Deconstructing The Top 10 Metered Billing Myths Canadians Continue To Ask All The Right Questions Tipped by kamm 
For years we've discussed how the arguments put forward by wired carriers looking to implement usage-based billing don't hold water. More specifically, we've noted how companies like Time Warner Cable or Cogeco actually made things worse for themselves by assuming their customers weren't particularly bright -- claiming that charging up to $5 per gigabyte was about altruism and not making money. There's an ocean of ISP disinformation on this topic, from claims that per byte billing is magically inevitable, that it's financially necessary because flat rate isn't sustainable, or that the push away from flat rate is about helping grandmothers. Part of the reason such efforts in the States failed is because most consumers saw through these flimsy justifications, and realized these pricing models are about already perfectly profitable companies, who often lag on upgrades due to limited competition, greedily trying to cash in on Internet video and protect their cable TV revenues. As Canadians continue to debate forced UBB practices and regulatory capture, one of the more eloquent deconstructions of Bell UBB talking points comes courtesy of reporter/author Peter Nowak. Nowak topples the top ten most common UBB supporter myths, including the ISP claim it makes sense to bill broadband like electricity: There have been many attempts, including by the CRTC, to equate internet usage to a utility such as electricity or gas. Very simply put: it is not. The electrons that make up the data that passes to and fro over the internet are limitless and are not consumed and destroyed every time a YouTube video is watched. The “pipes” and other equipment over which these electrons flow are, of course, finite and therefore need to be continually expanded as the amount of traffic grows. These are two very different things, however. In electric-bill parlance, we’re talking about delivery and usage – the nice people at the hydro company bill us for both and the big ISPs would like to do the same. The difference is, the actual kilowatts that go over the hydro company’s pipes ARE finite and ARE destroyed once they are used. If you want to talk about fairness, then yes, it is okay to charge internet users for delivery, but how is it fair to charge for consuming a non-consumable? Don't forget that in addition to broadband not being a truly consumed commodity, you'd be hard pressed to find any big ISP eager to be regulated like a utility to confirm their often flaky meters actually work. Nowak touches on a wide variety of other issues popular among ISP PR folk, including the fact that carriers never actually reveal hard data proving that congestion makes such models necessary (tip: it's because such data doesn't exist, or when it does exist, a perfectly profitable ISP lagged on network upkeep). Most importantly he notes that if you allow ISPs in uncompetitive markets to impose steep overages -- they'll only get worse as there's no way for consumers in these markets to vote with their wallets. This is all stuff we've covered in probably nauseating detail, though Nowak does a particularly good job at it. It also remains interesting to watch educated and informed Canadians dismantle this punitive pricing push and understand the anti-consumer and anti-innovative ramifications of these kind of billing models. That can't always be said about their neighbors to the South, in part because Canadians are already very familiar with being nickel and dimed to death for each byte, and understand perfectly just the kind of "value" ISPs have in mind when cooking up these pricing plans.
|
 | | Not a fossil fuel Bandwidth is not a fossil fuel.
Caps due nothing to help "crunch time" congestion, for example 6-7 pm on my garbage Time Warner cable node.
Throttles can help with congestion. But the end came is to create Forced Artificial Scarcity to prevent TV and Voice distribution. | |
|  cchhat01Dr. Zoidberg
join:2001-05-01
Elmhurst, NY | That really hit the spot... I think this is the best analogy I've come across in dealing with UBB... Nothing to add to it really he completely dissolved Usage based billing in my opinion.
--
Chirag's Website | |
| elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Helping Grandmothers EVERY grandmother I know would have fared better - much better - under Time Warner Cable's metered use proposal.
I can't speak to other carriers, but thanks to you and yours, those grandmothers continue to overpay today. | |
|  |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Helping Grandmothers said by elray:EVERY grandmother I know would have fared better - much better - under Time Warner Cable's metered use proposal.
I can't speak to other carriers, but thanks to you and yours, those grandmothers continue to overpay today.
