Bill
Light Up The Halo
Premium,VIP
join:2001-12-09
clubs:
| reply to kamm
Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit
The stockholder/employee/troll comments really start to get annoying when they are almost always untrue. The idea that anyone who disagrees with you must be doing it for financial benefit is absurd and it's very sad that this ideology has spread like wildfire around this site.
Bandwidth is already bought based on "usage" in most datacenter environments and it works very well. As said in the original post, this is the only way I see faster speeds (100 Mbps+) coming into a large number of residential homes anytime soon. ISPs can not afford to give out those types of speeds with low prices (less than $100/month) and have people use the full connection 24/7. Latency would skyrocket and connections would become unreliable.
While I would love to have a low cost, 100 Mbps, unlimited usage, connection to my home, it just doesn't make financial sense for ISPs to provide it. As soon as you start buying bandwidth outside the home or small business, you'll see.
--
Check out our public servers |
|
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! |
|
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! |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| 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 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! |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to kamm
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! |
|
Ironix
@algx.net | reply to JSRoman
Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit
"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... |
|
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. |
|
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? |
|
biota
join:2001-11-27
Ashtabula, OH | reply to TKJunkMail
The headline for this article is misleading.
As far as I know, the cap is at 5GB not 10GB. |
|
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 |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to calvoiper
Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit
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... |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| 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 |
|
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! |
|
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! |
|
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.  |
|
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
·Verizon FIOS
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
| 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! |
|
