dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7140
share rss forum feed


pizz
1gbps is all the rage.
Premium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY

Cable companies need to wake up

By going to a tiered bandwidth plan, you're just going to make it that much easier to switch to DSL. They only people you will have left are the one's who cannot get DSL.


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 edit

1 recommendation

said by pizz:

By going to a tiered bandwidth plan, you're just going to make it that much easier to switch to DSL. They only people you will have left are the one's who cannot get DSL.
And what makes you think that DSL providers won't follow suit? Once a big ISP like Comcast and TW do this, the rest will follow.

And that 250GB should be plenty. The biggest month I ever had was about 12 GB up & down combined and that was watching a few TV shows online I missed on TV and downloading one of those infamous linux distros.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
reply to pizz
said by pizz:

The only people you will have left are the one's who cannot get DSL.
... or the overwhelming majority of folks who never consume > 250GB/month.

EPS4

join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
If the telcos spin this the right way, then they could manage to scare a bunch of users who would never ever hit their caps anyway to think they could get booted for downloading.

Of course, that assumes the telcos don't want to cap. However, I'd be somewhat surprised, because the networks are so different. DSL and B/GPON are shared mediums like any DOCSIS system, but the methods through which they are shared leaves the telcos with much greater capacity for the speeds they deliver.

If, out of some sheer hatred for the consumer or something, they decide to cap, then obviously they won't be promoting their superiority over the cablecos for not capping, and people won't switch because the remaining uncapped options are less desirable for various reasons.

EPS4

join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
reply to FFH5
The question is, why would a DSL provider cap when they don't have to? While I understand that DSL is also shared, it doesn't seem to have the same level limitations as DOCSIS 1.1 (which most of Comcast uses IIRC) that lead Comcast to think of capping.


Jeffrey
Connoisseur of leisurely things
Premium
join:2002-12-24
Long Island
kudos:3
Reviews:
·voip.ms
·Verizon FiOS
·Vonage

2 recommendations

reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

said by pizz:

By going to a tiered bandwidth plan, you're just going to make it that much easier to switch to DSL. They only people you will have left are the one's who cannot get DSL.
And that 250GB should be plenty. The biggest month I ever had was about 12 GB up & down combined and that was watching a few TV shows online I missed on TV and downloading one of those infamous linux distros.
I really dislike when people say what should be enough for someone else. That's great that you only use 12GB. Perhaps it's just you in your house, and a significant other. Then again, you have other people, homes with parents, 4 teenagers, Netflix movie downloads, etc.
--
And so castles made of sand, slip into the sea, eventually.

I'm the Dude. So that's what you call me. You know, that or, uh, His Dudeness, or uh, Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.

moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:

said by pizz:

The only people you will have left are the one's who cannot get DSL.
... or the overwhelming majority of folks who never consume > 250GB/month.
When they don't have enough people paying the extra fee, they will lower the standards to get the next 0.1%.

Just another marketing ploy for the competition.


NOCMan
MadMacHatter
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO
reply to Jeffrey
I agree. Music downloads, web surfing, online radio, video games, Movie rentals from Itunes range from 600M to over 6G.

Backing up all my digital media online would put me over a terabit. So you're telling me it would take me several months to download all of it. That limit would severely limit innovation on the internet.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

And what makes you think that DSL providers won't follow suit?
Because the telcos are hemorrhaging customers left and right to cable's triple play offerings and need something to use as a competitive advantage, even if said advantage won't matter to 99% of their customers?

Realistically speaking how many broadband customers even cared about getting faster speeds? Isn't everything above a certain point (1.5 or even 3.0Mbps) just gravy to the vast majority of broadband users? That still hasn't stopped them from engaging in speed wars in areas with real competition. Why will this be any different?


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to EPS4
said by EPS4:

The question is, why would a DSL provider cap when they don't have to?
Running circuits to remote terminals isn't free.

radam

join:2004-02-13
Fairfax Station, VA
reply to pizz
Sounds like Comcast coverage areas need Verizon competition. This competition has forced Cox to be more customer focused in Fairfax VA.


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
reply to Jeffrey
said by Jeffrey:

I really dislike when people say what should be enough for someone else.
They had to quit using the phrase "One Size Fits All" because of statements like this.