WRONG. You're a fool if you think ISPs would actually LOWER prices. Yes they're for losing MILLIONS or even BILLIONS in revenue. | |
| | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: Helping Grandmothers There is nothing stopping the ISPs from adding a bill-by-the-byte plan for grannies that only get on-line once a week to retrieve three e-mail messages from the grand kids.
However, I would guess that if EVERY grandmother contracted for this plan, more than a few would be FLOORED when they received an outrageous bill caused by one grand kid e-mail that contained a YouTube link. Furthermore, they wouldn't understand why. They would most likely equate USAGE with TIME and may not understand the difference between being "on-line" reading text e-mails (hundreds of KB) vs. being "on-line" watching a video (hundreds of MB). To satisfy them, the cable company would likely have to create an app to show them their usage as they do various tasks. Eventually they would learn but until they did, it would be a PR disaster. | |
| | | | | | Re: Helping Grandmothers Microsoft Auto Update and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Norton Updates Daily $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Service Pack 4 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Adobe Update, Opera, Firefox, | |
|
| | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | said by BF69:said by elray:EVERY grandmother I know would have fared better - much better - under Time Warner Cable's metered use proposal.
I can't speak to other carriers, but thanks to you and yours, those grandmothers continue to overpay today.
WRONG. You're a fool if you think ISPs would actually LOWER prices. Yes they're for losing MILLIONS or even BILLIONS in revenue. They'd still make their profit. Just not as much on grandmothers subsidizing data hogs. Instead, heavy users would have the opportunity to buy fast, unlimited bandwidth, at an appropriate price, rather than expecting the rest of us to pay the same rate.
We've see the wireless carriers lower prices for data.
We've seen the cellular carriers do the same for voice usage.
ISPs *WILL* offer lower rates to attract and retain subscribers. | |
|
| BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN | said by elray:EVERY grandmother I know would have fared better - much better - under Time Warner Cable's metered use proposal.
I can't speak to other carriers, but thanks to you and yours, those grandmothers continue to overpay today.
The honest truth is that those who use their connections less, are probably going to go with a lower tier, as they won't be dealing with much applications that demand higher throughput.
Same can be said with heavy users and higher tiers.
Tiers work, metered use does not. | |
| | | | | Re: Helping Grandmothers Browsing the web and reading email usually busts a 2 gigabyte a month cap on Bell dsl (wired not wireless). Thank your lucky stars you don't live in Canada. | |
| | | | BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN | Re: Helping Grandmothers said by chuck car :Browsing the web and reading email usually busts a 2 gigabyte a month cap on Bell dsl (wired not wireless). Thank your lucky stars you don't live in Canada.
Indeed. I have no cap on my connection, yet I'm not paying through the nose for it. And yet..... still no congestion. Funny how that works.
It's unfortunate what goes on in Canada. | |
|
| amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
 ·KCH Cable
 ·AT&T DSL Service
1 edit | Um, there are cheaper plans... tell those you believe are overpaying to go with a lower tier of service...
Cox, for example, has 4 tiers. Prices are VERY reasonable for the lower two.
edit: DSL pricing is generally "tiered" as well. AT&T, for example, has some dirt cheap options.
I don't see anything wrong with the current pricing setup, other than lack of deployment/real competition in various areas.
If you can't afford "turbo" internet, there are still options that allow fast enough access to get by with (compared to dial up internet speeds).
UBB is a sham, plain as can be. There are no obvious benefits to customers, otherwise we'd have seen it years ago without any backlash. Instead, providers offered faster and faster speeds, and where available, have usually provided slower tiers at dirt cheap prices... | |
| | cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | Translation: Your grandmother is better off without internet.
UBB is only a benefit to people who rarely use anything at all. ("the few") And an expensive burden to everyone else. ("the many") Charging people *less* money is not how you increase profits.
