dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
13
share rss forum feed


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to karlmarx

Re: Usage billing NOT just because of more revenue

said by karlmarx:

I BUILD NETWORKS. Yes, maintenance contracts, but again, those are CAPITAL costs.
LOL. Go back to school. Maintenance contracts are NOT capital costs. They are operating costs.


karlmarx

join:2006-09-18
Chicago, IL

4 recommendations

Hmm. I have a degree in Accounting from Syracuse. A 5 year maintenance contract purchased the same time as the equipment is amortized over 5 years. In fact, in our ASSETS, we list the value remaining on the maintenance contracts. The capital is consumed over the course of the year. They are an EXPENSE when the year is up, but they are NOT an operating cost. Operating costs are the cost to maintain the network, not replacement of capital equipment.
Please reply once you get a degree in accounting.
--
Remember 1 in 4 people are retarded. 25% of Americans are Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so.


ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
said by karlmarx:

Hmm. I have a degree in Accounting from Syracuse. A 5 year maintenance contract purchased the same time as the equipment is amortized over 5 years. In fact, in our ASSETS, we list the value remaining on the maintenance contracts. The capital is consumed over the course of the year. They are an EXPENSE when the year is up, but they are NOT an operating cost. Operating costs are the cost to maintain the network, not replacement of capital equipment.
Please reply once you get a degree in accounting.
Game, set, match.
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org

k1ll3rdr4g0n

join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL
reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

said by karlmarx:

I BUILD NETWORKS. Yes, maintenance contracts, but again, those are CAPITAL costs.
LOL. Go back to school. Maintenance contracts are NOT capital costs. They are operating costs.
I agree with karlmarx, until someone can prove to me that it costs carrier's $$$ per byte, I won't buy your opinion TK.
Can you backup with facts stating that it costs carriers $$$ per byte? Last time I checked a T1 is a flat rate cost of, lets argue $400/month. That means I can use 1TB or 1KB and I pay $400/month.
In fact I have Comcast business and I pay a flat fee of $80/month. That means wither I move 1TB or data in a month or 1KB, MY bill doesn't go up or down.

TK, I think your missing the bigger picture - carriers don't want to charge per byte because that is what they are paying or want to shape user's usage, but they are charging per byte to milk the customers because they pay a flat fee for the bandwidth to the towers (roaming and out of country are different stories). Now, if a T1 was limited to 1TB then obviously carriers would be an good argument to charge per byte.

Now, if AT&T was really about shaping user's usage on the network, they would use QoS to throttle the user's speed. It CAN BE DONE, as T-Mobile does it (read their TOS if you don't believe me). And then with that you can create buckets of packages -
So for example Tier 1 you get 1GB of unaffected data transfer then after that you will get throttled back. Then have more Tiers that cost more per month. This way the carrier gets the cash, while not milking the customer AND it solves the slow internet problem. Now, as far as calling goes -
Get rid of this "minute" crap (what is this AOL?), and goto points. Give users X points and during peak hours subtract 2 points per minute, but during off hours only subtract 1 point. This way it encourages users to use the network off peak hours.

It CAN be done without milking the customers for all they are worth, carriers like AT&T just don't don't want to put the effort forward to actually make a long term profit.

Mark my words, AT&T is a sinking ship.


The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Windstream

1 edit
reply to FFH5
One can tell when somebody has lost an argument when he/she resorts to personal attacks.

Since you decided to go this route, what's your education? Mind to tell us why you state OPINION as FACT?
--
Do or do not, there is no try! - Yoda


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to ptrowski
said by ptrowski:

said by karlmarx:

Hmm. I have a degree in Accounting from Syracuse. A 5 year maintenance contract purchased the same time as the equipment is amortized over 5 years. In fact, in our ASSETS, we list the value remaining on the maintenance contracts. The capital is consumed over the course of the year. They are an EXPENSE when the year is up, but they are NOT an operating cost. Operating costs are the cost to maintain the network, not replacement of capital equipment.
Please reply once you get a degree in accounting.
Game, set, match.
Uh NO!
»www.northwestern.edu/equipment-i···faq.html
What is Capital Equipment?

Capital equipment is tangible property having an acquistion value of $5,000 or more and a useful life expectancy of more than one year. Group purchases of tangible property that individually have acquisition values of less than $5,000 are not considered capital equipment and will be expensed. Fabricated equipment, which has an aggregate cost of $5,000 or more and a useful life expectancy of at least one year, is considered capital equipment. Repairs, maintenance parts or components, warranty costs, maintenance contracts or annual software licensing fees are not considered capital equipment and will be expensed.

