Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit
said by TKJunkMail  :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. what a load of crap. i paid for the bandwidth and now i expect to get it and use it. maybe verizon should have thought of a pay-as-you-go system, but they didn't now did they. therefore their business model is set up to provide bandwidth so i can get the content i want and not have it regulated by them. this will certainly lead to a class-action if they don't rectify it immediately.
this notion that bandwidth is somehow limited is garbage. it isn't, it's an ethereal and an intangible asset that has replenshment properties that extend into the infinite. if verizon has more users that want to use more of their high bandwidth streams and they don't have enough of it to dole out then who's fault is it when their users are using it for the purpose they bought it for and verizon can't supply the pipe for them to do it in? it's verizons fault obviously and the solution is quite simple. add more pipe. be the provider that people are paying to be. |
|
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·BroadVoice
| reply to kamm
said by kamm :said by Kearnstd :the real problem verizon has with Slingbox is not bandwidth usage. nope they have bandwith coming out of their ears. its the fact slingbox gives the user free what they want you to pay for over their Vcast network. Exactly. ANybody who still claims it's just a network/bandwidth issue has no fuckin' idea about basic business tactics.  You people keep missing the point here. First of all, clearly the carriers would want you to buy their content as opposed to getting it elsewhere. But thats not the real issue at hand. Even if everyone on a given tower was using Vcast to watch Verizon's video clips it would STILL OVERLOAD THE NETWORK. As I mentioned before, most of the towers are serviced by a single T1 line and that will cause problems regardless of where the content is coming from. People (cough, cough) need to do some research about T1's before they make sweeping statement about business tactics (which they should also probably read up on  )
--
я люблю медведей! |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| reply to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd :the real problem verizon has with Slingbox is not bandwidth usage. nope they have bandwith coming out of their ears. its the fact slingbox gives the user free what they want you to pay for over their Vcast network. Exactly. ANybody who still claims it's just a network/bandwidth issue has no fuckin' idea about basic business tactics. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to kamm
Sounds like you've got a good complaint case then. Rather than seek aid from the oft compromised utility regulators, you might try the FTC or state authorities (often state attorney general) on a "deceptive business practice" claim.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
·Verizon FIOS
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
| reply to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd :the real problem verizon has with Slingbox is not bandwidth usage. nope they have bandwith coming out of their ears. its the fact slingbox gives the user free what they want you to pay for over their Vcast network. That is incorrect. Verizon (and ALL other wireless carriers) are still just beginning to upgrade their infrastructure. You need to keep in mind that most of their cell towers are served by just a single T1 line. Next you need to understand that in many metro areas of the country a single cell tower can literally be serving thousands of customers. I am not arguing for Verizon Wireless here, in fact, I often complain about how I left them and how much I dislike them. The fact remains however that the wireless networks are NOT currently prepared for everyone to use them like they use the wired networks (cable, dsl, etc.)
--
я люблю медведей! |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd :the real problem verizon has with Slingbox is not bandwidth usage. nope they have bandwith coming out of their ears. its the fact slingbox gives the user free what they want you to pay for over their Vcast network. And how do you know they have bandwidth coming out their ears on their cell phone system? Are you privy to some internal engineering studies about Verizon's cell network?
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to TKJunkMail
the real problem verizon has with Slingbox is not bandwidth usage. nope they have bandwith coming out of their ears. its the fact slingbox gives the user free what they want you to pay for over their Vcast network.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09
49533
| reply to TKJunkMail
It's just plain wrong to advertise a service as unlimited, then threaten users with service termination when they take advantage their "unlimited" service. If you're going to offer a service that is not truly unlimited, then don't call it unlimited. Plain and simple.