Neither of my grandparents ever had internet access, but they also never owned a computer, or ever had cable TV. (or touchtone phones for that matter -- Bellsouth charged extra for TT for something like 20 f'ing YEARS. Their rotary phones worked just fine -- and still do to this day.) | |
| |  kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | And just WTF has metered billing to do with your grandma's paying for the wrong package? | |
| | |  rchandraStargate Universe fanPremium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105 | Re: Helping Grandmothers Actually, this is extraordinarily easy.
As granny doesn't want more than a few megabytes moved per month, lower her bill way down, to like 5 or 10 dollars per month (to cover equipment maintenance, the bulk of the equipment power consumption, billing, the hopefully very infrequent support call, etc.) plus a cent or two per megabyte, or something close. Even at the lowest TWC (for example) tier, $14.95 I think it is, you're still talking on the order of $5/mo. of savings. But that is very much the exception to the rule.
After a while, it adds up. It has little to do with subscribing to too high a tier.
--
English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when a writer chooses not to follow those rules.
Jeopardy! replies and randomcaps REALLY suck! | |
| | | | cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | Re: Helping Grandmothers What "lite" tier? Their web ordering crap shows only the standard (40$) and turbo (70$) tiers. And their CSR's don't know wtf it is either. (the best I can find today is "per market" but then cannot find anything in any market) The last number I saw a few years ago was $19.95/month for stupid low speeds. | |
| | | | | rchandraStargate Universe fanPremium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105 | Re: Helping Grandmothers Yeah, I'd tend to agree, the plan's not easy to find. I have the standard RR tier, but my 77yo cost-conscious mom for example is on a lower speed than me. I haven't looked at the bill, but I have to believe my mom would never settle for paying the ~$45 I am.
--
English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when a writer chooses not to follow those rules.
Jeopardy! replies and randomcaps REALLY suck! | |
|
| | | said by elray:EVERY grandmother I know would have fared better - much better - under Time Warner Cable's metered use proposal.
I can't speak to other carriers, but thanks to you and yours, those grandmothers continue to overpay today.
And this guy clearly has no clue. What happened? Cosmopolitans forum under maintenance? | |
| | | | Being a grandmother has nothing to do with this. My wife, your wife, your sister, your daughter and my niece will likely be grandmothers one day and I dont think their internet usage will decrease that much. | |
| | | | said by elray:EVERY grandmother I know would have fared better - much better - under Time Warner Cable's metered use proposal.
I can't speak to other carriers, but thanks to you and yours, those grandmothers continue to overpay today.
I'm not sure who you mean by "you and yours". But consider this. In preparation for UBB, prices were fixed to cover UBB's increased costs to the ISPs. Guess what your grandma would have paid for one GB of data with her Lite package on TSI? $24.95 That's right, only one GB would have been included with the Lite package.
Guess what the transfer cap is for the Lite package on TSI now (and was before the whole UBB thing)? Unlimited. That's right, unlimited.
Grandma better be grateful. | |
| | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: Helping Grandmothers said by JonyBelGeul:I'm not sure who you mean by "you and yours". But consider this. In preparation for UBB, prices were fixed to cover UBB's increased costs to the ISPs. Guess what your grandma would have paid for one GB of data with her Lite package on TSI? $24.95 That's right, only one GB would have been included with the Lite package.
TWC's offering was a $15 tier. | |
| | | | | | Re: Helping Grandmothers said by elray:said by JonyBelGeul:I'm not sure who you mean by "you and yours". But consider this. In preparation for UBB, prices were fixed to cover UBB's increased costs to the ISPs. Guess what your grandma would have paid for one GB of data with her Lite package on TSI? $24.95 That's right, only one GB would have been included with the Lite package.
