DOJ Investigating Anti-Competitive Impact of Usage Caps And How Cable Operators Manage Internet Video Competitors Tipped by AndyDufresne 
Anonymous sources tell the Wall Street Journal that the Department of Justice is investigating whether cable companies (and telcoTV companies) have been engaging in anti-competitive behavior when it comes to the Internet video content traveling over their networks. The investigation appears to be motivated by a recent debate over whether Comcast should be allowed to exempt their own content on the Xbox 360 from their usage caps. Investigators have spoken to both Netflix and Hulu, and have also spoken to Comcast and Time Warner Cable about caps and overage fees: In its cable TV probe, Justice Department investigators are taking a particularly close look at the data caps that pay-TV providers like Comcast and AT&T Inc. T +1.11% have used to deal with surging video traffic on the Internet. The companies say the limits are needed to stop heavy users from overwhelming their networks. Internet video providers like Netflix have expressed concern that the limits are aimed at stopping consumers from dropping cable television and switching to online video providers. They also worry that cable companies will give priority to their own online video offerings on their networks to stop subscribers from leaving. As we've long noted, caps and overages on landline networks are largely aimed at protecting traditional television revenues from Internet video, with congestion usually used solely as a bogeyman -- since these days it's rarely an issue on well-managed networks. Incumbent ISPs always make these claims of congestion, but never provide hard, raw data -- because it doesn't exist. It should be interesting to see what kind of answers the DOJ gets, and whether they're made public. FCC boss Julius Genachowski recently gave the cap and overage model significant praise, being rather oblivious to the pricing system's anti-competitive impact -- despite recent warnings from Netflix about how the caps are being abused.
|
 | | . It's not hard to understand that if the cable companies own internet video offerings aren't subject to the cap, then it is not used to stop heavy users overwhelming the network but for anti-competitive reasons and used to thwart you leaving cable altogether. It's black and white, WTF is the Justice department investigating? | |
|  | | | Re: . Caps and overages were never about congestion, they were always about cash and keeping the gravy train rolling.
If the network was so abused, then why now can you buy more data? Under Comcast logic, it's OK to degrade the network as long as someone else pays for it?
"Because we can" fees just don't happen in competitive industries. If you want a meter, be a regulated utility. But a lot more might happen that you don't like, cablecos.
To be fair to Comcast, they at least let you see a meter. You could always have some mystical "Abuse Team" call you with whatever numbers they want to pick out of the sky. | |
| | |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: . said by osravens ) :If the network was so abused, then why now can you buy more data? Under Comcast logic, it's OK to degrade the network as long as someone else pays for it?
if you pay for more data, then you also are paying to cover the cost of improving the infrastructure. That is why you can buy more data. | |
| | | | | | Re: . said by Linklist:said by osravens ) :If the network was so abused, then why now can you buy more data? Under Comcast logic, it's OK to degrade the network as long as someone else pays for it?
if you pay for more data, then you also are paying to cover the cost of improving the infrastructure. That is why you can buy more data. When you pay for it originally you are paying for the infrastructure. Just like when you buy a car you pay TT&L to cover road infrastructure.
--
I'm not going there to die. I'm going there to see if i really am alive. | |
| | | |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by Linklist:said by osravens ) :If the network was so abused, then why now can you buy more data? Under Comcast logic, it's OK to degrade the network as long as someone else pays for it?
if you pay for more data, then you also are paying to cover the cost of improving the infrastructure. That is why you can buy more data. Oh the extra money IMMEDIATELY goes toward improving infrastructure. man that is pretty quick.
Also your statement show how clueless your are as to how ISPs actually get billed for data. | |
| | | | | | said by Linklist:said by osravens ) :If the network was so abused, then why now can you buy more data? Under Comcast logic, it's OK to degrade the network as long as someone else pays for it?
if you pay for more data, then you also are paying to cover the cost of improving the infrastructure. That is why you can buy more data. ....... then it should be billed like electricty or water??, why not?? stock holder bs is why..
if you want to refer it to a utitlity it better be charged like one!!, but no company in their right mind would do that cause they would loose millions... other countrys around the world have 10x faster internet and no caps and also cheaper than the usa does!! and we are suppose to be the greatest country in the world | |
| | | | | | | Re: . Actually, I think most other countries (especially European ones) have caps, and have for years. That's one place where we're behind on the curve and it's a GOOD thing. | |
| | | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: . How is it a good thing? This thread is really disappointing. It's filled with one or two lines but few offer any explanations.
If you claim it's good, why? If you claim it's bad, why? If you cannot write/type fast, insert a link pointing to something you read that convinced you of your position. | |
|
| | | |  camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA
 ·Comcast
| said by Cobra11M:if you want to refer it to a utility it better be charged like one!!, but no company in their right mind would do that cause they would loose millions DING DING we have a winner.The second that business model is even mentioned the ISP'S convoluted mind's try anything to keep the normal user to get wind of this. Most people don't even care about the nut's and bolts of there internet connection as long as it works, if they found out they can save even a few bucks in this shitty economy then consumer blow back would basically force every provider to adapt this model.
| |
| | | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: . said by camaro92:said by Cobra11M:if you want to refer it to a utility it better be charged like one!!, but no company in their right mind would do that cause they would loose millions ... consumer blow back would basically force every provider to adapt this model. We talk this talk regarding gasoline but it doesn't change things. Like gasoline, consumers really want or even need their Internet connection. Many only have one choice. If you only have one choice, you are not in a position to bargain, let alone demand.
It would be different if the various options, fixed wireless, LTE, 3G, WiMax, fiber, cable, were universally available and able to compete on even footing. (A $49/month cell data connection with a 2GB cap is not in competition with fixed-line cable or telco offerings.) | |
|
| | | Ignoring the fact that the cheapest way to deliver bandwidth is inside a companies network, it's their business and they are allowed to protect their profitably. Are you also upset that Apple kicked google maps to the curb this week?
Bottom line, companies need to be able to control their business. If they overstep, the market will punish them. | |
| | | | | Re: . Except other companies' ability to be profitable is dependent on access from a company's network. And it's not like many places in this country have real choices. And using market power by restricting access and making it harder for someone else to use those products is by nature anti-competitive.
Apple choosing to partner with another company is a totally different issue, if I don't want to buy Apple products, I don't have to. It's far different with broadband access.
How can the market punish Comcast? We'll all go back to Verizon DSL or dial-up?
By your logic, we shouldn't build cars because the horse-and-buggy company won't make any money anymore, and we should feel sorry for them. | |
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: . Would you just admit that you are in favor of government control of private property and get out of the closet?