Unfortunately, marketing and the truth rarely go together these days. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| reply to calvoiper
said by calvoiper :said by kamm :... If I pay for unlimited service, I'm entitled to unlimited service, period. Capping is illegal. Yeah, but apparently the TOS says you aren't paying for unlimited service. I disagree that capping is necessarily illegal. Offering true "unlimited service" and then capping it may be a deceptive business practice, and if that's happened to you, you should file a complaint. However, if an ISP wants to offer a product with a disclosed cap, I see no legal problem with it. Are you aware of some statute or regulation that says it's illegal? calvoiper I don't see anything in my TOS which says they can use caps... |
|
winky
Turn Left At The Moon
join:2001-02-11
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to TKJunkMail
Here's the point
Consumers don't care how it works. The see it advertised and they buy it. When they start advertising it as limited, I guess we'll all stop complaining about the fact that it is.
--
From this point forward Hoedown, from the ballet RODEO, by Aaron Copeland will not be reffered to as "The Beef Song". Thank You |
|
biota
join:2001-11-27
Ashtabula, OH | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit
The headline for this article is misleading.
As far as I know, the cap is at 5GB not 10GB. |
|
wev567
join:2006-02-25
Pittsburgh, PA | reply to JSRoman
Aren't the caps applied to laptop card users, who use the mobile connection like a wired cable or dsl line? |
|
kammer
@comcast.net
| reply to calvoiper
That's because people like kamm are BBR's telco lobby. In case you haven't noticed, pretty much anything he says is somehow related to how evil cable companies are.
If he were really unbiased, he'd simply say the truth: both the telco and cable industries are greedy and stupid. |
|
Ironix
@algx.net | reply to JSRoman
"Jesus your like a 3 year old on crack... ...The word is model not modell by the way."
Perhaps you shouldn't correct typos when you don't know the difference between "your" and "you're" yourself... |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to kamm
Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit
said by kamm :... If I pay for unlimited service, I'm entitled to unlimited service, period. Capping is illegal. Yeah, but apparently the TOS says you aren't paying for unlimited service.
I disagree that capping is necessarily illegal. Offering true "unlimited service" and then capping it may be a deceptive business practice, and if that's happened to you, you should file a complaint. However, if an ISP wants to offer a product with a disclosed cap, I see no legal problem with it. Are you aware of some statute or regulation that says it's illegal?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to Tweak
Additionally, let's face it.
Regardless of whatever arguments we make about cable and DSL, wireless bandwidth is BOTH shared and limited.
If any wireless provider sold only enough subscriptions so that every customer could have full bandwidth 24/7, they'd have about 137 customers in each metro area.
Bandwidth management issues (on whatever portions of any ISP's network that are shared) are going to be a continuing challenge. Pricing by the bit is the normal free-market answer to a limited, shared resource--just as pricing by the barrel is the free market answer to the limited, shared resource we know as petroleum.
Of course, if Kamm were King, somebody else would pay for his 24/7, 100 Mb service.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to calvoiper
said by calvoiper :said by moonpuppy :...and supermarkets hat it when you park your car in their lot but walk next door and shop at their neighbors. Some of them will even tow your car. As long as they've posted the rules, why do you complain? calvoiper The complaint is not what the rules are but the rationalization. The cell phone companies won't come out and say that you can't use your slingbox because you aren't using their services (and costing them lost revenue.) I know if I go into a parking lot meant for certain stores (their property) that I can be towed if I do not patronize those stores at that time. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy :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.) ...and supermarkets hat it when you park your car in their lot but walk next door and shop at their neighbors. Some of them will even tow your car. As long as they've posted the rules, why do you complain?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to FightingBlue
I'm amused that the argument here focused so quickly on cable ISPs and their overbuilding needs--the article focused on Verizon Wireless, not cable.
I'm also in that school of thought that ISPs may have to charge by the bit to cover the cost of shared facilities (i.e., connections at peering points and the backhaul from those points to the local hub). I also agree that not immediately building facilities to let every user have 100% bandwidth to the peering points 24/7 makes good economic sense.
In the next breath, however, it's necessary to say that the ISPs' obligations include building enough shared facilities to handle demand and to disclose any limits they may place on their services up front. Having "invisible" caps is ridiculous and likely a deceptive trade practice.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