TWC's offering was a $15 tier. Take a moment to read the following:
»The Cost of Bandwidth - Canada versus the World | |
|
 sbrookPremium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:4 | Canadians are used to be nickeled and dimed We get nickeled and dimed in so many areas, I'm actually quite surprised this produced that outrage that it did! | |
| | | | Re: Canadians are used to be nickeled and dimed Everyone has a line where enough is enough. Many of us not just Canadians have reached that line and beyond. | |
|
dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | Physics fail There have been many attempts, including by the CRTC, to equate internet usage to a utility such as electricity or gas. Very simply put: it is not. The electrons that make up the data that passes to and fro over the internet are limitless and are not consumed and destroyed every time a YouTube video is watched. Yeah, and the electrons don't get "destroyed" when you turn on your blender, either. Idiot. | |
| | | | Re: Physics fail But the coal burnt to generate them is lost when the blender is used. Hydro power is a different beast, but in the same category. That cat doesn't suddenly expire when you watch it on youtube. Learn to abstract.
With that said, if ISPs want to charge for the minuscule amount of electricity required to deliver the bytes instead of the bytes themselves, ie a delivery charge, that would be acceptable. Except we're already paying that, of course... It doesn't take more electricity to push the bytes, which is what is meant by "electrons aren't destroyed", not the actual physical fact involved. | |
| | | dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | Re: Physics fail Having read his article, the point is that Nowak is an intellectually dishonest hack.
He doesn't believe that there are congestion issues caused by heavy users because it's not been "proved"? REALLY? He's not seen the complaints from users of poor performance during peak hours? Either he's an imbecile or intentionally dishonest.
The proposed Canadian model was too harsh, but there's a very real incentive for ISPs to try and slow the ever-increasing bandwidth per user consumption that has nothing to do with trying to limit competition. Constant upgrades and capacity expansion aren't cheap, and the simplistic "they make a profit, so they should just keep throwing money at the problem" isn't very convincing. | |
| | | | kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | Re: Physics fail said by dynodb:Having read his article, the point is that Nowak is an intellectually dishonest hack.
No, it's you who is doing a classic cablecorp astroturfing here.
He doesn't believe that there are congestion issues caused by heavy users because it's not been "proved"? REALLY? He's not seen the complaints from users of poor performance during peak hours? Either he's an imbecile or intentionally dishonest.
There is no blackout, congestion etc on the internet, there is PLENTY of bandwidth at DIRT CHEAP prices - brownout is possible when your masters at Time Warner will shit into their pants that no more ripoff profits, they *have* to start pulling out the fiber they are postponing for almost a decade now.
The proposed Canadian model was too harsh, but there's a very real incentive for ISPs to try and slow the ever-increasing bandwidth per user consumption that has nothing to do with trying to limit competition. Constant upgrades and capacity expansion aren't cheap, and the simplistic "they make a profit, so they should just keep throwing money at the problem" isn't very convincing.
--
said by 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.
| |
| | | | | dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | Re: Physics fail You have absolutely no clue as to what you're talking about. Zero. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
1 edit | Re: Physics fail
You provided nothing remotely close to a "fact". Ranting about make-believe 1500% profit margins is not fact.
My opinions are my own. They're also more valid than those of someone like yourself who has no idea what they're talking about. | |
| | | | | | | |  FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | Re: Physics fail he said that the only reason there are any "congestion problems is because of a lack of investment by the ISP. Which is absolutely true. | |
| | | | | | | | |
See 18 replies to this post | |
| | | | | | | | | said by dynodb:said by kamm:said by dynodb:You have absolutely no clue as to what you're talking about. Zero.
Ouch. What's up, no more instructions from your masters? You cannot reach them or is it now way over your silly little astroturf head? You know, stupid little lies come from similar people - and that means they run out of them pretty quickly as soon as someone tackles them with facts.  You provided nothing remotely close to a "fact". Ranting about make-believe 1500% profit margins is not fact. My opinions are my own. They're also more valid than those of someone like yourself who has no idea what they're talking about. Opinions, assholes, and all that. | |
| | | | | | | | kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | said by dynodb:said by kamm:said by dynodb:You have absolutely no clue as to what you're talking about. Zero.
