dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
10
share rss forum feed


jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1
reply to fifty nine

Re: Remember the 90s

said by fifty nine:

Your internet access was billed by the hour.
And then AOL offered unlimited service at a standard rate of $19.99. And despite a long and frustrating period for many customers fighting to get through on one of AOL's phone numbers, their user base grew astronomically. They soon dominated the industry.

If every ISP decides to go with metered billing, the one business that can offer "unlimited" service will most likely reap the benefits, even if their current infrastructure cannot keep up with the demand at first.



Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:42

1 recommendation

If every ISP decides to go with metered billing, the one business that can offer "unlimited" service will most likely reap the benefits, even if their current infrastructure cannot keep up with the demand at first.
That remains the problem for marketers of this idea. Like the "three strikes" idea, unless you get every carrier to engage in this en masse, then you're simply offering other carriers a way to differentiate themselves competitively.

Were Time Warner Cable a little smarter, they'd just impose high caps like Comcast, Charter, and Cox plan to do, then slowly ease them downward and impose overages in a few years very quietly while American consumers are busy guzzling corn syrup and watching Dancing With The Stars.

That's my suggestion, for what it's worth.

jimbo2150

join:2004-05-10
Euclid, OH
reply to jmn1207
said by jmn1207:

If every ISP decides to go with metered billing, the one business that can offer "unlimited" service will most likely reap the benefits, even if their current infrastructure cannot keep up with the demand at first.
There is the issue. While those few living in large cities where there is a bit more local competition won't be much affected by it cause at least one (if not more) smaller providers will offer unlimited as usual and customers will reap the benefits. For those of use in suburban or rural areas (a majority of the US) where there is only one or two providers... well, we will not have any choice. For many it's either capped provider A or dial-up provider B. For a few more it will be capped provider A, capped provider B, or dial-up C.

Consumers will definitely suffer if the major providers decide to go with this.
--

- "Techie" Jim


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2
For me it's either:

30M/2M and 100GB cap each way. Service Electric/PTD cable.

or

5M/896k and no caps, plus having to subscribe to landline phone service (which I currently don't do). This is Embarq DSL. I'm too far from the CO to get 10M service, plus that 896k upload is just pathetic.

or

3.5M/1M and unknown caps, varying with weather. This is Near You Networks WISP.

I want the speed so I guess I have to swallow the caps for now.


davoice

join:2000-08-12
Saxapahaw, NC
FYI... Embarq offers standalone DSL service. I have it at my other house. No phone line required. You just have to call and ask for it. (And find someone who understands what you're asking for.)

}Davoice


woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
reply to Karl Bode
OMG karl, don't give them any ideas
--
BlooMe


fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2

1 edit
reply to davoice
Yeah but the main problem for me is the speed.

5m down just won't do for reliable netflix streaming.


kamm

join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY

2 recommendations

reply to jmn1207
said by jmn1207:

said by fifty nine:

Your internet access was billed by the hour.
And then AOL offered unlimited service at a standard rate of $19.99. And despite a long and frustrating period for many customers fighting to get through on one of AOL's phone numbers, their user base grew astronomically. They soon dominated the industry.

If every ISP decides to go with metered billing, the one business that can offer "unlimited" service will most likely reap the benefits, even if their current infrastructure cannot keep up with the demand at first.

That'd be nice but unfortunately we usually don't have a choice because the entire US Big Cable Business solely exist due to MONOPOLIES - which, as always, we deny...
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE]

vinnie97
Premium
join:2003-12-05
US
kudos:1
reply to davoice
I think Covad does the same....it's a bit pricey being only Business class service ($70 for 1.5Mbps down) but I'll take slow and steady over fast(er) and capped any time.


Smith6612
Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:24
reply to jmn1207
Heh, I remembered that. Some nights back when I used to use AOL I could never get a connection for hours on any of my numbers, they'd all come up busy. That was until High Speed Internet became cheaper and AOL bought more numbers.

The Antihero

join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
reply to kamm
said by kamm:

That'd be nice but unfortunately we usually don't have a choice because the entire US Big Cable Business solely exist due to MONOPOLIES - which, as always, we deny...
Unfortunately true.

It's not like the dialup days of the 90s where there were dozens of providers to choose from. After a couple of months of running up bills of $100 or more, I found a flat-rate provider, which wasn't very common at the time. But it caught on, and eventually all of them went-flat rate.

If there were only one or two providers to choose from back then, I doubt it would have ever gone flat-rate. And now it looks like we're taking a huge step backwards.


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

1 recommendation

reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:

That remains the problem for marketers of this idea. Like the "three strikes" idea, unless you get every carrier to engage in this en masse, then you're simply offering other carriers a way to differentiate themselves competitively.
Except the marketers have the advantage of "marketing" with monopolistic powers.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ...


sivran
Seamonkey's back
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Irving, TX
kudos:1
reply to fifty nine
quote:
5M/896k and no caps, plus having to subscribe to landline phone service (which I currently don't do). This is Embarq DSL. I'm too far from the CO to get 10M service, plus that 896k upload is just pathetic.
Pathetic is relative. I'd gladly take 5M/896k over the 7M/~400k I get from TWC right now. Yeah, I'd trade 2 megabits down for ~500k up. In a heartbeat.

