dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
518
share rss forum feed


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

3 recommendations

Almost there, Karl.

except for this falsehood.

"One, these caps (and especially usage fees) are not technically or economically necessary whatsoever. Flat-rate broadband is perfectly profitable and despite doomsday prognostications, most networks consistently keep pace with demand thanks to dropping bandwidth and hardware prices and improved engineering.
1}IF you go back to "UNLIMITED" useage WILL again increase at an uncontrolled rate, faster than the current plant "refresh" rate (hardware upgrade cycle) allows for.
2}it's great the price is plunging, but if you replace something today (say CMTS) expect a 5-year life-span, and "UNLIMITED" exceeds it's capablity in 2 years, CISCO does not upgrade it for free. It is cheaper, it's not cheap enough to run a 2 year replacement cycle at today's rates.
3}IF forced to provide flatrate ($) "UNLIMITED" , either the rate($$$) will grow exponenially year after year, or capacity will rapidly be overwhelmed leaving a nearly useless traffic jam 24/7.


MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1
Your statements are the falsehoods
Unlimited is perfectly manageable, FiOS and cablevision still have unlimited.
You can argue that FiOS has more capacity fairly. But cablevision is working with the same cable wire every other cable company works with.

Note that cablevision provides one of the fastest cable modem peak speeds of all cable providers as well, despite offering unlimited.


Alex J

@sunwave.com.br
reply to tshirt

IF forced to provide flatrate ($) "UNLIMITED" , either the rate($$$) will grow exponenially year after year, or capacity will rapidly be overwhelmed leaving a nearly useless traffic jam 24/7.

Which is why Verizon FiOS is so totally unusable and Verizon makes no money, right?

This is nonsense.


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
said by Alex J :

IF forced to provide flatrate ($) "UNLIMITED" , either the rate($$$) will grow exponenially year after year, or capacity will rapidly be overwhelmed leaving a nearly useless traffic jam 24/7.

Which is why Verizon FiOS is so totally unusable and Verizon makes no money, right?

This is nonsense.

It isn't nonsense. Because you ignored the other theme that Karl keeps bringing up - cord cutters. The more people who end their TV service, but keep internet and start video streaming non-stop, the internet gets more jammed up and needs upgrading at the same time income goes down for the cable companies due to less TV revenue. As TV revenue goes down, the companies will charge more for internet access. And bill-by-byte is the best method to do that.
--
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat···onalism/


Alex J

@apexcovantage.com
Nobody is debating that they're jacking up the price of data to offset the expected and inevitable loss in TV subscribers. Cord cutting is an incredibly, incredibly slow shift. If a company whose primary job is to build networks can't use the significant profits they're making to be ready for it with a ten year warning they deserve everything coming to them.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
reply to tshirt
Then why does TWC still have unlimited?

How about Sprint? Or T-Mobile? If you say Sprint's network is overburdened, and discount their upgrades being done right now, take T-Mobile. TMo just started offering unlimited again, and they have hte network to support it, too.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

It isn't nonsense. Because you ignored the other theme that Karl keeps bringing up - cord cutters. The more people who end their TV service, but keep internet and start video streaming non-stop, the internet gets more jammed up and needs upgrading at the same time income goes down for the cable companies due to less TV revenue. As TV revenue goes down, the companies will charge more for internet access. And bill-by-byte is the best method to do that.

No, it's selling higher and higher speed tiers without having the appropriate network and/or upgrades in place that causes congestion. Do you ever have a clue?


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to tshirt
said by tshirt:

1}IF you go back to "UNLIMITED" useage WILL again increase at an uncontrolled rate, faster than the current plant "refresh" rate (hardware upgrade cycle) allows for.
2}it's great the price is plunging, but if you replace something today (say CMTS) expect a 5-year life-span, and "UNLIMITED" exceeds it's capablity in 2 years, CISCO does not upgrade it for free. It is cheaper, it's not cheap enough to run a 2 year replacement cycle at today's rates.
3}IF forced to provide flatrate ($) "UNLIMITED" , either the rate($$$) will grow exponenially year after year, or capacity will rapidly be overwhelmed leaving a nearly useless traffic jam 24/7.