--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page



FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to The Limit
said by The Limit:

One can tell when somebody has lost an argument when he/she resorts to personal attacks.

Since you decided to go this route, what's your education? Mind to tell us why you state OPINION as FACT?
BS Finance & Economics; MBA Information Sytems; Post MBA exec training course Penn State
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page



karlmarx

join:2006-09-18
Chicago, IL

2 edits

1 recommendation

reply to FFH5
Wow. You posted the EXACT ANSWER IN your first line, yet you still don't GET IT.

So, our maintenance contract which COSTS $30,000.00, and is good for 5 years, has a VALUE of more than $5,000.00. That means it's $6,000.00 per year.

Now, year 1, you have a CREDIT of $30,000.00 to your bank account, so obviously you need to have a $30,000.00 DEBIT somewhere. Lets see, where can we DEBIT $30,000.00? Can we EXPENSE the $30,000.00. Sure, we could. But.. But... the contract, after year 1, is still good for 4 more years! Oh, wait, that's $24,000.00 of VALUE. So, we still have $24,000.00 of VALUE left after the first year. Hmm...

I know, what we CAN do, is we can EXPENSE the $6000.00 of VALUE that we lost in year 1, but we still have somthing worth $24,000.00 left, that we need to DEBIT somewhere. Let's see. Hmmm.

So, what DO we do? I know! We create a CAPITAL ACCOUNT to put the remaining $24,000.00 in! That way, as ALL ACCOUNTING MUST DO, we keep the numbers in BALANCE. The $24,000.00 IS A CAPITAL ACCOUNT. And each year, we can EXPENSE $6000.00, and offset the CAPITAL ACCOUNT.

What you posted is for ITEMS with a value of LESS than $5000.00. I never SAID it was CAPITAL EQUIPMENT, I said it was CAPITAL. Which it IS. You CAN CAPITALIZE maintenance contracts, it's done ALL THE TIME for multi-year contracts. IF IT WAS a 1 year maintenance contract, then YES, it would be considered an expense. But high end equipment is almost NEVER sold with just 1 year contracts.
--
Remember 1 in 4 people are retarded. 25% of Americans are Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so.

sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
reply to k1ll3rdr4g0n
said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:

said by FFH5:

said by karlmarx:

I BUILD NETWORKS. Yes, maintenance contracts, but again, those are CAPITAL costs.
LOL. Go back to school. Maintenance contracts are NOT capital costs. They are operating costs.
I agree with karlmarx, until someone can prove to me that it costs carrier's $$$ per byte, I won't buy your opinion TK.
Can you backup with facts stating that it costs carriers $$$ per byte? Last time I checked a T1 is a flat rate cost of, lets argue $400/month. That means I can use 1TB or 1KB and I pay $400/month.
In fact I have Comcast business and I pay a flat fee of $80/month. That means wither I move 1TB or data in a month or 1KB, MY bill doesn't go up or down.

TK, I think your missing the bigger picture - carriers don't want to charge per byte because that is what they are paying or want to shape user's usage, but they are charging per byte to milk the customers because they pay a flat fee for the bandwidth to the towers (roaming and out of country are different stories). Now, if a T1 was limited to 1TB then obviously carriers would be an good argument to charge per byte.

Now, if AT&T was really about shaping user's usage on the network, they would use QoS to throttle the user's speed. It CAN BE DONE, as T-Mobile does it (read their TOS if you don't believe me). And then with that you can create buckets of packages -
So for example Tier 1 you get 1GB of unaffected data transfer then after that you will get throttled back. Then have more Tiers that cost more per month. This way the carrier gets the cash, while not milking the customer AND it solves the slow internet problem. Now, as far as calling goes -
Get rid of this "minute" crap (what is this AOL?), and goto points. Give users X points and during peak hours subtract 2 points per minute, but during off hours only subtract 1 point. This way it encourages users to use the network off peak hours.

It CAN be done without milking the customers for all they are worth, carriers like AT&T just don't don't want to put the effort forward to actually make a long term profit.