I'm in an AT&T area myself, but Verizon and FIOS aren't that far away, and even my crappy neighborhood has U-Verse. I kinda doubt I'll see metered billing here, but if I do, and especially with the low caps TWC has, I'll be boarding a shuttle for the Death Star for sure.
--
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon profitable cause...

qworster

join:2001-11-25
Bryn Mawr, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS

1 edit
reply to jmn1207
said by jmn1207:

said by fifty nine:

Your internet access was billed by the hour.
And then AOL offered unlimited service at a standard rate of $19.99. And despite a long and frustrating period for many customers fighting to get through on one of AOL's phone numbers, their user base grew astronomically. They soon dominated the industry.

If every ISP decides to go with metered billing, the one business that can offer "unlimited" service will most likely reap the benefits, even if their current infrastructure cannot keep up with the demand at first.

The flaw with your arguement is that back them, EVERYONE was on equal footing. Every dial up ISP had equal access to the POTS network. Today, only the chosen few have access to the BROADBAND networks.

All it takes is for Time Warner to do this in LA, and AT&T to follow, and I will have no choice whatsoever for unlimited broadband. See the FCC considered TWO to be competition, so that's what we have.

vinnie97
Premium
join:2003-12-05
US
kudos:1
reply to sivran
said by sivran:

quote:
5M/896k and no caps, plus having to subscribe to landline phone service (which I currently don't do). This is Embarq DSL. I'm too far from the CO to get 10M service, plus that 896k upload is just pathetic.
Pathetic is relative. I'd gladly take 5M/896k over the 7M/~400k I get from TWC right now. Yeah, I'd trade 2 megabits down for ~500k up. In a heartbeat.

I'm in an AT&T area myself, but Verizon and FIOS aren't that far away, and even my crappy neighborhood has U-Verse. I kinda doubt I'll see metered billing here, but if I do, and especially with the low caps TWC has, I'll be boarding a shuttle for the Death Star for sure.
You are aware that AT&T is also experimenting with some similarly low caps (40GB) in TWO markets right now, yes?


wont work

@mindspring.com
reply to jmn1207
It won't wrong until there is a true free market exist in broadband. Currently, you need to get license from the government to provide services in an area.


Jim Kirk
Premium
join:2005-12-09
Westerville, OH
reply to Karl Bode
Sounds like TK hacked Karl's account.


CompExists

@charter.com
reply to qworster
Did you miss Earthlink on TWC and DSLExtreme on AT&T? I'm pretty sure both are available to you as well, as those were mandated by the FCC. That would make at least 4.

Just like AOL didn't own the POTS network, those Earthlink and DSLExtreme don't own the networks they run on either...

Also last I checked it was economics not the FCC that was preventing others from running new broadband infrastructure in your neighborhoods.


ProblemNotGovmnt

@charter.com
reply to wont work
How many networks have you seen have their licenses turned down?

Then count how many had them approved but then couldn't afford to build or finish their network.

The infrastructure is VERY expensive to build and it's not like phone, electric, or water where you're almost guaranteed 100% homes passes subscription rate. Even the big 3 cable companies are lucky to get 50-60% subscription of their most BASIC services, HSI is maybe 30-40% of those basic subs, so maybe 25% of all the customers they can service.

Now you want to toss in another competitor into the mix... most have found it doesn't work as the money isn't there to pay off the original investment let alone upgrade it within a reasonable time frame...

The government can't fix what economics won't pay for.

qworster

join:2001-11-25
Bryn Mawr, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS

4 edits

1 recommendation

reply to CompExists
But in both cases, the incumbent sets the policies of the others. In the case of Earthlink, Time Warner has limited the upload Earthlink can offer its customers to 384 kbps. This is done so TW can offer better uploads to customers (512 and 1000 kbps).

In the case of DSL Extreme, AT&T does not allow them access to dry line DSL-DSLX can only offer lineshare.

If the FCC had truly allowed competition, then these two independents would be free to set their own customer policies, but instead the incumbents' attitude is: "it's my ball, so we'll play by my rules"

Also, practically speaking, the copper phone network was built back in the '40s and '50s and also with govt. incentives. The cable companies built their plants back in the '70s, when it was MUCH cheaper to do so (and municipal rules and policies were much less restrictive).

Not to mention that in many places, the capacity of the utility poles is maxed out, so new lines can't be attached to them. In most places, Verizon is having to replace copper cables with ones using thinner copper wires to get the weight capacity to add fiber to the poles.

Also, let's not forget that requiring the phone companies to lease their lines wholesale to competitors wasn't a 'gift'; instead it was part of an AGREEMENT they (the telcos) made (written into the Communications Act of 1996) that allowed them to enter the long distance business. Without that agreement, Southwestern Bell would NOT have been able to buy AT&T and Verizon would NOT have been able to buy MCI. The telcos got what THEY wanted, but when the quid pro quo was supposed to be given, instead they lobbied (read: BRIBED) the Republican (Powell) FCC majority then in place to not require them to uphold their part of the agreement.

In simpler terms, the telcos got their cake and gave nothing back in return.

I find it interesting that there are 5 FCC Commissioners and that EVERY anti-consumer FCC policy deuring the Bush years was approved by a vote of 3-2 (3 Republican FCC Commissioners vs 2 Democrat ones). In every case it was the 3 republican Commissioners voting to make the fat cats fatter while screwing the consumer!

Of course in the battle of the telcos vs the mom and pops, we KNEW who would win, didn't we?