A former coworker of mine now works for Charter Communications here in MN -- for grins I asked him about the node data they collect from the CMTS head-end. He showed me a sample report and I was surprised that I had to skip through a few pages before I found the first line that showed > 2GB of usage.

Statistically speaking, 250GB would easily fit 99+% of the existing user base usage.


Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Verona, PA
reply to EPS4
said by EPS4:

The question is, why would a DSL provider cap when they don't have to? While I understand that DSL is also shared, it doesn't seem to have the same level limitations as DOCSIS 1.1 (which most of Comcast uses IIRC) that lead Comcast to think of capping.
Because capping has nothing to do with the line between the customer and the ISP; but the line between the ISP and other ISP's, which is an issue for every ISP regardless of how they deliver service to the customer.
--
I never though that we would end up here;
When fascism comes as an angel of light;
Its license parading as tyranny drives forth its son.


ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA
reply to NOCMan
said by NOCMan:

...

Backing up all my digital media online would put me over a terabit. So you're telling me it would take me several months to download all of it. That limit would severely limit innovation on the internet.
Sad part is that with all the wimpy upload speeds, you would be through a month and still wouldn't have a complete backup..


JamesPC

join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA
reply to NOCMan
Great point NOCMan. There should be no limitations on a unlimited service. And if they cant offer unlimited SOMEONE WILL!


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:

said by Jeffrey:

I really dislike when people say what should be enough for someone else.
They had to quit using the phrase "One Size Fits All" because of statements like this.

A former coworker of mine now works for Charter Communications here in MN -- for grins I asked him about the node data they collect from the CMTS head-end. He showed me a sample report and I was surprised that I had to skip through a few pages before I found the first line that showed > 2GB of usage.

Statistically speaking, 250GB would easily fit 99+% of the existing user base usage.
I have to agree here.

I have a friend of mine who works for Comcast here local to me. One day, I was over at the office to see him and I asked him about usage. This was about 8 months ago. He pulled up the data usage of all the homes in our area and we counted a grand total of 50 people over 100gb. I cannot remember how many were over 250gb, but I remember seeing 767gb as the top account and the next one down was 521gb. I think it probably was about 5 accounts.


JamesPC

join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA
reply to radam
The Cable Co's need telco competition everywhere.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

1 recommendation

reply to pizz
250GB seems fair.... but the $15.00 for 10 GB is steep. $1.50 a GB is way too high.... It's obviously designed as a penalty to try and get people to cut usage, otherwise, why not just give the 250GB and then meter the rest above that for a realistic figure, say 10c a GB...

The reason is most likely to do with the infrastructure configuration. They think the nodes could become overloaded at the neighborhood level. So they will use the steep pricing to encourage people to stay down on usage.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)


Topmounter
Sent By Grocery Clerks

join:2001-02-20
Evergreen, CO
reply to pizz
It's about time they started considering a sane pricing model. One of two things will happen:

1) Their low-margin customers will pay a premium for overages

or

2) Their low-margin customers will go be low-margin DSL customers

Just freaking tell me exactly what I get for how much. The same flat-rate "UNLIMITED" data transfer pricing model is not sustainable for both casual and hard-core users.

supertech315

join:2006-03-01
Perris, CA
reply to pizz
Only the top 0.1% ...comcast can afford that if anything will be a benefit to get rid of them


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

1 recommendation

reply to KrK
said by KrK:

250GB seems fair.... but the $15.00 for 10 GB is steep. $1.50 a GB is way too high.... It's obviously designed as a penalty to try and get people to cut usage,
Agreed.

said by KrK:

otherwise, why not just give the 250GB and then meter the rest above that for a realistic figure, say 10c a GB...
This point is moot as we both agree on your previous statement, but let's continue for the sake of examination.

Purchasing the additional bandwidth from their upstream providers is not the only issue.
- The impact of heavy users on the last-mile network exists. Using Praeto 80/20 metaphor to describe it -- it probably is true that they can serve 80% of their customers at 20% of the cost. Heavy bandwidth eaters probably are 20% of the users but are the primary driver for plant upgrades 80% of the time.
- They don't want to be perceived as "metered." FIOS isn't, and that's their competition. So they still want to keep the comparisons to metered Internet to a minimum.
- Comcast is a bandwidth aggregator, and bandwidth is not sold by their providers by "consumption" but by a committed-rate (they are charged whether or not usage reaches that high). They have to make such purchases with sufficient headroom to keep the nature of the traffic "bursty" (otherwise everything crawls) but low enough to avoid wasting money on bandwidth they cannot sell.