Mark my words, AT&T is a sinking ship.
Here`s a better idea for AT&T. How about they use those billions and billions of dollars in pure, unadulterated profit to build more towers and expand their coverage area? How about AT&T use some of those billions to draw fiber to the towers? They have the money. They`ve been stockpiling it for years. It`s time to use it.

How about the government or appropriate regulatory agencies make a requirement that AT&T has to provide coverage for an entire state (the *entire state*, every inch of it), if they want to offer service to that state?
Expand your moderator at work


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

Re: Usage billing NOT just because of more revenue

Man, the caps totally help me understand. Thanks.

k1ll3rdr4g0n

join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL
reply to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:

Here`s a better idea for AT&T. How about they use those billions and billions of dollars in pure, unadulterated profit to build more towers and expand their coverage area? How about AT&T use some of those billions to draw fiber to the towers? They have the money. They`ve been stockpiling it for years. It`s time to use it.

How about the government or appropriate regulatory agencies make a requirement that AT&T has to provide coverage for an entire state (the *entire state*, every inch of it), if they want to offer service to that state?
I'm all for it, but carriers are using those billions of dollars to make sure that doesn't happen. Kind of ironic isn't it?

jazzy1124

join:2003-12-05
Fargo, ND

2 recommendations

reply to karlmarx
No TK is right, whether you want to believe it or not, there is more than just AT&T that hosts all of the Internet sites. I am sure that AT&T has no problem giving you unlimited access to devices connected to their network. As because in this case you are marginally right, however more than electricity is required to increase capacity to the levels required to passify ton's of bonehead iPhone users. You need more pipe between towers which means either... plow more copper, lease more copper, install more wireless gear and pay for frequency licensing. And then once you do reach AT&T's core, you need to increase capacity to the other Tier 1 provider's facilities. In this capitalist corparatist economy, nothing is free and everything costs. The more gear you install, the more failures you have, the more technicians you have to hire to be able to keep the network running, the more gear you need to buy to replace the failing gear. As I have thought this out, even increasing capacity to just AT&T's core would cost way more than electricity.

The most technologically illiterate people I know are accountants, so this title means nothing towards credibility in this thread.

While I do not favor paying usage myself, I think usage rates would vastly improve the experience overall...... A music thief isn't going to connect his phone to his computer if it would be cheaper to buy the damn CD.

I am currently an Alltel user in the territories about to be taken over by AT&T, and I fear the bigger issue of no 3G available period because we don't have enough population to "Pay" for it. I may just drop my phone service all together because I hate Verizon, Sprint's coverage is worthless, and AT&T's coverage is worthless (at this time they have didly squat in rural areas) I'll go back to a CB if I have to


karlmarx

join:2006-09-18
Chicago, IL
Hmm.. CB, I guess that means you must be a redneck. I am an accountant by education, but I've been a network engineer/manager/director for the last 20 years, so I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about. Hell, I worked for a company that MADE phone switches, so I know about those too. You are correct though, the cost for the evil empire to provide DATA services is FAR HIGHER than the cost to provide voice services. A single 'data' user can suck up more bandwidth than 100 voice users. Lets see, we can charge $50.00 for 100 people to use it, or we can charge $60.00 for 1 user to use it. Do the math, it's not the CUSTOMER RAPE of pricing it used to be.

Of note though. A music thief is someone who shoplifts. A music infringer is someone who downloads. Big difference, as one denies the owner the ability to sell something, while the other is just copying bits, without ever affecting the original.
--
Remember 1 in 4 people are retarded. 25% of Americans are Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so.

compton

join:2002-02-08
Brooklyn, NY
reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:

Hmm. I have a degree in Accounting from Syracuse. A 5 year maintenance contract purchased the same time as the equipment is amortized over 5 years. In fact, in our ASSETS, we list the value remaining on the maintenance contracts. The capital is consumed over the course of the year. They are an EXPENSE when the year is up, but they are NOT an operating cost. Operating costs are the cost to maintain the network, not replacement of capital equipment.
Please reply once you get a degree in accounting.
I have to agree with you. What you wrote is basic financial accounting principles.

compton

join:2002-02-08
Brooklyn, NY
reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

said by The Limit:

One can tell when somebody has lost an argument when he/she resorts to personal attacks.

