LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06
Felton, DE
| reply to kamm
Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit
Isn't your name calling like,
A shill calling a shill, a shill?
I recommend holding a poll to name KAMM the undisputed knower of all thing broadband. 
--
Fighting on the Internet is like winning the Special Olympics. Win or lose, your still Retarted! |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Moot point. A shill is a shill is a shill.
Assuming one is a shill, of course. |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| reply to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy  :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. Home users do not get anywhere near the service of a "service level agreement." Which is exactly my point. Since you are not promised every bit of that bandwidth every moment of every day, they can over-sell their networks.
Either way, I feel I've made my point to the best of my ability. The great thing about our discussions here is our right to disagree. I'll exercise that right...right now. =)
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge |
|
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :...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. With this I agree 100%. Anyone that thinks their $29.95 pays for the bandwidth, support, infrastructure and hardware is just delusional. This is not about free speech. There are many hosting providers out there that will get your message out (upstream) for a very reasonable fee.
I have no interest in subsidizing some kid's porn/warez/spears file-sharing habits. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
 ·T-Mobile US
1 edit | reply to LeftOfSanity
said by LeftOfSanity :Isn't your name calling like, A shill calling a shill, a shill? Umm what kind of shill I am? 
I trashtalk about AT&T or VZ just as much as cables but don't forget, cable monopolies are the most dispecable entities of the industry by far.
I recommend holding a poll to name KAMM the undisputed knower of all thing broadband.
PS: ah I know it: I'm a customer industry shill. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
2 edits | reply to yock
said by yock :said by moonpuppy :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. Home users do not get anywhere near the service of a "service level agreement." Which is exactly my point. Since you are not promised every bit of that bandwidth every moment of every day, they can over-sell their networks. No, you are confusedon multiple counts.
1.SLA is more about the service quality - bandwidth is there anyway.
2. Slowing down periodically has nothing to do with deliberate capping. Capping for using your PAID service is CLEARLY illegal and has no merits.
Either way, I feel I've made my point to the best of my ability. The great thing about our discussions here is our right to disagree. I'll exercise that right...right now. =)
 |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| reply to sporkme
said by sporkme :said by TKJunkMail :...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. With this I agree 100%. Anyone that thinks their $29.95 pays for the bandwidth, support, infrastructure and hardware is just delusional. For you, perhaps but apparently it generates plenty of wealth for every ISP.
This is not about free speech.
Excuse me? You're pretty confused here... it's not your usual the civil liberties/freedom-bashing topic...
There are many hosting providers out there that will get your message out (upstream) for a very reasonable fee.
I have no interest in subsidizing some kid's porn/warez/spears file-sharing habits.
I have no interests to feed the stockholders sheer greed, represented here by various people.
If I pay for unlimited service, I'm entitled to unlimited service, period. Capping is illegal. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| reply to tsu9
said by tsu9 :Moot point. A shill is a shill is a shill. Assuming one is a shill, of course. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| reply to tsu9
Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit
said by tsu9 :ISPs oversell their network because of the nature of bandwidth usage.Then perhaps they should not "oversell"? This isn't a problem of users, but rather the company not accurately predicting usage through unpredictable circumstances. Exactly - this was one of my points. |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| reply to kamm
said by kamm :PS: ah I know it: I'm a customer industry shill. Ahem. In these parts, that is otherwise known as a "communist" or "socialist." Get your insults right!
--
"You do not secure the liberty of our country and value of our democracy by undermining them, that's the road to hell." - Lord Phillips of Sudbury. |
|
FightingBlue
join:2006-04-08
Warsaw, NY
| reply to kamm
Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit
Kamm is correct here: the reality is that if networks can't keep up with people using them, the network has to be fixed. Period. And charging more isn't the answer--in fact, it's possibly the stupidest idea in the whole mess. There's no shortage of bandwidth. If you look at all the dark fiber and other unused trunk space, you'd realize that service providers, particularly backbone providers are trying to sell bottled water for $20 a gallon. Then they have the temerity to complain when someone actually uses the service as promised, because that shaves a little off their profit margins, and reduces how much they can oversell their service without upgrading it. |
|
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·BroadVoice
1 edit | reply to yock
said by yock :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... 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. GOLF CLAP FOR YOCK!!!! Nicely put, and no rational or reasonable person can refute that . You pretty much just nailed the argument, although I am sure some uninformed individuals will still complain that they should be getting dedicated, uncapped, 50 meg symmetrical lines for what they are paying now.......
EDIT: I am sure someone will also blame the "evil" and "greedy" corporations somehow.
--
я люблю медведей! |
|
Right On
@gte.net | reply to kamm
Well said! |
|
Tweak
Premium
join:2002-06-08
Oklahoma City, OK
·Cox HSI
| reply to kamm
Kamm I don't know what planet you are living on but this is a cell phone company we are talking about . Not a cable company it is Verizon not cable vision this news article refers to. In my case its been the opposite of what you have said. The telephone company is the monopoly and the cable company in my area is spending millions of dollars to upgrade their plant. Now I don't support limiting customers bandwidth on a cell phone in such a manor but you know what you can do if you don't like it don't subscribe. It is that simple . No one is forcing you to take Verizon wireless. They are free to do what ever they want with their network. Your post and rant is completely off topic |
|
owenhome
keeper of the magic blue smoke
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR
1 edit | reply to kamm
To be honest, you're both right.