I don't like the tactics of these ISPs either, however, the government ALWAYS takes the wrong path when they try to "fix" the problem (which they never define the problem in the first place) with these dog and pony investigation shows. (By the by, I don't see why people aren't upset at their government for the enormous bill to the tax payers for these alleged investigations that only help a politician get their face in front of the news and gather attention for their next election)
But, the Government's job isn't to tell a private company how to run their company, not in the capacity of what they are ATTEMPTING to do these days.. besides we ALL know there is no intention to change anything anyway.. the very people that are involved in these investigation once came from the very company they are "investigating" in the first place. What the governments NEED to do is encourage other players to enter the market place and pave the path for them to BUT set parameters (aka, conditions) for the new players.
If that doesn't work, then still there is no need to investigate companies for doing what is expected of them in the first place.. rather, they just need to install a set of fair regulations and put a leash on them in the first place. Even with regulations, history will show that they simply do not give the consumer what they want which is a low price.. it just caps the level of growth based on cost and expense. I personally draw the line at government doing investigations into a business. That opens the doors to the local government sticking their nose in the local laudromat wondering why they're charging $3.00 for a load of laundry. The notion that "we have no choice" is not an excuse for the consumer to be upset OR for the government to put it's hand in the mix. If anything, the consumer should be angry at the government, first, for creating an environment for this to happen in the first place. With it said that government is ineffective in handling the market place, why in the world does anyone want them to "fix" the very "problem" that they allowed to happen? | |
| | | | | | | Re: . Love this, and so accurate. | |
| | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | I agree with the premise that the government should encourage new entrants but if they set "conditions" for new players, how can they compete with incumbents who don't have those same conditions? Do you propose incentives if they comply with the conditions? Meaningful conditions will probably be too risky for sound investors which means it will only attract the idiots. After a few years and billions of "government" incentives, the public will have nothing and a lot of Florida estates will have new owners.
While it's easy to nitpick examples, the barrier to entry is very low for a laundromat. While I wholeheartedly agree that we don't want the government asking why a laundromat charges $3/shirt, if that price was insanely profitable, there would be new entrants sprouting like weeds and the price would fall. The government doesn't need to get involved unless a huge chain engages in predatory pricing or buys all the starch companies and tries to charge outrageous wholesale prices in an effort to increase costs for competitors. Both are illegal and the government would have to step in and spank them.
With Verizon's recent announcement regarding unlimited voice and text with every data connection, it's clear they are shuffling the deck to increase or stabilize revenue. Is this consumer driven? I understand voice and text revenues are falling. The consumer has spoken and said they want less voice and text. If true competition existed, how long would a competitor last if they gave the consumer what they don't want? While I completely agree that every company is responsible first to its shareholders, I don't believe sufficient competition exists to check and balance telecommunication industry behavior. The barrier to entry is very high, there are a few big players and we cannot import off-shore connectivity.
I also believe the 1996 decision has been a disaster. It's like in T2 where the thousands of pieces reconstitute and it comes back more determined than ever. Granted, AT&T is back without an arm, one eye is missing and it limps compared to what it was but how much different is the multi-billion dollar gamble fee they paid to T-Mobile than the JPMorgan Chase losing $2, $3, $4 billion on a bad Euro gamble? It's quite disgusting that these companies can throw cash around on this scale and yet both continue their rate and fee shenanigans. | |
| | | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: . I rereading my post, I'd like to correct something and say how the government has handled the 1996 decision has been a disaster. We started with good intentions (forcing wholesale access was a good intention but the implementation proved to be very sticky and thorny) but the follow through succumbed to lobbying and campaign contributions. Almost 20 years later, what do we have that's different than that which we started? Number portability? Cable VOIP? Wireless data is what folks want. The old wired analog voice lines are dead. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Charter
| said by JasonOD :Bottom line, companies need to be able to control their business. If they overstep, the market will punish them.
The shills have come. If there is no other competition, the incumbents can get away with whatever they want, because they know the customers have no where to go to. | |
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: . said by Chubbysumo:said by JasonOD :Bottom line, companies need to be able to control their business. If they overstep, the market will punish them.
The shills have come. If there is no other competition, the incumbents can get away with whatever they want, because they know the customers have no where to go to. So let's get this on record.. anyone who disagrees with YOUR view or opinion is automatically a shill?
Nice logic there buddy.
What you're REALLY saying is that YOU are right, there is no other way of looking at something, and anyone who disagrees with you is a shill or fully supports a companies policy. You know what that's called? Being extreme, or an extremist. Let's not forget some examples of extremists.. 9/11? Oh, but of course, that's totally different, right?  An extremist is an extremist.
The customer, as you are talking about here, doesn't HAVE to have a place to go.. that's a flaw in your logic. Your parents and grandparents should be disgraced by your logic. You know what they did when they didn't like something? ... they boycotted and went with out to prove their point. But not you, not this generation.. they turn to the givernment to fix everything for them in this entitled world in which we now seem to live in.
See, you live in a world where people feel they are entitled to anything they want and that the government will ensure that. The fact is that you're living in a world where business has done an EXCELLENT job of getting you to love the products they sell. Instead of fighting for government intervention, why don't you spend your time getting your friends to cancel their service.. why don't you rally people to cut their cords and go with out..
... you won't.
By the way, you need to spend some time on the topic of a shill.. you, yourself, are not immune to being a "shill" as well... you're just shilling for a different view. A shill is a shill.. so instead of trying to point your dirty finger at someone else for their views, and nothing more, why don't you come to the table with something of substance.. because technically you're not JUST a shill, you're also a troll. | |
| | | | | Reviews:
·Charter
| Re: . said by fiberguy:said by Chubbysumo:said by JasonOD :Bottom line, companies need to be able to control their business. If they overstep, the market will punish them.