Since you decided to go this route, what's your education? Mind to tell us why you state OPINION as FACT?
BS Finance & Economics; MBA Information Sytems; Post MBA exec training course Penn State
BA in Economics with a specialization in Finance, MA in Economics, pursuing a MBA in Accounting for Information Systems. I have worked in IT since 1985 with a stop over in Finance. Karl is right.


rawgerz
The hell was that?
Premium
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA
reply to FFH5
Compare att's market cap with verizon's, then look at EPS, Now look at who has more 3G coverage. Did I blow your mind?
--

You can't make all the people happy all of the time. But it should be common sense to shoot for the majority.


SRFireside

join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
reply to k1ll3rdr4g0n
said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:

I agree with karlmarx, until someone can prove to me that it costs carrier's $$$ per byte, I won't buy your opinion TK.
While I also agree with Karlmarx I also have to say there are additional costs for an ISP. This mainly comes from connecting to the rest of the dark fiber out there ATT doesn't own. Every ISP either owns bandwidth and/or has access agreements with other providers to give their customers more capacity. Now if AT&T do use access from other carriers then they do pay a monthly per byte (per gb or tb or whatever) for that bandwidth. At the same time while these fees can be costly these ISPs have been paying for them since the beginning and there is no way they are losing money now by this model.

That's assuming ATT&T has any peering done in this manner. If they are running on their own bandwidth then there really is no excuse. Actually there isn't much excuse now either.


morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to jazzy1124
Making cars illegal will also eliminate traffic jams, but that doesn't mean it accomplishes the goal in the best way possible.

What would really "improve the experience overall" is not caps but proper network investment. AT&T half-assing it is a terrible business plan, but unfortunately, it seems to be an integral part of their corporate culture.


Alcohol
Premium
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI
kudos:4

1 edit
reply to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:

Here`s a better idea for AT&T. How about they use those billions and billions of dollars in pure, unadulterated profit to build more towers and expand their coverage area? How about AT&T use some of those billions to draw fiber to the towers? They have the money. They`ve been stockpiling it for years. It`s time to use it.

How about the government or appropriate regulatory agencies make a requirement that AT&T has to provide coverage for an entire state (the *entire state*, every inch of it), if they want to offer service to that state?
Excuse me? You have it all wrong. You're missing the the part about billions of dollars going to executive bonuses

k1ll3rdr4g0n

join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL
said by Alcohol:

said by sonicmerlin:

Here`s a better idea for AT&T. How about they use those billions and billions of dollars in pure, unadulterated profit to build more towers and expand their coverage area? How about AT&T use some of those billions to draw fiber to the towers? They have the money. They`ve been stockpiling it for years. It`s time to use it.

How about the government or appropriate regulatory agencies make a requirement that AT&T has to provide coverage for an entire state (the *entire state*, every inch of it), if they want to offer service to that state?
Excuse me? You have it all wrong. You're missing the the part about billions of dollars going to executive bonuses
Oh right, thanks for reminding us about CEOs bonuses for running companies into the ground.

To be honest, I almost wish that we didn't outlaw cruel and unusual punishment. I would force that CEO to have electric shock treatments until he had a grasp on reality again.

k1ll3rdr4g0n

join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL
reply to SRFireside
said by SRFireside:

said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:

I agree with karlmarx, until someone can prove to me that it costs carrier's $$$ per byte, I won't buy your opinion TK.
While I also agree with Karlmarx I also have to say there are additional costs for an ISP. This mainly comes from connecting to the rest of the dark fiber out there ATT doesn't own. Every ISP either owns bandwidth and/or has access agreements with other providers to give their customers more capacity. Now if AT&T do use access from other carriers then they do pay a monthly per byte (per gb or tb or whatever) for that bandwidth. At the same time while these fees can be costly these ISPs have been paying for them since the beginning and there is no way they are losing money now by this model.

That's assuming ATT&T has any peering done in this manner. If they are running on their own bandwidth then there really is no excuse. Actually there isn't much excuse now either.
To be honest I can't imagine a monthly per byte. Though like you say in parenthesis, I think it it may be more realistic that they may pay for a bucket of like 1TB or just a flat monthly access fee. Which, if we argue 1TB per tower, I can't imagine people eating through that. That would require 1024 people to download 1GB. Which, considering that most people don't stay in one spot 24/7.

But then again, we don't know *exactly* what the providers are doing so it is all speculation at this point. Hell, it could even be something like "hey, AT&T well let you use our (T-Mobile) bandwidth if we can use yours, deal?"


The Limit
Premium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
reply to rawgerz
*Mind blown*