telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
| reply to Karl Bode
Re: [TWC] Pricing model changing soon
said by Karl Bode  :Of course when you consider the countless grannies who only consume a tiny bit of bandwidth it all evens out in the end, but I think the investor pressure to always see quarterly gains will make overages happen eventually.... I still think it would be marketing suicide, but who knows. I agree with the marketing challenges, but disagree with the granny analysis. Many, many users (including myself) are Internet veterans and use broadband fairly heavily. However "heavy users" don't come close to the 300+G of the top 5%.
I bet that the majority of the BBR folks here are in the 40-60G / month range, but think they are going to be impacted by issues like this. In reality it is the multi-terabyte p2p DVD downloader that causes faster than normal network growth requirements and the push to usage tiers.
I'm not a granny, and don't like subsidizing your DVD library.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
1 edit | said by telcolackey : impacted by issues like this. In reality it is the multi-terabyte p2p DVD downloader that causes faster than normal network growth requirements and the push to usage tiers. I'm not a granny, and don't like subsidizing your DVD library. I'm not a multi-terabyte P2P DVD Downloader, and I don't like having to check for permission with my ISP before using my Internet connection this week, should I decide to configure high quality videoconferencing to a sick relative, or host a LAN party, or transfer a bunch of video to friends and family, or legitimately BUY and download a bunch of HD quality movies, or... USE MY DAMNED CONNECTION.
There's no reason to "draw the line somewhere". We moderate users and grannies are more than plentiful enough to offset the network's top talkers. The ISPs are just being greedy.
Edit: typos
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
| said by B :I'm not a multi-terabyte P2P DVD Downloader, and I don't like having to check for permission with my ISP before using my Internet connection this week As you shouldn't, but if you leave your HD Video conf running 7x24 you will have to pay for it like leaving your water running, all your lights on and your windows open in the winter.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| said by telcolackey :said by B :I'm not a multi-terabyte P2P DVD Downloader, and I don't like having to check for permission with my ISP before using my Internet connection this week As you shouldn't, but if you leave your HD Video conf running 7x24 you will have to pay for it like leaving your water running, all your lights on and your windows open in the winter. except that bandwidth doesn't expend resources. It's either a "use it or lose it" product - not a finite resource which can be saved and used elsewhere.
--
|- The LP »www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml -|
|- Cato @ Liberty »www.cato-at-liberty.org -|
|- Ron Paul »www.ronpaul2008.com/ -| |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to telcolackey
quote:
I bet that the majority of the BBR folks here are in the 40-60G / month range, but think they are going to be impacted by issues like this. In reality it is the multi-terabyte p2p DVD downloader that causes faster than normal network growth requirements and the push to usage tiers.
Investors who get a taste of per-byte billing will want more. It ramps up the revenue stream, and if they can sell it from the marketing side, it will expand.
And with systems like DirecTV's VOD system that uses your broadband connection to automatically download HD video, combined with the vast volume of on-line video that's emerging daily, the category "bandwidth hog" is going to ramp up very quickly.
I doubt this trial will have 400GB as its consumption ceiling, so I think this probably would impact many more consumers than just the 24/7 DVD p2p RIP junkies... |
|
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
1 edit | said by Karl Bode :And with systems like DirecTV's VOD system that uses your broadband connection to automatically download HD video, combined with the vast volume of on-line video that's emerging daily, the category "bandwidth hog" is going to ramp up very quickly. Perhaps, but as you add more electronics to your house, or christmas lights outside, doesn't your electrical bill go up? Maybe you go from 100amp service to 200amp service... maybe the electrical company needs to add more infrastructure...
said by tiger72 :except that bandwidth doesn't expend resources. It's either a "use it or lose it" product - not a finite resource which can be saved and used elsewhere. Incorrect. Increase in bandwidth growth over and above normally yearly growth causes unexpected capital expense. This can either be shared among all users, light, moderate, heavy and terabyte dvd downloaders, or the costs are put where they belong.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode : quote:
I bet that the majority of the BBR folks here are in the 40-60G / month range, but think they are going to be impacted by issues like this. In reality it is the multi-terabyte p2p DVD downloader that causes faster than normal network growth requirements and the push to usage tiers.
Investors who get a taste of per-byte billing will want more. It ramps up the revenue stream, and if they can sell it from the marketing side, it will expand. And with systems like DirecTV's VOD system that uses your broadband connection to automatically download HD video, combined with the vast volume of on-line video that's emerging daily, the category "bandwidth hog" is going to ramp up very quickly. People do not like seeing overages on their accounts. Americans in particular like to see "unlimited", and suddenly saying that we're going to have overages for a population which doesn't know the difference between a bit and a byte, or a megabyte and a gigabyte will NOT go well. It's one thing on cell phones when we have limited minute plans. Everyone knows what a minute is, and even then overages are frequently negotiated down. It costs lots of money to pay employees to waste time negotiating down costs so customers actually pay their bills.