The shills have come. If there is no other competition, the incumbents can get away with whatever they want, because they know the customers have no where to go to. So let's get this on record.. anyone who disagrees with YOUR view or opinion is automatically a shill? Nice logic there buddy. What you're REALLY saying is that YOU are right, there is no other way of looking at something, and anyone who disagrees with you is a shill or fully supports a companies policy. You know what that's called? Being extreme, or an extremist. Let's not forget some examples of extremists.. 9/11? Oh, but of course, that's totally different, right? An extremist is an extremist. The customer, as you are talking about here, doesn't HAVE to have a place to go.. that's a flaw in your logic. Your parents and grandparents should be disgraced by your logic. You know what they did when they didn't like something? ... they boycotted and went with out to prove their point. But not you, not this generation.. they turn to the givernment to fix everything for them in this entitled world in which we now seem to live in. See, you live in a world where people feel they are entitled to anything they want and that the government will ensure that. The fact is that you're living in a world where business has done an EXCELLENT job of getting you to love the products they sell. Instead of fighting for government intervention, why don't you spend your time getting your friends to cancel their service.. why don't you rally people to cut their cords and go with out.. ... you won't. By the way, you need to spend some time on the topic of a shill.. you, yourself, are not immune to being a "shill" as well... you're just shilling for a different view. A shill is a shill.. so instead of trying to point your dirty finger at someone else for their views, and nothing more, why don't you come to the table with something of substance.. because technically you're not JUST a shill, you're also a troll. Well, if there were options here, I would happily switch providers for ISP. The problem is that they charge nearly exactly the same per advertised MBPS that it almost feels like price fixing(i would call it price fixing, since they offer near the exact same thing for the same price). I cant just simply shut it off, as half of my income comes from internet related activities. Im in the boat that many are in. The internet has now become essential to their livelihood. I dont feel entitled to get it for free, but I do feel that we should pay a fair rate for access. With no regulation and no competition, the rates have gone up, and only up, for access. I have cut as much of the TV as I could(that my wife could stand). Basic+expanded is a ripoff, since there is exactly 5 channels we watch, yet, for those 5 channels, we subsidize the other crappy ones. Sure, we can supplement this with netflix and amazon and redbox, but at what point do you have to say "this is fucking stupid." The current gravy train is running out of tracks, the incumbents know it too. The content creators know it, and are continually trying to slow it down. Cable channels a-la-mode would weed out the crappy content and channels(and lower your bill, since your only paying the subscriber fees for the channels you want), and regulation in the ISPs would likely create competition and lower all of our bills. Only shills would say anything close to the opposite, because even my mom(who is 63 years old) sees that the TV and internet companies are grossly overcharging and need a slap. | |
| | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: . You don't NEED television.. it is, and always will, remain a luxury. The essential part of television remains a free service over the air, and the price for the local tier is still largely kept low for subscribers who want tier 1.
As for internet, the price of internet, since the beginning of broadband to the masses, has actually gone DOWN.. internet access in general has dropped. I'm sorry that people like Karl would like you to believe otherwise, but the over all cost has gone down.
Regardless of the fact that the internet has become essential.. it's become that way because you let it. And, as I stated already, having the access in your HOME is still a luxury as well. You could easily go to a library or other place where public internet is available and gain access. For that "essential" part of life.. what is it? email? booking tickets? (can be done over the phone, you just pay a fee) accessing banking? (not really necessary) sending an email? (dial up still works for that) chatting? (same thing, dial up works) Accessing streaming video? (That's entertainment and not essential)
But as for internet,.. I have a very simple, and very consistent response to pricing and reasonable/fair rate.. what is fair to you? Everyone will differ on this. I know people that still believe that a value meal should be under $5.00. The telephone was deemed "essential" years ago, and even under government regulation, the cost to the use the phone still is higher than the internet is today. People got $150.00 telephone bills all the time.. the internet still remains circa $50 a month. For that $50 a month, you can connect multiple computers, you get a decent speed and you get access to all those "essential" things you say you need. I can play number games with you all day long. Dial up internet used to cost on average of $24.95 a month for 33.6 speeds and one computer.. that also tied up a phone line so many people purchased a second phone line at a cost of about $25 a month or more. I really think that, so far, that $50 a month is looking great!
Looking at the importance you place on that internet line.. you yourself are saying it's "essential".. so you're not willing or able to see $50 as being fair?? that very $50 internet connection connects you to SOOOO many things that "save you money"... right? With out that internet your monthly expenses could go up!! Turn off the internet and see how "convenient" it is to book Arline tickets.. see how "convenient" it is to access your banking information. I mean you could do like many Americans do and reconcile your bank statement once a month... if you were taking responsibility in your finances you would not NEED to know your account activity every single day.. you'd keep a ledger like you're supposed to, right? So yea, that convenience is worth something. I mean, I could go on but it's not necessary.
The only thing that I ever hear from people is that they think the internet is "too expensive"... sounds to me that you just BELIEVE that because it's important that it should be cheaper, or as you call it, "more fair"... The internet still remains to be one of the least expensive and most valued service in the home compared to other services for what you get. So tell me, if you can't afford the $50 a month, is there someting wrong with the level of your income? ... perhaps you need to make personal changes in your life and your expenses to make that $50 less impacted.
If the internet cost $100 a month, I'd be bitching.. but I for one realize what the internet does for me and *I* see that $50 is pretty fair.
But, with any argument you have for the television side, I'm just not the one to have a conversation with on that matter because I will NEVER agree with anyone on that front as the satellite channels are not essential to life.. entertainment is a choice you get to make, no different that going to Disney Land vs the State Fair... or going to a Prime time movie vs the 2nd run Matinee.. or going to Mannie's Steak house, or The Sizzler. You need to live with in your means. Don't like the price of satellite based television, then don't subscribe to it... | |
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·Charter
| Re: . said by fiberguy:You don't NEED television.. it is, and always will, remain a luxury. The essential part of television remains a free service over the air, and the price for the local tier is still largely kept low for subscribers who want tier 1.
Your right, I dont need television, and OTA is still free, but that isn't for me( i hardly watch it). There are two people in this household, and if we had good reception for OTA, i would go with that and an OTT option. Sadly, we dont get good reception, so we are either stuck with online offerings only, or we have to pay the cable or teleco for their "basic" tier. I dont know if you know this, but charters "basic" tier here is $45 per month after all the bullshit "taxes and fees", so I dont know about you, but thats pretty expensive for something they(charter) picks up on the cheap to rebroadcast.
said by fiberguy:As for internet, the price of internet, since the beginning of broadband to the masses, has actually gone DOWN.. internet access in general has dropped. I'm sorry that people like Karl would like you to believe otherwise, but the over all cost has gone down.
The overall cost to the ISP has gone way down, but they have not passed that on to the subscribers. When an ISP pays only a few cents per GB of data transfered in and out of its network, yet they charge me $100 per month for 100mbps service, with a 500GB cap, we know that their actual costs are long since covered past $40(double the cost of the raw data). My bill has only gone up, and the mbps prices have stayed nearly the same(only going down a few cents over the last 3 years). No, I dont need 100mbps download, but I do need the 5mbps upload, and I refuse to pay the outrageous prices for some of their business class tiers with faster upload speeds. The bottom line, is that they continue to charge more and more. In a market where real competition exists, prices usually end up just above the "break even" point to draw subs in. They are way above(probably close to 200% or more above) that point.
said by fiberguy:Regardless of the fact that the internet has become essential.. it's become that way because you let it. (snip) For that "essential" part of life.. what is it? email? booking tickets? (can be done over the phone, you just pay a fee) accessing banking? (not really necessary) sending an email? (dial up still works for that) chatting? (same thing, dial up works) Accessing streaming video? (That's entertainment and not essential) You need to get your head out of your ass. The internet was made for people to work, and thus, i use it that way. I make contracted calls(solicited, not cold calling telemarketing). I have to log into an online system(our dialer), and it calls my phone. If I did not have internet access, I would not be making $20 per hour, and would have lost out on that opportunity. It requires at least 1mbps upload speed because of the way it works. My other job also lists internet access as "optional, but highly recommended". I would attest, that its far from optional, its a must. Sure, I have my leisure time on the net, but you seem to think(and im guessing all you do is leisure, and no work on the internet) that all the time spent on the net is for pleasure. The internet was made for work, and it is used that way every day by millions of people. To many of us, it has become "essential" to our income, and thus, our way of life.
said by fiberguy:But as for internet,.. I have a very simple, and very consistent response to pricing and reasonable/fair rate.. what is fair to you? Everyone will differ on this. (snip, for length)I really think that, so far, that $50 a month is looking great!