Every ISP oversells their capacity. This has been a constant back to the days of dial-up. For this very reason a dial-up provider only needed 30 lines and a T1 to support 200 users. Nothing has changed through today.
Your not going to find capping on DSL, not for the fact they don't oversell, which they do, but rather because the ISP generally owns their pipes, unlike some cable companies which have to buy their bandwidth from someone else.
Yes this is an issue of greed, but more so, it's an issue of practicality. There's no reason to upgrade an entire network because a handful of users are taxing it. Service providers, like Easynews, are correct in stating that 10-20 users put by far the biggest strain on their bandwidth, while the thousands of other users cost relatively nothing to service. The way their business model, and that of every ISP works, is simply on the law of averages. Average usage, average bandwidth, average cost, average profit, consolidating the entire user base down to a number. When they have aggressive users that throws that average out, they let them know.
This would be an entirely different situation if they designed their network in such a way that every user would have 100% of their bandwidth available to them, 100% of the time. But it's not, and there's no reason to. 99% of the networks capacity would go unused. That's why they build the network to support that 1%. No more is needed. Until, of course, little Johnny's warez fetish takes over and he's using 100s of times more than the average user.
Verizon, as it's well known, does not have the network resources in place to support aggressive users. They brought 3rd gen into play before they had the resources to effectively support it. They're getting better, day by day, but for the most part, EVDO from Verizon, at present, depends on low usage to function. As such, they have to take sometimes seemly drastic measures against customers to keep it running. Once these tooth-cutting issues are done and over with, we will likely hear little to nothing more about it. But for now, while EVDO is still in its infancy, and some towers are still being serviced by such things as their original T1 (gag) while having to provide service for however many people are connected to it, they will have to keep usage down.
I will be the first one to agree, we already pay for our bandwidth, but only to a point. And I will also be the first one standing up yelling at the ISP's to "tell it like it is" but the plain and simple fact of the matter is, if we were actually paying for our bandwidth, we would be paying multitudes more than we are now. The cost of bringing the network up to support 100% of every users max capacity would be astronomical, and those costs would be met by astronomical charges to its users. If an ISP specifies "unlimited" than that's exactly what it should be. If they have a magic cap, they should include such information in their advertising to avoid such situations. The FTC has failed us here, as this is obviously deceptive. But at the same time, we have to understand why these caps are in place, at least for "some" ISP's (like Verizon wireless).
But some other ISP's drastically oversell their network and/or they don't want to pay for any more bandwidth than absolutely required. This speed craze ISP's are going through now is making the situation even worse. They want to keep their customers, so they jack up speeds more and more, but they don't want to sink any more money in their network. These are by far the worst. In order to support average users, the network is already greatly overtaxed, it's already tapped out. But they are trying to keep costs down to remain profitable, so they don't invest any more to bring up capacity. These ISP's are the scum of the earth in my opinion. They depend on average users because that's all they can support. When an aggressive user comes about, using 100s of times more bandwidth than an average user, that throws their barley balanced network over the edge. These ISP's go after aggressive users with great resolve. Throttling them down, killing speeds, tossing down ridiculous caps, and seemingly driving them off like a bad employee. Hopefully, over time, such ISP's will be forced out of business or forced to support their users.
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. |
|
owenhome
keeper of the magic blue smoke
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR
| reply to tsu9
I was one of the first to jump on the DSL bandwagon. I bought a dry loop to an ISP for 768/768 SDSL. The cost was in excess of $600/month. The justification for this price was that the ISP (not a telco) had to provide 100% of this bandwidth 100% of the time (I was running servers and using every bit of it). The phone company was charging ~$1200/month for a T1, so it was a decent deal. Half the speed for half the cost.
Currently, with BB ISP's, the market stays afloat because of the law of averages.
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. |
|
owenhome
keeper of the magic blue smoke
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR
| reply to kamm
No, no it's not. It's guaranteed yes, but the bandwidth available at the ISP itself to support your T1 is not up to the task of supporting every T1 at 100%. They depend on each T1 to be below a certain average capacity. When I worked for an ISP who sold T1's, many moons ago, the average we used was 25%. It was only when customer's complained that we would do something about it.
Can you see the forest despite the trees?
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. |
|
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 yock :said by tsu9 :ISPs oversell their network because of the nature of bandwidth usage.Then perhaps they should not "oversell"? It would be nice, but then your DSL or cable connection would cost about $800 a month. I certainly don't want that. Another ignorant comment. FYI: an SLA-backed T1 starts around $300 - and that's 1.5Mbit guaranteed, both ways. Incorrect. T1 lines under ideal circumstances START at $300 from small providers, with many people still paying or being quoted $800 or even $1000 or more depending on where they are located. As for the SLA, its not a true guarantee in that it (the T1) will never go down. The SLA is simply there to distinguish the BUSINESS class service from a RESIDENTIAL service and to provide for a (very small) monetary "break" if/when the service goes down. At the end of the day there is not a single ISP in this country that will cover monetary damages incurred by loss of service, so at best the SLA being broken will allow you out of a contract.
--
я люблю медведей! |
|