Ouch. What's up, no more instructions from your masters? You cannot reach them or is it now way over your silly little astroturf head? You know, stupid little lies come from similar people - and that means they run out of them pretty quickly as soon as someone tackles them with facts. You provided nothing remotely close to a "fact". Ranting about make-believe 1500% profit margins is not fact. My opinions are my own. They're also more valid than those of someone like yourself who has no idea what they're talking about. Except it's a well-known fact, little paid astroturfer, check wholesale prices and then your masters' proposals.
--
[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] | |
| | | | | | | | | | If a Gb of date costs say 1 cent and they charge you 10 cents what is the percentage? Bell wants to charge you 3 dollars or 300 cents. How much is that? | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Physics fail Unfortunatly you have no clue | |
|
| | | | | | Hmm, 1000 percent huh?
So you're trying to say TW had the biggest profit of any telcom ever in history huh?
Guess you should have bought some TW stock huh?
Spewing hyperbole's and junk numbers won't win your argument. | |
| | | | | |  coldmoonPremium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
·Windstream
| Re: Physics fail said by annonymiss :Hmm, 1000 percent huh?
So you're trying to say TW had the biggest profit of any telcom ever in history huh?
Guess you should have bought some TW stock huh?
Spewing hyperbole's and junk numbers won't win your argument.
Then how about regaling us with real numbers then?
No numbers = no credibility and just because you say it, does not make it true or even close to reality. Put up or shut up!
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC | |
|
| | | |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Vitelity VOIP
| said by kamm:Abslute and utter BS, straight out of Time Warner's 'BS-book' - your cable masters are raping 1000-1500% (yes, that's 1000-1500 PERCENT!) PROFIT on EVERY BIT OF BANDWIDTH they deliver. * Citation needed. | |
|
| | | cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | Nobody is saying there aren't any congestion issues. (there are.) The problem is not with congestion but with operators who aren't investing *anything* in upgrading systems/technology to elminiate congestion.
I'd have congestion in my home network(s) if I were still using 10Mbps hubs from decades ago. I've upgraded my shit (several times) over the years. The major operators are much more willing to shovel money in their pockets than spend anything on modernization. As an ISP, they should know damned well their equipment is going to need upgrading over time. | |
| | | | | kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | Re: Physics fail said by cramer:Nobody is saying there aren't any congestion issues. (there are.) The problem is not with congestion but with operators who aren't investing *anything* in upgrading systems/technology to elminiate congestion.
I'd have congestion in my home network(s) if I were still using 10Mbps hubs from decades ago. I've upgraded my shit (several times) over the years. The major operators are much more willing to shovel money in their pockets than spend anything on modernization. As an ISP, they should know damned well their equipment is going to need upgrading over time.
Exactly - it's a very typical, primitive astroturfer trick to exact the "congestion" caused by parasitic monopoly (=cablecorp) on its own network and shortage of backbone bandwidth.
It's also the most cynical PoS argument: it's artifically generated by the very cablecorp to cause distress thus prepare for their push for metered billing while, as a nice side effect, it saves money that goes out the window as profit.
Scum of the Earth, all of them.
--
[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] | |
| | | | | | | Tell you what.
You point to 1, ANY 1 major ISP that spent ZERO on Infrastructure upgrades and I'll pay your internet bill for the rest of your life.
Why is it people like you have to spew a bunch of BS and just make the argument look stupid from your end? | |
| | | | | |  DarkLogixTexan and ProudPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | Re: Physics fail an ISP doesn't need to spend 0 or even close to remain behind the curve
if your an ISP you could replace only failed parts or limit your self to just maintaining the existing gear
now spending 0 on upgrades to gear is another story
you could keep eol gear up and running well past the time it should be replaced (sure EOL gear is just fine for a business but not for an ISP) | |
|
| | | | | Poor performance = throttling. What upgrades. Look at their profit margins and look at how much lower their maintanence cost were compared to the previous year/s. Some of their profits and the difference that they saved SHOULD be going towards expanding their business but IT'S NOT. If they didn't think it was lucrative business why doesn't Bell and Rogers sell it?