$50 is not a great price, unless your speeds are high and your connection comes with no cap(or a reasonable one). As I said before, ISPs are paying between 1 and 3 cents per GB of data they transfer. This includes all labor, and equipment costs. So, if your on a 30mbps plan, with a 250GB cap, The ISPs costs should be covered after $10 per month, yet many charge $30-45 or more for 30mbps service. Its even worse with legacy DSL, which can cost $30 per month for 3mbps service and a cap. Please tell me you dont see the current prices as fair, because they are far from it. The current prices are becuase they can, and have no real compeition to undercut them(almost no ISP in the USA competes on "price" anymore).
said by fiberguy:Looking at the importance you place on that internet line.. you yourself are saying it's "essential".. so you're not willing or able to see $50 as being fair?? that very $50 internet connection connects you to SOOOO many things that "save you money"... right?(snip)So yea, that convenience is worth something. I mean, I could go on but it's not necessary.
The convienience is nice, and is worth something, but its not worth that much. Sure, if that $50 got me a stellar connection(like what I have now or more), than I would be happy with that. The problem is that with no real competition, the ISPs and cable and telecos know they can charge whatever they want and get away with it, because there is no where their customers can run to.
said by fiberguy:The only thing that I ever hear from people is that they think the internet is "too expensive"... sounds to me that you just BELIEVE that because it's important that it should be cheaper,(snip) ... perhaps you need to make personal changes in your life and your expenses to make that $50 less impacted.
Going on personal attacks shows that you have no logical arguments to discredit or refute my points. Its an expense, and it was factored into my budget long ago. BTW, my internet bill isn't just $50, its a little over $100 after all of their bullshit taxes and fees(internet is not taxable where i live, yet there is still a "tax" listed on my bill that charter refuses to remove). I don't know what that $50 is getting you, but that will vary wildly throughout the country right now. In some markets, $50 will get you 100mbps symmetrical, and in other markets, $50 will get you 1mbps DSL. So, what exactly is that $50 getting you?
said by fiberguy:If the internet cost $100 a month, I'd be bitching.. but I for one realize what the internet does for me and *I* see that $50 is pretty fair.
Not everyones bill is the same, and even implying that shows that you have your head buried in the sand, or are an industry shill. So, what service do you get for this $50 per month? 1mbps, or 100mbps, or something in between? Put it out there so we all can see how much "value" you get out of it.
said by fiberguy:But, with any argument you have for the television side, I'm just not the one to have a conversation with on that matter because I will NEVER agree with anyone on that front as the satellite channels are not essential to life.. entertainment is a choice you get to make, no different that going to Disney Land vs the State Fair... or going to a Prime time movie vs the 2nd run Matinee.. or going to Mannie's Steak house, or The Sizzler. You need to live with in your means. Don't like the price of satellite based television, then don't subscribe to it...
Entertainment is a luxury(always will be), but its not the TV that I was really bitching about(besides the shitty channel bundling).
On the TV, The cablecos are pretty good about passing on costs directly with very little overhead there. I know that the content companies are to blame for the TV dilemmas, because they require certain channels to be bundled with certain other channels. I believe this needs to be stopped and investigated as anti-competitive, and if we did get a-la-mode TV choices, the shitty channels with no content and no subs with either adapt or die really fast, and it would increase the overall quality of the TV content we get these days(no good content, no subs). Not only that, but it would also reduce your bills dramatically, because instead of paying for a few hundred channels you dont watch and a few you do, you would only pay the per subscriber fees on channels you do watch. Sure, per sub fees would go up a little, but they wouldn't go up that much, because someone could simply dump the channel easily, and the fear of that would keep prices around the same as they are now.
Anything else you have to say? Please refute my posts with hard data and facts, not personal attacks, because that only shows that you have no logical arguments left to refute any of them with. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: . I think you should get a T-1 or more for $400 a month and not have caps. If your going to be doing business, don't complain about NOT paying a business price. I can't even believe you are complaining while getting a 100Meg connection. That costs me $5,000 a month for a guaranteed connectionn at that speed!!!! I love the quotes about 1-3 cents also. You have no idea the costs to deliver the kind of speeds your are getting. NONE.
--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net | |
| | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·Charter
| Re: . said by gunther_01:You have no idea the costs to deliver the kind of speeds your are getting. NONE.
»forum.suprbay.org/showthread.php?tid=90426
»blogs.howstuffworks.com/2011/04/···cenario/
»www.pcpro.co.uk/news/broadband/3···-of-data
There is enough hard data out there to show and prove that ISPs are paying less than $0.05 per GB of data transferred. I can lost more, but all you really have to do is google it. The most expensive providers in the world pay around $0.19 per GB, while most in the US pay between $0.06 and $0.02 per GB transferred withing their last mile networks, and due to peering agreements, going outside their network usually doesnt cost them anything because they break even with the other ISPs and backbone providers. Having a gross markup of so much is just stupid. im paying about $0.20 per GB(if you figure the 500GB cap on the 100mbps tier), and my actual price of $87.99+taxes and fees(comes out to about $95). Seriously, you cant tell me that a 1000% markup is fair or necessary. Sure, I can see even a 200% markup(assuming $0.02 per GB costs for them for examples sake) for covering unexpected costs and line and plant upgrades, but paying over 1000% in any other business and you would be shitting bricks. What if gas companies started charging 1000% of their actual costs, would you consider that fair?
The ISPs have very little costs per GB(with employees, line, and plant costs worked in). If any other kind of business tried to charge 1000% of their actual costs, they would either go out of business or get scrutinized for regulation. I say put ISPs under title 2 and regulate the hell out of them. We would all see priced drop, and more competition to drive them even lower. heck, we may even see a-la-mode tv choices. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: . Please read my post again, and tell me if $5K a month for 100Mb equals your figures... The crap you are reading is just crap. But it does figure IMO. Once you have something, then people want to Bitch about it being to costly, and or make up reasons why they shouldn't have to pay for it. You won;'t be happy unless its $20 a month for unlimited guaranteed bandwidth.
Again, you have NO idea. Once you run an ISP, then talk to me.
--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·Charter
| Re: . said by gunther_01:Please read my post again, and tell me if $5K a month for 100Mb equals your figures... The crap you are reading is just crap. But it does figure IMO. Once you have something, then people want to Bitch about it being to costly, and or make up reasons why they shouldn't have to pay for it. You won;'t be happy unless its $20 a month for unlimited guaranteed bandwidth.
