would get to its destination faster and not have to wait as long as before.
We keep hearing time and time again about all these wonderful things that dial up can't do but high speed can and yet, in reality, the ISPs don't want us to use them because they cost bandwidth and money.
said by fiberguy :But, you are turning my post into a cable vs telephone argument; I was not. I was pointing out that everyone wants the internet to be everything. they want EVERYTHING shoved down the internet pipes as fast as yesterday. The internet is not ready to handle that. Ummm, then why make the point of telcos should only provide voice, cable and DBS provide TV, etc? Also, noticed that TWC was looking into a virtual DVR sending those same recorded programs down the same pipe as TV, internet and voice.
Ma Bell was doing data service before the cable companies had the idea of it.
said by fiberguy :What do I want on it? I don't mind video downloads, typical surfing, file transfers.. but to stream television? NO! Not now.. it's not ready. Can you imagine what it would be like if everyone wanted to watch TV streams today? It's not going to happen. And I agree but with more and more talk of IPTV on both sides, you can see where this is all going to end up. Something has to give.
said by fiberguy :As for telephone calls? No.. I don't like them either, however, telephone conversations of the cable company go over the last mile WHERE THERE IS capacity available. Even then, a telephone call uses a significantly low amount of BW. Still, I am not an advocate of telephone calls over the internet either - if you were reading, it's why I stated the very reason why the telephone company is in business. Then should the cable companies stop selling this? How about the VOIP companies? People have been doing PC to PC calls for years and because it has grown in popularity, more bandwidth is taken up. It shows that people will use something if they want it not because someone sells it.
said by fiberguy :Again, I agree with about 90% of what you are saying, however, like many, you are trying to read into a post more than you should.. you are trying to assume and tie me into a "party line" type of political discussion. If anyone knew me and actually followed me, my thoughts and reasons for things are my own. I do NOT follow what someone else wants me to think.. I am very capable of drawing my own conclusions and making my own decisions NO MATTER WHAT... Your posts speak for themselves. You tout the benefits of Comcast's voice service yet above, you clearly state that only the phone company should do voice. You are tailoring your views to the subject at hand but you are also playing both sides of the field.
Add this in the mix. Soon, everything will be IP related. Even the massive switching done by the phone company will need to be replaced and an IP solution (with a lot of fiber) might be the solution they are looking for. In any regards, bandwidth will need to be increased for future demands.
said by fiberguy :Oh, one last point to your reply - you spoke about "the more people you put on line, in the same household, the greater the demand... " Yea? no kidding. I was talking about the OP's comment of "we already pay enough" comment. I was talking about his silly comment and showing that people are getting FAR more for FAR less money as comapred to what they have evolved from over the past few years. As for routers being blocked? Yea.. at first.. the VERY firt launch of routers.. and why? Becuase many people couldn't figure them out to begin with and that so-called blockage was short lived.. VERY short lived. The blockage was short lived because they didn't want to devote the massive resources needed to find all of them. Imagine trying to find every router on the network. Or what if someone used 2 different systems at different times?
Also, we are no longer the one TV household of the 60's but rather the mutli-TV, VCR, DVD, cable (or sattelite) hookup, and computer households of the new millenia. (Kinda sad if you ask me.) One phone in the living room has given way to everyone having their own cell phones. When one area code could handle a state, now multiple are needed in some cities with all the phones, cells, faxes, etc.
The Cable Act of 1996 answered the question of should people pay per household or per connection. The OP seems to side with the law even though it covers TV and not internet. Who knows if another law comes into affect to say the very same thing. Even Comcast sells a family plan and Verizon FIOS gives you a wireless router for multiple connections.
All this is a straw man argument for not only upping capacity but upgrading equipment. No one wants to pay for it but everyone wants it. | |
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to calvoiper
said by calvoiper :Oh, and I might add that trying to collect broadband upgrade fees from content providers would be like the city trying to collect pipe upgrade costs from the makers of toilets, showerheads, and car-wash wands. Charging the user makes far more sense than trying to indirectly charge what they are using. calvoiper While it makes more sense, it is not consumer correct. 
Consumers already unhappy with the high cost of high speed might not want to stay after a rate hike and therefore, more churn and less money for those trying to upgrade. Charge the faceless corporations, they can afford it.  | |
|