Both those companies shouldn't be able to sell content and Internet. If Rogers were to sell off their Internet business their Cable Business would die unless they changed their current model of business. | |
| | | | |
| | rchandraStargate Universe fanPremium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105 | said by JackKane :It doesn't take more electricity to push the bytes, which is what is meant by "electrons aren't destroyed", not the actual physical fact involved. Not true. At least theoretically, additional traffic above idle will cause processors of routers and such to compute more. And they will therefore consume more electricity, ergo require more cooling in the summertime, etc. If you don't believe me about CPU usage, put a Kill-O-Watt on your home computer some time, get a baseline usage at idle, then start running something like SETI BOINC. Also if you happen to have temp sensors on your platform, monitor the temp, and after not too, too long you will see the thermometers rise, especially if there is a sensor for your CPU core (perhaps integrated into the heatsink).
I was once a happy contributor to SETI, until I found out the electricity delta dollars. It just wasn't "in the budget" at the time I last computed a work unit. It has subsequently been much less a percentage of my income and therefore had room in the budget (but never bothered bringing my BOINC setup back online), then back to infeasible due to layoff presently.
Still...I'm no fan of this UBB, but I believe it is a myth that additional bits moved do not consume more electricity. The delta on consumption obviously will vary from network to network depending on the exact products used, but I have a tough time believing the delta is zero.
I admittedly do not have any ISP numbers to back that up, just experience with my own home gear.
--
English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when a writer chooses not to follow those rules.
Jeopardy! replies and randomcaps REALLY suck! | |
|
| kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | Except it DOES, that's why we have to keep supplying them, you bum, unlike YT videos which are there forever. | |
| | |
See 10 replies to this post | |
| | | A minor mistake in wording, confusing the electrons(or the energy) with the data. Energy cannot be destroyed, but it also cannot be created. Data doesn't follow those rules, it can be created and destroyed.
Your electric company cant just *make* more energy.
But an internet server can just *make* more data. | |
| | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: Physics fail We need a solid definition of data before I can agree with your statements. I suppose if data is interpreted as a particular pattern of matter, the pattern can be altered so that the previous pattern can no longer be recognized or interpreted. If we consider the original pattern to then be destroyed, I suppose that works for me but I think we're veering in a direction that has no beneficial argument to the debate at hand.
I believe the debate at hand to be whether or not an ISP has variable infrastructure costs that can be directly correlated to customer usage. To be completely fair, most of today's infrastructure will use less power when idle than when loaded. In this regard, and only this regard, would an ISP have more cost based on usage intensity. If we agree with this assumption, the next issue is are those costs significant to warrant metered billing? I will speculate and say that these costs are NOT overly significant and could even be less significant as EOL devices are replaced. For instance, standard x86 rack servers in our enterprise typically contain two sockets and each socket has two cores. They are now EOL and being replaced by servers with two sockets and each socket has six cores. Since the infrastructure is virtual, one new physical servers enter and three old physical servers leave. If we assume network devices have a similar replacement profile, the variable electricity costs should go down or remain flat if the price of electricity rises to offsets the lower usage.
Therefore variable infrastructure costs don't seem to present any favorable justification for metered billing.
I tend to believe the panic isn't about a looming bandwidth shortage. I believe ISPs are in a panic because of a looming glut. Technology is getting faster and cheaper (Moore's law) and unless we continue to innovate new ways to use more bandwidth, supply will eventually outstrip demand.
Consider this--
When I first had a high speed connection installed in the Summer of 2000, the speed was 512Kbps down and 128Kbps up. Because the cable provider was new to offering data as a service, it was tough to reliably stream a single 128Kbps audio feed. It also took minutes, not seconds to download MP3 songs. Today I would guess every network-connected device in my house (4 laptops, 2 iPhones, 3 iPod Touch, 2 XBox 360s, 2 MP3 streaming radios and one Internet-capable TV) could all play a stream at the same time and barely scratch my 12Mbps down and 1Mbps up connection. Nor would heavy usage (each used for say 6 hours per day) of all these devices rile my ISP (approximately 145GB of downstream per month).