Again, you have NO idea. Once you run an ISP, then talk to me.
You didnt even read the articles, or any of my post, did you? I clearly stated how much charter is charging per GB, and also provided articles that explain(in great details, with sources) how much ISPs are paying per GB of data transferred, which includes everything from lines to labor. Maybe you should re-read my post instead of just spouting no info relevant to any of my claims. You obviously have no logical arguments to dispute anything I have said, but instead go on a personal attack. I believe that is called an Ad-hominem(see picture), an attempt to distract from the fact that you have no arguments to refute my central points. Industry shills at their best. Whats next, name calling? Again, you ignored my question: what would you do if gas companies started charging 1000% for gas just because they could, and with no ties to real world costs.
 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: . I didn't need to read them, but I just did. The first one is blatently wrong in the first paragraph, so I stopped. The second, while giving good examples of cost and such, is NOT a typical ISP wireline system. Most cable co's can't move terabytes of data internally. DRAMATICALLY changing the priceing per GB and customer. The third is wrong as well, which includes at the bottom a member of an ISP association claiming otherwise aso.
Again, if you own and run an ISP (like I do) please don't be a troll with unfounded data, blog posts from people who also don't know a thing, and then try to turn it in to some personal battle because you "think" you do. So. Please tell me what a business class T-1 costs you. Or what you can get a business class, guaranteed bandwidth with no caps at for 100Meg?? Then please let us all know how much it costs. Then, and only then, will you have something to even remotely complain about. Trust me when I tell you, you won't like the numbers. Of course a business class cable modem connection isn't the same as a guaranteed business class, resellable connection. Which is what you actually need according to your claims of "having" to have it for work. It costs me $5k a MONTH Bud. That is of course out here in the boonies, and is much lower in metro areas. But that is mainly because you can tie in to a decent network pretty easily, and bandwidth is more accessible. Or at least to a tie in point where there are more options. Lets also keep in mind that a residintial connection is a shared non-guaranteed connection.
--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net | |
| | | | | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | He runs a freakin' ISP bucko... what Charter is charged per ISP is none of your concern. It's what the market will accept. The value of that line is fine.. and no, I'm not a shill. (By the way, funny you tell me to not name call on your first message, but right out the bat you already called me a shill because my point, which is actually an intelligent one, doesn't agree with yours. You've got two people with industry AND business experience giving you hands on experience and YOU still sit here acting like mr. know it all.
I want to pay $5.00 for a 24 case of coke still, and I feel that the cost PER can of coke THEY pay is FAR less than what I'm charged.. perhaps Coca Cola needs to drop their prices too.. SCREW the fact that fuel costs have risen and that other expenses have gone up.. I don't care.. all those OTHER Expenses don't matter to me, the consumer, because *I* am only concerned about the price they pay for the ingredients that go into MY can of coke!
No need to post stupid graphics about what someone else may or may not say.. base your arguments on something factual and maybe you won't be blasted for it. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | "The ISPs have very little costs per GB(with employees, line, and plant costs worked in)."
You're totally clueless..
You're trying to base the cost per GB based on user consumption and compare that to fixed costs of providing a service and running a business?? Are you F'ing kidding me?
What's the overall cost % of payroll for one MSO compared to Gross sales? Any idea? Now, add in employer contributions.. then add in the cost of health care provided... add in the cost of vehicles & maintenance, power, fuel, uniforms, tools, training, gear, benefits,..
NOW, let's move on to the cost of buildings, maintenance, repairs, furniture, systems, IT, liability insurance, advertising, taxes,..and there's still MANY things I've left out.. I mean.. come on..
Let's talk about the length of time it actually takes from the time of installation to the time it takes before the company actually makes anything off that customer. (Hint, about 6 to 9 months depending on the services and the specific customer)
So YOU want to base these fixed asset/liabilities/expenses to that of what the user base uses per GB and what they're charged?
Seriously.. if you're having a hard time paying an average of $50 a month for an internet connection that connects multiple devices to the internet, gives you access to products and service options that you NEVER had before, added convenience in your own life.. saves you money over all,.. but DAMN if you have to pay an average of $50 for that connection. Who's being greedy now? Okay, maybe not greedy, but entitled.
I have a REAL small business and I'm not talking eBay.. I'm talking real business with employees and expenses, etc. I'm not sure what trivial information you're basing your arguments on but you're not anywhere near the ball park. What your entire argument is based on is a viewpoint and a skewed way of thinking.. and you STILL, like many, make the mistake that your precious internet line should be only marked up a % of what the cost is, and nothing more.. because to YOU, nothing else but that internet line exists. Well, you're wrong. | |
|
| | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Yea... I can't even touch this one since I have better things to do.. but in short, I will say this..
If you're running a business, or "using it for work" then go pound that argument out in a business thread. If you're residential internet connection is letting you make an income, then pay for it like the rest of us working class do. I work from home and have Comcast Business Class. Oh, my bill is still just $59 a month.. seems pretty close to my $50 mark.
WHILE I'm at the $50 price,.. pull YOUR head out of YOUR ass... you do know what an average is don't you? .. or were you just too much in a rush to smell your own farts (your reply) to read? For the record, you are right.. not everyone's bills are the same.. Some people pay as little as $19 a month and some pay $69 a month. Seems like I was pretty spot on.. maybe high.. but there are many ways to make the average $50 bill a valid point.
You can sit here and argue the extreme exceptions all you want - all you are going to do is look like an idiot doing so. For the record, basic 1 is broadcast.. some places are pricey but that's what you get in some areas.
One last point even though I said I wouldn't.. but I could give a rats ass what the ISP pays for the connection.. you're not entitled to a % price markup on what they pay on the cost of the byte.. you're going to pay a RETAIL value.. not a cost mark up.. get it? Shall we talk about other costs associated with that internet connection such as fuel, vehicles, buildings, liability insurance, ass-hats who sue them because they don't like certain things? ... workman's comp insurance.. wages.. etc. Shall I go on? The BILL YOU GET has GONE DOWN as I said. When I got a 386/386 DLS line from Pacific Bell back in 1998, the price for that service was $120. (Perhaps you're not old enough to know that?) Since that time, the bill went down to $99 a month for 512/386 then it went to $79 for 1.5/386. From there I got a 256/256 line from US West for $79 (step back but better service) Then moved to cable and it pretty much became $59 for what ever by what ever.. then the speeds moved to 3mb, then 4, then 6, then 8, then 12, now 20. And still to this day I'm paying $59 a month. So AGAIN, WHERE did the price YOU pay for the internet, "go up"...
... stop the spinning, put down the talking points, stop arguing on an average while using an extreme situation and start answering honestly.