Except ISPs are not really increasing caps. Charter has had the same cap for 3 years. Yes Comcast raised the cap. On their lowest tier it went up from 250 GB -300 GB in 4 YEARS. That averages out to a mere 5% a year. Surely you would agree ISPs can increase capacity by more than 5% per year. At that rate it will take until 2023 for the cap to reach 500 GB.

Even at only 15% a year the cap should 437 GB by now. Which you only get that or better on 50 Mbps or above. Which should have a higher cap than the lower tiers anyways. So logic dictates than the lower tiers should be 450 GB, 50 Mbps should be 600 GB and 105 Mbps should be 800 GB. And caps should increase at least every other year. Not every 4 years.

nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to FFH5
Click for full size
yeah, those major ISPs are shelling out a bundle for connectivity (a little dated, but if anything that category may be smaller)


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

And bill-by-byte is the best method to do that.

except they don't really want to do that. that want to charge what they are charging now and add overages. That's not bill-by-byte. Bill-by-byte would mean someone that uses only 20 GB a month wouldn't be charged $50 like someone that used 200 GB. They'd only be charge $10 a month or something like that, but ISP certainly aren't going to do that because they would LOSE money.

Even a quasi bill-by-byte system should be more like $25 a month for service with say a 50 GB cap and $1 per 10 GB overage. But once again ISPs won't do that since most of their customers use less than 50 GB a month


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to nasadude
Amounts to 3/4 of 1%. They spend 4X as much on purchasing STBs.

Also let's se so they collect around say $6 billion a year from customers for internet service and only spend $40 million on internet connectivity. Sounds like they are doing just fine.


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to 88615298
said by 88615298:

said by tshirt:

1}IF you go back to "UNLIMITED" useage WILL again increase at an uncontrolled rate, faster than the current plant "refresh" rate (hardware upgrade cycle) allows for.
2}it's great the price is plunging, but if you replace something today (say CMTS) expect a 5-year life-span, and "UNLIMITED" exceeds it's capablity in 2 years, CISCO does not upgrade it for free. It is cheaper, it's not cheap enough to run a 2 year replacement cycle at today's rates.
3}IF forced to provide flatrate ($) "UNLIMITED" , either the rate($$$) will grow exponenially year after year, or capacity will rapidly be overwhelmed leaving a nearly useless traffic jam 24/7.

Except ISPs are not really increasing caps.

Bing! Bing!Bing!Bing!Bing! we have a winner.

Karl's contention, which I know to be incorrect is

"One, these caps (and especially usage fees) are not technically or economically necessary whatsoever."
when infact some level of control IS NEEDED (because you can't rely on user self-control) for economic and technical planning purposes.

And no they have not increased caps before, because the exoflood caught them all by suprise Heavy user hit the wall and everyone suffered, then the last 6 years or so by locking down maximum use, they (well some of them comcast, and verizon for example) tried 2 very different approache,s Comcast( Leading the Cableco's) did a massive D3 rollout and reached the point where they feel comfortable increasing the cap, and may (depending on what they learn) be planning regular increases.

Verizon originally hoped for a massive footprint wide Fios response but learned the hard way that it was too expensive for the take rate to support, and is now left with a limited area with many times more capacity than needed and a large area with rapidly ageing copper/dsl which lacks adiquite capacity in most areas and would require a fios like investment many times over to improve. In the meantime have had to dump much of their footprint they changed their focus to wireless type technologies and investments.
FIOS is great for those few that will get it, and google fiber seems like it will server those limited communites well too.
But it's obviously not going nationwide as a private investment, even in cherry pick locations it may not be profitable in a reasonable time frame that would interest public or private equity.
You would need VERY deep pockets, AND a very long timeline AND a whole lot of faith to jump on that boat.