yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| reply to kamm
Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit
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.
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
 ·T-Mobile US
4 edits | 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. Um pal, hate to say this but you just proved you don't understand the whole (not just mine) point.
You receive huge breaks in the price of service
No, I don't.
because they know you can't possibly use 100% of it all the time, so that adds a lot of unseen capacity.
Pretty cheap spin - they don't know it, they are assuming things and they do it only to SAVE MONEY on investments.
It's - 'capping' - a cable-only phenomenon in case you don't know it.
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.
Uhhh.  On DSL they don't have this problem. On FIOS they don't have this problem.
And do you know why?
So before you go insulting a well-educated user, perhaps you'll research the current ISP business model a bit more.
It's quite finny to read after all this as this would be a perfect advice to follow yourself, especially when you don't even understand the business point, the sneaky rationale behind capping and /or business modell change he's proposing at all, let alone calling our well-known corporate shill & FT cable industry astroturfer Tjunk a "well-educated user" ROFLMAO.  |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
1 edit | reply to yock
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. |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
2 edits | reply to kamm
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.
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| reply to tsu9
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.
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
1 edit | 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. |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| said by tsu9 :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. 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.
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| It's a bit lower than that, actually. And, regardless, that's still inflated quite heavily. Taking into account that most home users don't expect 99.9999(or more)% uptime, that lowers the cost rather dramatically. Even something like 98% would suffice, especially if the downtime were limited to notable off-peak hours. Business class lines pay for both uptime and QOS. Dedication of line isn't really all that expensive, in and of itself, as most DSL providers tend to showcase (yes, slightly flawed analogy, but that is "good enough" for the average/above-average home user)
All this fuss over people using the network that is "oversold" just means that 95% (random statistic: popular figure of 5% "heavy" users) of the users are getting fleeced.
--
"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. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
3 edits | reply to yock
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. I guess one question explains to you everything: why can't you see any DSL or FIOS company to use capping?
That's all you have to answer.
Communication companies of all shapes, sizes, and industries all oversell their real capacity due to the nature of its usage.
And there's nothing new and nothing wrong with overselling as long as they maintain
a good level - see DSL providers.
FYI: there are hosting companies who undersell their capacity. For example this is purely the sole reason why Rackspace - I'm using them too, I have couple of dedicated servers hosted, mostly in their Fort Worth DC - showed such a crazy growth during the last few years.
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.
My point was that most cable companies, driven by sheer greed and/or arrogant execs, postponed or minimized their necessary investment and now these are in very bad shape to compete with 50+Mbit FIOS and similar offerings in the future. They will have to foot much bigger bills, thanks to thoise missed years and that's why they try to change the rules instead of facing the consequences of their bad decisions. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
1 edit | reply to yock
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. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| reply to tsu9
said by tsu9 :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. Ouch, another great one - touche'! |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| reply to yock
said by yock :said by tsu9 :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. 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. You might want to take your own advice and check out the industry then: most of the extra you pay for a T1 comes from the SLA behind it: the routing, those various peering routes the ISP must secure to be able to back up its "five-digit 9s" SLA. 
Contrary to this we don't want SLA, nobody expects 99.999% service but everybody expects uncapped service.
The two barely has anything to do with each other if it's not cable, not a shared last-mile system. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to yock
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." |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| 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 |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
2 edits | 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 tsu9
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. |
|
FightingBlue
join:2006-04-08
Warsaw, NY
| reply to kamm
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! |
|
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. |
|