And I DO love your last line.. "Please refute my posts with hard data and facts, not personal attacks, because that only shows that you have no logical arguments left to refute any of them with." YOU haven't shown any "hard data and facts".. you've only come here and spewed your logic and tried to pass it off as fact. | |
|
| | | | The question is: Are they using one aspect of their business (being an ISP) to protect another aspect of their business (being a cable TV provider)? Also note that, for many people, their cable ISP is either their only broadband option in the area or one of two options. A monopoly can't simply use one aspect of their business to keep another afloat and all it "controlling our business."
--
-Jason Levine | |
| | | | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: . I would expect their investors to demand nothing less than such actions. unfortunately ong gone is the belief that one can be a profitable company while not being a complete jackass in the process.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | |  elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand
 ·Cybersurf Intern..
| said by Jason Levine:The question is: Are they using one aspect of their business (being an ISP) to protect another aspect of their business (being a cable TV provider)? Also note that, for many people, their cable ISP is either their only broadband option in the area or one of two options. A monopoly can't simply use one aspect of their business to keep another afloat and all it "controlling our business."
It's one step further, you have the producer of content (NBC), which is owned by a cable company (Comcast) who is also the gatekeeper to the Internet.
How anyone can't see this is a HUGE conflict of interest I have no idea. This is a huge issue in Canada, we are fortunate to have some alternative providers, but they are limited.
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake....... | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Charter
| The market can't punish anyone. Where I live we have ONE option for internet. In order for me to punish them I have to disconnect from the internet totally.
Yeah, that makes a ton of sense. Imagine if the gas company throttled fuel usage during the winter months because of overusage? What if the water company cut you off because you overused? What if the electric company told you that you exceeded their normal usage amounts and owe overages but there was no meter to verify this with.
Companies may need to control their business but someone must also control the companies when they get out of hand otherwise there is nothing at all to stop them from saying each user gets 100 mb a day and all additional mb wll be overages charged at $10 a mb. Under your analogy they should be able to do just that.
Sorry, that is INSANE. This boils down to one thing - keeping the cash cow alive by protecting their overpriced video services. That is why they refuse to offer a-la carte programming even though the technology exists. Since all the other options are there solely because of that fact - and can offer me the very same video service at a fraction of the cost as well as no need to pay for channels I will never, ever watch - that threatens their cash cow. If it was solely about the very minute amount of users who truly do overuse then the aim would be solely at them and you would see caps starting at 500g + instead of 50. | |
| | | | | The market can't punish them when there is no competition! The large ISPs need to be broken up, just as AT&T and Bell were devested of their monopoly! | |
| | |  vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | In the absence of a monopoly, you'd be right. When there's a monopoly, the market has no ability to punish them, and people must exercise control through their government. | |
| | | hga
join:2008-05-09
Joplin, MO Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest
| said by JasonOD :[...] it's their business and they are allowed to protect their profitably....
Bottom line, companies need to be able to control their business. If they overstep, the market will punish them.
The problem is that the duopoly of telephone and cable company is a artifact of government intervention in the market. They're arranged monopolies with the Federal and state governments for the former and the local government for the latter, and in return accept a certain level of regulation.
The market's ability to punish them is rather limited when your only other choice is the other monopoly, if you are so lucky to be served by both. | |
| | | | | Right... because we all purchase Internet access so we can get to the provider's network. (/sarcasm)
Companies need to focus on actually providing the service that they're selling irrespective of any other services they may offer. There are laws which control this type of behavior in other industries. And this "market" you talk about such that it will "punish" them... I presume you're talking about some nebulous competition... yeah, still waiting for that to show up.
But, sure, you go ahead and continue to ignore all the facts you want to. | |
| | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by JasonOD :Bottom line, companies need to be able to control their business. If they overstep, the market will punish them. That's assuming there is actually a free market. When it comes to internet access there isn't. | |
| | | | | | Re: . said by BF69:said by JasonOD :Bottom line, companies need to be able to control their business. If they overstep, the market will punish them. That's assuming there is actually a free market. When it comes to internet access there isn't. hasnt been for a long long long time | |
|
| | | | said by JasonOD :Ignoring the fact that the cheapest way to deliver bandwidth is inside a companies network, it's their business and they are allowed to protect their profitably. Are you also upset that Apple kicked google maps to the curb this week?
Bottom line, companies need to be able to control their business. If they overstep, the market will punish them.
I believe in data being data, no matter if its in their local network or not, think for a second.. they said it would over welm their network? their network their nodes their infrastructure that they are now using for their own private gain!, and the other companies cant do nothin about!, their the ones that said this not me | |
|
| |
| | Make the bad caps go away! I have thought for years now that having data caps is very anti-competitive. Why should I be forced to rent a movie for 3.99 up from my tv when I can use Netflix or Hulu or Vudu or whatever and it might be free or cheaper or even newer. Why should I have to worry about if that will send me over my cap or not? What about other services on the net? Why should I fear surfing on the internet? With data caps I feel like I should try and limit my internet usage in fear of my cap. As we get more and more devices and services on the net we will use more and more data. I am willing to pay a resonable amount for unlimited data. It is not my fault some of these companies have poor infastructer. why should I as a consumer have to be limited in my usage of the internet because the company failed to plan ahead? I have my cell service with Sprint for a reason, unlimited data. I dont have to worrry about throttling or caps or anything i can use it all i want.
What happens in the future when I get fiber to my home? Sure I ll have super fast inet but I wont be able to use it cause I might use too much data? This keeps users in a fear choke hold of money because they might use 1 extra gig of data and cost them X amount of dollars.
Plus who wants to make an app or a service on the net because it might just get limited because of data caps. I see data caps and a lose lose for everyone on everything. | |
| | | | Re: Make the bad caps go away! To reference your likely ISP, Charter, who provides different caps on different speed tiers, how can someone congest a network with an Ultra 100 connection with a 500GB cap the same way a Lite connection can at 100GB? Bytes are bytes.
A structure like that is already usage-based, and any overage fees beyond that is just double-dipping. | |
|
| |
See 9 replies to this post | |
| | This is why they should be concerned. Attorney General Eric Holder on Tuesday suggested he had sympathy for those who want to "cut the cord" rather than paying for cable channels they don't watch. At a Senate hearing, Sen. Al Franken (D., Minn.) said cable bills are "out of control" and consumers want to watch TV and movies online. Mr. Holder responded, "I would be one of those consumers."
Being that the person that is pursuing this is affected by it and annoyed by it, you can bet he has a pretty strong opinion about it and will push it.
Lets see if the industry can grease Mr. Holder and get him to drop this or if Mr. Holder will do his job and put these companies in their place. | |
| |  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: This is why they should be concerned. said by Skippy25: Being that the person that is pursuing this is affected by it and annoyed by it, you can bet he has a pretty strong opinion about it and will push it.
Lets see if the industry can grease Mr. Holder and get him to drop this or if Mr. Holder will do his job and put these companies in their place.
