said by TK Junk Mail :

The Slingbox issue for wireless providers like Verizon have the same solution that should be implemented to address all bandwidth hog issues, regardless of infrastructure - a pay per bit pricing model. With that model, those who consume the most bandwidth pay the most money. This does 2 things:
It puts the burden of upgrading infrastructure on those causing the need for an upgrade. And it puts a self-limit on those biggest bandwidth hogs - how much are they willing to pay to consume huge amounts of bandwidth. At some point they will cut their usage to match their available funds.

said by kamm :

Spoken like a true cable astroturfer - everybody pays for his/her bandwidth already. There's no need to change the business modell and there's no legal basis to cap unlimited service.

It's only the problem of wireless and cable providers - there's no capping on DSL or FIOS and we know the reasons for both...

said by yock :

While I understand the basis for your rebuttal, it ignores an unfortunate fact of life. ISPs oversell their network because of the nature of bandwidth usage.

You receive huge breaks in the price of service

because they know you can't possibly use 100% of it all the time, so that adds a lot of unseen capacity.

If you had 5Mb/384kb of dedicated bandwidth that was yours and yours alone to use, the price would be astronomical...not to mention completely out of your price range.

So before you go insulting a well-educated user, perhaps you'll research the current ISP business model a bit more.

said by kamm :

Spoken like a true cable astroturfer - everybody pays for his/her bandwidth already. There's no need to change the business modell and there's no legal basis to cap unlimited service.

It's only the problem of wireless and cable providers - there's no capping on DSL or FIOS and we know the reasons for both...

And no, the cable companies won't get a free ticket to avoid those questions about long years of postponed or completely missing network upgrades. You got your service fees, your money, you SHOULD HAVE UPGRADED ALREADY.
If you have miscalculated then fire your execs and get a loan or close your business.

It's the sheer greed of (your) cable industry, nothing else - there's no sane arguments behind this prosposed business modell change.

Cable industry is similar to Hollywood, to the **AAs: they don't want to invest into serious upgrades, rather change the course to make sure their government-granted yet illegal monopolies remain intact without any serious investment.

said by tsu :

ISPs oversell their network because of the nature of bandwidth usage.

Then perhaps they should not "oversell"?

said by tsu :

How about some rational figures to back that assertion up?

To whit: if there is that much risk involved ($760 rough risk) per line, then I really have to wonder how the market stays afloat. Because, honestly, they seem to be making plenty of money.

said by JSRoman :

Now back to the article in hand. Freaking 10 GB on a cell phone, that is just sick. Man those folks eyes must be hurting. As long as people agree to Verizon's TOS than there is not much they can do. End of Story.

said by yock :

DSL does in fact suffer from this phenomenon. The marketing information about its dedicated nature only refers to the "last mile" and ignores the major transmission infrastructure. They count on lack of consumer knowledge to manufacture product differentiation, when none really exists.

In fact, it was the phone company, *NOT* cable television, that invented multiplexing; the technology that allows multiple discrete signals to travel along the same cable. This notion that phone companies don't share similar business models is a crock.

Again, I urge you to do some research into this, as you seem to have a genuine interest in the technology.

Communication companies of all shapes, sizes, and industries all oversell their real capacity due to the nature of its usage.

There are predictable peaks in usage, and that is how communication companies design their networks. Cover the peak and you cover everything else, and the peak is nowhere close the the cumulative total of sold capacity.

said by JSRoman :

Jesus your like a 3 year old on crack . Focus ! The story is about Verizon wireless services not cable. The word is model not modell by the way. Did you buy a pair a sneakers there or something?

Now back to the article in hand. Freaking 10 GB on a cell phone, that is just sick. Man those folks eyes must be hurting. As long as people agree to Verizon's TOS than there is not much they can do. End of Story.

said by yock :

It would be nice, but then your DSL or cable connection would cost about $800 a month. I certainly don't want that.

said by moonpuppy :

If that is the case then why is Verizon advertising video viewing on their phones?

This is NOT about using a slingbox but about paying for VCast content. Verizon wouldn't care if you used 100GB/month as long as it was all VCast content that you paid for.

All cell phone companies hate it when you bypass their content for free content. Ringtones and wallpapers are 2 examples. Some phones you can put your own ringtones on but cell phone companies discourage it (using the copyrighted material excuse.)

said by tsu :

How about some rational figures to back that assertion up?

To whit: if there is that much risk involved ($760 rough risk) per line, then I really have to wonder how the market stays afloat. Because, honestly, they seem to be making plenty of money.

said by yock :

It's a number that roughly equates to 5Mb of commercial access with a Service Level Agreement. It may very well be incredibly inaccurate, as I do not work in the industry.

Consider that a dedicated T1 line costs around $400/mo for 1.5Mb up and down these days, my estimation for 5Mb might even be low.

said by yock :

It's a number that roughly equates to 5Mb of commercial access with a Service Level Agreement. It may very well be incredibly inaccurate, as I do not work in the industry.