I hope that explains that part -- even though your main point is right on.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...


JamesPC

join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA
reply to ropeguru
thats why you upload 24/7, but still takes awhile with 120kb/s


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to funchords
Yes, that makes a lot of sense.

Also, look at it this way--- it will "encourage" people to NOT switch their source of video entertainment (IE TV, Movies) from the Cable company to new third party options via IP and their broadband connection... due to the cost.

IE, a handy way to 1) Help control bandwidth expense 2) Generate some additional revenue from heavy users and 3) Put the brakes on the competition from video over the 'Net.

Looks like all wins to them, doesn't it.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)


Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12
reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:

said by Jeffrey:

I really dislike when people say what should be enough for someone else.
Statistically speaking, 250GB would easily fit 99+% of the existing user base usage on the single node - out of thousands deployed across multiple companies - I happened to see the stats from in Minnesota. Yes I realize my sample size is statistically meaningless but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.
I fixed it for you.


tc1uscg

join:2005-03-09
Clinton Township, MI
reply to pizz
said by pizz:

By going to a tiered bandwidth plan, you're just going to make it that much easier to switch to DSL. They only people you will have left are the one's who cannot get DSL.
Then maybe, the FCC will say.. "Ok, go ahead.. but.. as long as your adding caps, if you sell service at 10mbps, that's what you HAVE to provide. Anything less, and you have to credit your customer(s)".. Naw.. just day dreaming. Martin doesn't have the balls.


Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·ooma
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
reply to Matt3
said by Matt3:

said by espaeth:

said by Jeffrey:

I really dislike when people say what should be enough for someone else.
Statistically speaking, 250GB would easily fit 99+% of the existing user base usage on the single node - out of thousands deployed across multiple companies - I happened to see the stats from in Minnesota. Yes I realize my sample size is statistically meaningless but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.
I fixed it for you.
Yea, cause we all know that measurables like that in a discussion like this are meaningless. /sarcasm


davoice

join:2000-08-12
Saxapahaw, NC
reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:

said by EPS4:

The question is, why would a DSL provider cap when they don't have to?
Running circuits to remote terminals isn't free.
You're right. And the smart LECs used USF funds to get it done without costing them a penny. Just look at Bellsouth's (now AT&T) DSLAM and remote terminal ployments in Mississippi as an example.

}Davoice


NOCMan
MadMacHatter
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO
reply to ropeguru
I have FIOS 15mbit upstream. Not my fault other ISP's are crap.


NOCMan
MadMacHatter
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO
reply to funchords
This point is moot as we both agree on your previous statement, but let's continue for the sake of examination.

Purchasing the additional bandwidth from their upstream providers is not the only issue.

Actually bandwidth costs are pretty linear the first 50 dollars a customer pays for all the customer service maintenance taxes etc. After that were still talking less than 15 cents per gigabyte and comcast is a transit carrier as well. I have OC3's from both Comcast and Time Warner in use around the country.

That being said if they think they're going to charge 1.50 per gigabyte I will begin to organize an effort for government regulation of overage charges. I will not see a Enron of the internet rise to power.

At their prices it would cost hundreds of dollars for any decent online backup.

They would of been more resposible to put no hard caps but tiers above certain usage. Is 100 dollars a month so terrible for a user that might download a few thousand gigs of data legitimately?

What then for companies that provide you services. Comcast would be able to outprice them on virtue of they control the cost of data now. So a HD download from Apple could cost you 9 dollars on top of what Apple charged. How is that fair for Apple?

This is net neutrality at it's core. They were stopped from charging content providers and now they figured it out that they can charge you and get away with it.
--
Mac Chatter
»www.macchatter.net

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to tc1uscg
The day Martin says that is the day Comcast sues him directly and not the FCC as a whole. He can't make them provide an actual speed due to they use "up to" and actually Cox has caps; nobody tried to tell them they had to provide the full speed they claim "up to".