Generally, interested parties are required to recuse themselves from a case because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality.
I think the "cable bills are out of control" group needs to consider "Cable TV users have a lack of control" being unable to read a publish price list, evaluate if it is within their personal budget, and choose a lesser plan if it is not, the price of limited basic is regulated and quite reasonable in most places.
I doubt "cheap entertainment" is constitutionally guaranteed in any state in this country or any others I can recall. | |
| | | | | Re: This is why they should be concerned. Don't be silly. His falling into the group of people that want to be able to get video online would have absolutely nothing to do with the case. Everyone has an opinion about everything and thus technically there is never NOT a conflict of interest.
I would agree, consumers should shop wisely. However, business should also cater to the consumer especially when you have market capture and competition problems. Else the powers that be may come calling. | |
| | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by tshirt:said by Skippy25: Being that the person that is pursuing this is affected by it and annoyed by it, you can bet he has a pretty strong opinion about it and will push it.
Lets see if the industry can grease Mr. Holder and get him to drop this or if Mr. Holder will do his job and put these companies in their place.
Generally, interested parties are required to recuse themselves from a case because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality. I think the "cable bills are out of control" group needs to consider "Cable TV users have a lack of control" being unable to read a publish price list, evaluate if it is within their personal budget, and choose a lesser plan if it is not, the price of limited basic is regulated and quite reasonable in most places. I doubt "cheap entertainment" is constitutionally guaranteed in any state in this country or any others I can recall. I don't call $30 for limited basic "reasonable" | |
| | | | tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
2 edits | Re: This is why they should be concerned. $30? maybe not, it depends on local pricing.
Here it went up to $18.09 , but now the commission has forced it back to $16.15 for the next year.
most consider that reasonable for 50 channels ,maybe 20-30 useful ones if you cut out church, shopping and non-english ( those aren't for me but are the main draw for some.)*
If you don't like the Ltd Basic price in your area, pursue the state or local regulators in charge, generally the company has to justify/document exact/average costs and is allowed a modest overhead and profit.
everything else is free market/ charge whatever the want.
For me this is a deal as there almost NO reception here (a Spanish cartoon channel, a rebroadcast from Philippines / southeast asia, and a local church are it, and I watch very little TV, my wife and son wouldn't mind more, but we have netflix and hulu+ instead.
BTW I watch a couple hours of HD shows on NF and the daily show plus my son runs old (non HD) stuff for many hours a week, plus a couple of very active internet users and have broken 153GB ONCE. 135GB is typical.
I don't see a whole lot of restrictiveness in the 300GB soft limit and soon you'll be able to buy more as needed, pretty resonable priced, even for a cheap ass like me!  | |
|
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Finally someone who make sense.
I don't know why or how internet and TV become such the drug that it is. In other news, Americans keep getting fatter. Anyway.. I wonder if people can answer something for me. I don't like the high price of a Ford F150 Lariat edition. I love getting the leather trim, and all the creature comforts, that aren't necessary but I like them, but I don't like these out of control prices that Ford asks for them. I know I can afford the stripped base model F150, but I think that I should get the all the luxuries at a lower price. Can you tell me what I need to do to get the government to step in for me? I would go to another car maker as well but they all seem to be doing the same thing these days and it's just not right! This octopololy the car makers have is just out of control!
So anyway, we all know that car buyers want the best too but often have to cut back on the features they'd really like in favor for basic transportation, sometimes even going down in model and size/class of vehicle. I don't get why when it comes to things like the cable or satellite bill, internet services, or cell phone service that people can't do the same thing. Sure people want their smart phones and sure they hate paying for them, but like getting that really nice vehicle they can't afford, often people have to walk past the truck and opt for a Kia instead.. at least it gets them to and from where they need to go. This is the same as giving up the android or iphone for a flip phone. This would be the same as giving up digital cable and taking tier 1 channels or just putting an antenna on their TV. This would be the same as giving up cable for DSL when available, or taking economy tiers at 1mb, or using dial up for the basic needs on the internet
SOME People will say they NEED the internet for work.. then it's a justifiable business expense especially when self employed. SOME people say that you can't live with out the internet, and for that I may agree. But, no one said that the "internet" had to be installed in the home where it's far more "convenient" did they? There are many places to get the internet for free. Most people will scoff at that notion as if it's beneath them. Or, they will say that it's not convenient.. so I guess that it's about paying for convenience which is not a new concept either. The other argument is that the internet opens the doors to other services that people want.. which is fine. But still, nothing guarantees the access to everything one wants at a price that's cheaper than a bottle of water. This argument is to say that the connection has a lot of value based on the demand.. and just because there is a demand doesn't mean that it should be mandated to be 'cheap'... if the internet has made life easier, and more affordable, then why should the ones who carry the lines be forced to take a hit so everyone else can cprofit? For THIS argument alone I would have to support a billing by the byte method as it's the most fair. We all saw what happened when AOL went "unlimited" back in the 90's.. people hoarded it and access was eroded where it was not before when it was metered. Since it's a proven fact that people don't know moderation of a shared resource, a system has to be plut in place that enforces morderation use.. otherwise, to open the flood gates, demand lower prices,.. that only places all the burdon on the back of the ISP which I dont' think is fair.
I will say that I'm not for any form of CAP.. not in the sense that a cap will cut someone off.. but a cap with a fairly priced overage is in my view acceptable. (But, what Verizon is doing with Shared Everything is an example of a company taking what COULD have been a good idea and injected greed in the process and soured it for many)
People make choices in life.. wait, people USED to make choices in life. | |
|
| | To Solve This issue To solve this issue, America needs a non-profit nationwide municipal broadband implementation. The for-profit companies cannot be trusted to provide quality and access.
The internet was developed with public funds and it should be open and accessible to all citizens. We can take less than a quarter of our defense budget and apply it to a nationwide broadband implementation.
Peace. | |
| | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Re: To Solve This issue said by MuniBroad12 :To solve this issue, America needs a non-profit nationwide municipal broadband implementation.
Unfortunately you may be right at least at the wholesale "last mile" dumb-pipe level. If the electric grid had been treated the way the internet is in this country over 10% of homes still wouldn't have affordable access to the power grid. The more anti-competitiveness we see from the monopolists and duopolists such as usage caps the more it screams for public intervention. | |
| | |  ieolusSupport The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | Re: To Solve This issue What is unfortunate about it? | |
| | | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Re: To Solve This issue said by ieolus:What is unfortunate about it?