Until everyone knows how much a gigabyte is, telling people that they have a cap of xGB/mo is a useless, costly waste of time. And for the educated users, it's twice as bad since most of us would contend (and waste service reps time arguing) that if they are going to charge us by-the-byte, then having speed caps is doubly bad as we don't want to be restricted on both counts.
--
|- The LP »www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml -|
|- Cato @ Liberty »www.cato-at-liberty.org -|
|- Ron Paul »www.ronpaul2008.com/ -| |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
4 edits | I think yeah, that's a good point too. Confusion. That was the primary stumbling block a Jupiter analyst cited to me last month when I spoke with them...
Per-byte billing will be a real hit with the "can't differentiate a Mhz from a MB no matter how many times my son tells me" crowd...especially just as HD film distribution over broadband is taking off.
But I imagine they like that. Lots of ridiculous bills rung up by confused soccer moms, which makes investors happy, which in the end is all this is really about. Not fairness, or making a fair profit (they already do), or anything else. |
|
Gib4500
join:2003-12-08
Sardis, OH
 ·AT&T Midwest
·Windjammer Cable
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to telcolackey
If their going to implement this then why are they raising the speeds all the time. I would rather they leave the speed at say 7mb and have it like it is than increase the speed and then say oh you have to pay extra if you actually want to use your connection. I don't think this could be implemented because to many people would cancel service. If they implement this this would take this country back yet another step in broadband. The internet is used for many many usefull things and to say you have to pay a premium up and beyond what you already are paying will make it so some people may not afford the internet anymore, which is sad. |
|
Phil
Rojo Sol
Premium
join:2001-06-11
Camarillo, CA | reply to Karl Bode
On the flip side, how many people check their electrical meter every month, yet still pay their electric bill? If they could bill based on flat per byte rate this could be realized quite easily. |
|
Boinkfoobarnet
@wayport.net | reply to tiger72
Umm ... the equipment is capital intensive and the bandwidth is purchased. Me thinks you have not taken undergrad economics  |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by Boinkfoobarnet :Umm ... the equipment is capital intensive and the bandwidth is purchased. Me thinks you have not taken undergrad economics Me thinks you earned a degree in overanalyzation.
I didn't think I needed to spend the time to describe precisely that there is a set amount of throughput per second that can be used and that there was investment to be able to transmit the data that is transferred, and that networking agreements also play into TW's decision, etc.. etc.. I believe that most readers can grasp that network equipment and data is *not* of the same nature as oil flowing through pipelines experiencing wear as more oil is pumped which deteriorates the infrastructure, which over time leads to ever-increasing expenditures on maintenance, etc...
An ISP can at best be described as a street which doesn't generate the traffic, it just facilitates its transfer. However, unlike a road which experiences physical wear and tear from the weight of ever-flowing traffic (as well as large loads on trucks, for example), a user transmitting a 4GB file does no more "damage" to the network infrastructure than 4 users transmitting 1GB files each, or 400 users transmitting 10MB a piece, contrary to what the ISP's claim.
Is that a slight bit more clear?
--
|- The LP »www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml -|
|- Cato @ Liberty »www.cato-at-liberty.org -|
|- Ron Paul »www.ronpaul2008.com/ -| |
|
Boinkcomcastcom
@wayport.net
| said by tiger72 :said by Boinkfoobarnet :Umm ... the equipment is capital intensive and the bandwidth is purchased. Me thinks you have not taken undergrad economics Me thinks you earned a degree in overanalyzation. I didn't think I needed to spend the time to describe precisely that there is a set amount of throughput per second that can be used and that there was investment to be able to transmit the data that is transferred, and that networking agreements also play into TW's decision, etc.. etc.. I believe that most readers can grasp that network equipment and data is *not* of the same nature as oil flowing through pipelines experiencing wear as more oil is pumped which deteriorates the infrastructure, which over time leads to ever-increasing expenditures on maintenance, etc... An ISP can at best be described as a street which doesn't generate the traffic, it just facilitates its transfer. However, unlike a road which experiences physical wear and tear from the weight of ever-flowing traffic (as well as large loads on trucks, for example), a user transmitting a 4GB file does no more "damage" to the network infrastructure than 4 users transmitting 1GB files each, or 400 users transmitting 10MB a piece, contrary to what the ISP's claim. Is that a slight bit more clear? It is clear, but the following applies. A business model provides the ability to make net revenue.
Assuming that:
- 5% of the users utilizes 50% of the consumption
- This consumption is illegal sharing of multimedia content.
As a consumer I refuse to pay more for my bandwidth to support these P2P kings ... network abuses that are breaking the law. Why should I fund the capital for network hardware and the bandwidth to keep up with the P2P abuse?
I'm cheap! |
|