Here's the key question -- in another 10 years, will video streams become just as insignificant? Isn't this what keeps ISP owners up at night wondering how their world will change in the 10 years? | |
|
| cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | The key difference being power is produced to match load. If no one is using it, they don't produce it. If they make it and no one uses it, it's generally gone. It takes real work to produce power.
Bits on the other hand are far more transitive. An OC3 is 155Mbps. Either idle pattern or user traffic, it's always moving 155mil bits per second. You cannot store them, or use them later. And by contrast, it takes almost no effort to "create" bits. | |
| | |
See 11 replies to this post | |
|
1 edit | Read up a little more and understand how things work | |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | companies want it as a commodity So that they can have it adjusted purely by supply and demand.
As there are limits on how many providers will exist (how many will want to wire your place?), and consumption on the rise, having bandwidth as a commodity will allow for huge profits. | |
| Reviews:
·Bright House
| It's all about greed really Bright House sells their lighting package as a means to download movies etc in secs. So if you actually follow that and do it and they get upset because of all the bandwidth you use it's their fault.
Oxymoron way of selling high speed by telling us to download movies etc then get upset when we do.
If cable companies wants less use then stop hyping the service and complaining we we use it as we were told.
| |
| |
See 17 replies to this post | |
| | | Google? Google is a perfect example.
They have $26 B I L L I O N dollars in the bank that they made by using infrasructure they paid NOTHING for.
There are tens of thousands of potential GOOGLE's out there. Why aren't the guys that actually BUILD THE HARDWIRE PIPES allowed to make a profit?
If you're going to bitch about ISPs wanting to make money, you surely MUST be OUTRAGED at what Google has made on the backs of others?
Of course you're not, because you just "hate the man". You don't have a clue about busness and how there are tons of companies that make far far more profit then the ISPs do, yet somehow they are the hittler companies of the world.
Sorry you don't like it Karl. In the end even YOU are making money off the backs of ISPs. When's the last time you paid to get your packets all the way to the reader?
There's a seachange about to happen, bits are going to be paid for at every cross connect, and that WILL be aggrigated to YOU, the subscriber. And you will cry for the day when you had what you have now and wish people like Karl had NEVER convinced you that what you have now is somehow immoral or unfair. | |
| |
See 22 replies to this post | |
Reviews:
·Charter
| Can't argue here... If it weren't for the content providers (such as Netflix) there would be no reason to own internet. The internet was not born and created by phone companies - it was developed by universities and then passed to the public to share information freely. In fact since the early days the telco's were nothing but a dumb pipe - the dial up connection to the real network. Through lobbying and campaign donations somehow they've taken control of the internet and while we the customers already pay all the money it takes to not only operate their company and build their networks as they already do - but now they want to charge the other end of the internet too?
How can anyone in their right mind think that makes sense. Without content providers there is no internet. | |
|  VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | Additionally, it is laughable seeing people tell others that they should shut up b/c every company wants the most profit and if they do things that screw consumers, just deal with it
Huh?
I run a company and I want the most profit possible yet I still keep many pro-consumer parts in place for both competition purposes and simply good-business purposes. Yes, those "parts" cost me money in the end.
There are ways to go about business and this idea of ISP's lying about just every aspect of needing "2gb" caps with their phones, etc...is criminal, imo. | |
| Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| crtc=mubarak, leave now the crtc tyrrany that enables telecom monopolies to act like the old USA bell company(ies) must end. the initial dialup billing by the minute, then byte business model is dead. now that the companies who own these geographies have no competition they must serve the public interest to keep their monopoly, or else...... revolution! | |
| rchandraStargate Universe fanPremium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105 | accepting "moving bits is a utility" I may, may I say, be persuaded to swallow the "Internet should be a utility" argument, but only when I have the requisite control. Even in the modern Internet, this is simply infeasible.