That our country doesn't have the political will the way it did with the Interstate Highway System to get fiber to the premises to over 90% of U. S. homes. It would cost much less (inflation adjusted dollars) than the Interstate Highway System did. | |
| | | | | ieolusSupport The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | Re: To Solve This issue I agree. I just don't see it as unfortunate that it should be the government that leads the way in creating an "Information Superhighway System". In fact I see it as the only entity that can do it.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp | |
|
| | | Sure more government is all we need....NOT!! I say move it to usage based just like your water and power. There is a greatly increased cost for the water dept if everyone got flat rate and let the hoses run in the year and gutter all the time. Same is true for data, the network are not designed to run full load 24x7. Why should a lite user pay the same as a heavy user. We are not socialist yet and I hop e we never will be! | |
|
 King PDon't blame me. I voted for Ron PaulPremium
join:2004-11-17
Franklin, TN
·Comcast
 ·Vonage
| Wish someone would do that with Cellular... With Sprint and T-Mobile being the last ones to offer "unlimited*" and even some MVNO's throwing around "unlimited*" (each with a different meaning)...someone needs to investigate them too.
For example, Red Pocket Mobile claims "unlimited" on their 60/mo plan, yet you only get 2GB of data. After that, you are cut off completely until the next month. How is that unlimited? At least throttle, so the bits can still trickle in, then your claim has a shred of validity.
--
My Music blog:
»www.zunetracks.net | |
| | | | Re: Wish someone would do that with Cellular... For as bad as things can be with big cable and telcos, there's no industry more scummy and full of dubious claims like wireless is.
Unlimited (adjective)
1.
not limited; unrestricted; unconfined: unlimited trade.
2.
boundless; infinite; vast: the unlimited skies.
3.
without any qualification or exception; unconditional.
And this doesn't even touch the usage of 4G. | |
| | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Re: Wish someone would do that with Cellular... said by osravens:For as bad as things can be with big cable and telcos, there's no industry more scummy and full of dubious claims like wireless is.
That may be true but considering that one optical fiber strand has as much bandwidth as all the radio frequencies suitable for mobile cellular combined mobile broadband is a very different animal than fixed broadband. Of course the fact the U. S. is not doing a good job building out "last mile" fiber has negative consequences for wireless too. | |
|
 IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1 | About time... This charade has gone on long enough... About time the DOJ looked into this.
I've said for a long time on DSLR that Comcast's caps were never about preventing congestion... That's what a real time congestion management system is for. | |
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Caps do not prevent congestion at least not initially so sure people who are maxing out their connects EVENTUALLY will hit their caps. But what about until then? You're going to have congestion until these people hit their caps. How long will that take? a week,10 days, 2 weeks? So half the month I have to deal with congestion until these people hit the ISP's supposedly congestion saving caps? Kind of dumb way to control congestion. Which tells me that's not what caps are for or Comcast management is extremely stupid for thinking it actually does.
Also a person using 2 TB of bandwidth a month but only doing it between 12 AM and 6 AM causes LESS congestion on the network than someone using 250 GB but doing it between 7PM and 9 PM. So it's not just how much someone uses but WHEN someone is using it. So if a cap was necessary they'd be much better off having a 250 GB cap apply between 6 PM and 12 AM and have the rest of the day cap free. And 90% of the complaints about caps would disappear. | |
|  IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA | Finally Hopefully the same agency that broke up the Bell System/AT&T monopoly will succeed in breaking up the cable broadband monopoly. | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | devil's advocate here If Comcast exempts it's own usage from the cap doesn't that leave MORE cap space for Netflix and others? It seems if you force Comcast to count it's own usage against the cap you could get a situation where one has to choose between Comcast content and Netflix and I'm pretty sure Netflix will be on the losing side of that.
of course I know that Netflix and all the rest have this fantasy that this pressure will actually force Comcast and the others to drop the caps but that's a pipe dream. Their best beet is to allow Comcast and others to exempt their own stuff but get them to agree to much higher caps. And not this 300 GB crap they just announced which is mere 20% increase that took 4 years. Say 500 GB cap with minimum 10% increase per year for 10 years. | |
| | | DOJ Can NOT regulate the caps. The Internet is NOT a regulated product. Sorry, just Obama trying to figure another way to earn some last minute votes, other things must have not raised his popularity. | |
| | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: DOJ said by 25139889:Can NOT regulate the caps. The Internet is NOT a regulated product. Sorry, just Obama trying to figure another way to earn some last minute votes, other things must have not raised his popularity.
Yeah that's what Obama is doing. Obama has nothing to do with this. Quit saying something when it not anything. You tinfoil hat people make me want to puke.
The DOJ CAN look into this because Comcast AGREED to certain conditions when they bought NBC. If they are not abiding by conditions they AGREED to LEGALLY then the government has every right to look into that. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Sorry, but Broadband is one of Obama's key People vote getters. He pushed a broadband stimulus of his own a few years ago (riddled with fraud mind you, and wasted tax payer dollars, similar to Solydra. You just didn't hear much about it LOL)
--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net | |
| | | |  pianotechPianotechPremium
join:2002-12-30
New Castle, PA
·Vonage
·Comcast
| Re: DOJ DOJ looks the other way when it comes to illegal immigration, medical marijuana, and voter fraud, but goes after tax-paying private enterprise for the evil act of making a profit.
Sounds about right. Hurry up, 2012.
--
New to ham radio - advice from Elmers appreciated! | |
|
|  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | congestion no protecting overpriced LEGACY VIDEO, yes. | |
|
3 edits | can they charge? I always wondered if it was even possible to legally put a data cap or charge in the United States.
Imagine or just pause before you type up a magical spell . .Weather/Safety alerts, PBS, CSpan, Whitehouse.GOV, College TV, Religious many many more. All these have tax breaks or receive government or are government tv programs. What if I went over my data pricing cap. The company then charged me for whatever i went over. . . . What if I called they back and claimed that all the data was I was accessing was one of these services. Could one argue that I could not be charged for viewing these considering the cell phone itself is on a government sponsored/supported/provided band?
Like TV itself? I paid for the antenna and the television or viewing device, yet the product/signal are there provided from tax dollars or programs. In result we get Safety, weather, and loads of other alerts.
I know I did not elaborate very well here but does someone get my point? | |
|  GrethorToday Is A Good Day To Format
join:2004-04-14
Puyallup, WA | TOO BAD I LOVE THE UNFAIR ADVANTAGE CAPS GIVES ME. oh... | |
|
| |
|
|
Just back from the 1860's!
I just returned from the 1860's in my time machine and was surprised that the Federal Government has taken action against the Railroad Robber Barrons. Apparently those scum bags were discriminating against businesses they did not like when the business owners asked them to haul their freight. They charged unaffordable rates to those business men that they did not like and cheap rates to business men they did like. In fact one Railroad prick refused to haul newsprint to a newspaper that wrote negative stories about their Railroad. Apparently Americans got enough of this B.S. and demanded relief. As a result the Interstate Commerce Commission was formed to regulate the rules and pricing for hauling of freight. So regulating monopoly pigs that set rates to discriminate against businesses or competitors that must use their services is not unprecedented. 
·