Right now, modulo things like parasitic capacitance in wiring (which at 60Hz lets through miniscule amounts), I can choose to turn a light on or off, a computer on or off, a dishwasher on or off, an air conditioner on or off, buy more efficient appliances/devices/lightbulbs, etc., and directly affect how large my electric bill will be. (As a small side discussion, I definitely do not want to incur the property damage which would occur if I threw the main breaker, and my pipes froze due to the furnace's inability to circulate warm air or even turn on... so in that sense, this control has certain minimal limits.)
The same can be said, again within certain property damage preventing limits, of my ability to control directly the amount of gas I consume (I can choose a thermostat setting of 21 or bundle up some more, burn less gas, and set it at 17 or 18 instead). I can choose not to heat water, or to use less hot water. I can eat out, or simply not cook any food.
Similarly, I can choose how much to open my water taps. This in my case happens to be an interesting one because I have yet to come up to my water authority's 8000gal/quarter minimum...but I have been at 6K or 7K ever since I moved in here ~2 1/2 years ago.
Now....to the Internet however...
I have limited ability to control others' behavior w/r/t my Internet connection. As is very much pointed out in the Linux Advanced Routing/Traffic Control documentation site, the most one really has any control over is egress. Yes, a policing filter/limiter can be applied to an inbound interface, and one hopes the remote host follows the TCP in that the remote throttles back to match the lack of returning ACKs, but that is by no means prohibiting the remote end from sending packets. I can somewhat influence but have no control over how much email gets sent my way. I have no conrol on how many ICMP bytes transit from TWC's CMTS to me. For all they know, someone who's trying to give me the ping of death is traffic I somehow asked for. Every now and again, something screwey happens with SIP and SDP, and the far end continues to send RTP packets after either a hangup or some other loss of the call; usually the far end eventually gets a clue and stops, but that happens anywhere from between less than a minute to hours.
Giving me that control is an untenable nightmare. I cannot simply go to some arbitrary router near the source of my troubles and deny packets from that source; nor would I want to accept the responsibility of making sure that sort of change wouldn't affect anyone else. The best I can do is things like not send TCP ACKs, send ICMP source quench messages, and the like.
So unless I could be given that sort of control (clearly I can't), I don't want to have my Internet turn into being metered like the electric company. There's just simply too much potential variabliity. The ISPs so far have managed quite well to operate with the same flat pricing model, and I see no compelling reason why that aspect of their service has to change.
--
English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when a writer chooses not to follow those rules.
Jeopardy! replies and randomcaps REALLY suck! | |
|  MerinXCrunching for CuresPremium
join:2011-02-03
kudos:1 | Busted Those myths got busted yet again  | |
| | | logic? i think i am a heavy user. though i dont think i add much to network congestion. most of my data i use during the night. day time and peek hours is when i use the lest amount. to me i see it kind of like cell phones. if they are really having problems with congestion during peek times throttle users back. they can even add a extra non throttle add on. if this just wasnt a play at getting paid more for the same service they give now all data wouldnt be equal. its like cell phones with free nights and weekends when less people are using it. let the person who wants to pay to be prioritized in. they could also give everyone so many gb non throttled each month for peek times during congestion. i am sure they can come up with a way to manage data with out caps as they increase capacity.
though i always thought that was the point for the higher speed tiers. they charge more for the higher speeds since they assume will you use more data. thats what you pay more for. do the 5mbps line cost them any difference then the 10mbps line? | |
| Reviews:
·PHONE POWER
| Energy is not finite "The difference is, the actual kilowatts that go over the hydro company’s pipes ARE finite and ARE destroyed once they are used."
ACTUALLY, the "Law of Conservation" says that energy is never destroyed. Converted from one form or another - yes.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
Of course, the ISP's discussed here are full of it. It doesn't cost hardly anything for the equipment to run at capacity vs idle. They are already charging based on the usage levels that are present.
I view the Internet as a form of communication. Is the phone company moving toward metered usage or unlimited usage?
We need more competition in these areas to put and end to the silly metered usage ideas. | |
|
| |
|
|
·