 
motoracer
join:2003-09-15
Valencia, CA | Efficiency Better start making data transfer cheaper soon! | |
|
 | JohnA
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Pittsburgh, PA | Re: Efficiency Seems that Henry forgot to mention that TV consumers only use bandwidth from the CO to the sub. They only pay to bring it in the CO once. | |
|
Chris 313
Come get some
Premium
join:2004-07-18
Houma, LA
clubs: | Good-Bye Caps! With the introduction of IPTV, caps will be toast! | |
|
| 
Yeah I need to regis
@rr.com
 from:
dadkins 
| Re: Good-Bye Caps! Dear Customer, You have exceeded your bandwidth cap for this month by watching too many "Desperate Housewives" episodes. We have cancelled your service. Good day. | |
|
| | |
| | | 
loadmaster
join:2001-01-10
San Jose, CA | Re: Good-Bye Caps! Lucky for me I ditched Desperate Housewives.:D | |
|
| | | | |
| jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
 ·Dreamhost
 ·Armstrong Zoom In..
| said by Chris 313 :With the introduction of IPTV, caps will be toast! I doubt it. They will allow unlimited throughput through their own networks for IPTV (which probably wont cost them anything), but will probably still cap connections to the internet.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
| | 
Blasterbator
Sent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Jackson, MS | Re: Good-Bye Caps!
unlimited throughput
--
"If PCs are hard, then Macs are flaccid" -bb | |
|
| GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA | Dear Consumer, realizing that data transmission in the form of Internet surfing is unicast and IPTV is [mostly] multicast should provide reason why this capping of your account will continue, but not for your Desperate Housewifing. | |
|
|
| 
GlenQuagmire
Giggidy Giggidy Giggidy Goo
Premium
join:2004-02-16
Grand Rapids, MI | Re: Makes plain old cable TV a bargain compared to IPTV They way it stands now POTS networks are just not designed for video. Unless they plan on upgrading their network so that they have fiber to the home they just can't do it. | |
|
| | 
NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28
Arlington, VA
1 edit | Re: Makes plain old cable TV a bargain compared to IPTV Now it all makes sense. This is why the TelCos are pushing for two tier service.
But don't be too pround of the CableCos, because as soon as all these new options start rolling through their pipes they'll start loosing money and incorperate the same types of tiers the TelCos are currently talking about. | |
|
| | Poomfasa
join:2003-04-13
Rocklin, CA
| Yes, POTS was not designed for video, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. In the Sacramento, CA region Surewest pushes Non-HD streams using MPEG2 (3.5mbps) over ADSL2 to quite a few people - 2 STBs per DSL line. Until MPEG4 is used HD is only feasible on FTTH though which I wish I had instead. There's another telco back east using the same setup with ADSL2. AT&T will be doing essentially the same when they roll out their IPTV - last mile will be copper. Will it work - yes; will it be optimal - no.
/Watching IPTV using ADSL2
»www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c···business | |
|
| | | 
bmupton
join:2001-08-19
Saskatoon, SK
| Re: Makes plain old cable TV a bargain compared to IPTV My ISP (Sasktel, in Saskatchewan Canada) runs IPTV over it's ADSL network. I don't believe the network is ADSL2, but I can't be certain.
Two set top boxes running standard definition TV in MPEG2, plus an average of 1.5Mbps download for regular net access.
And for the total bill: Around 65 a month.
--
Brent,One of the good guys, or something | |
|
justbits
More fiber than ATT can handle
Premium
join:2003-01-08
Chicago, IL
 ·AT&T Midwest
·AT&T Yahoo
1 edit | The cost... One thing to consider is that if the Video over IP is provided by your Internet provider, such as BellSouth, BellSouth is likely not paying any bandwidth costs for data that originates and stays completely within their own network. Now, if you start downloading all your Video over IP from a non-BellSouth provided Video over IP service, the enduser is going to be causing BellSouth to pay higher bandwidth fees due to their Internet peering agreements.
--justbits | |
|
| 
phathead296
Got Slack?
join:2001-11-09
Charleston, SC
| Re: The cost... You said it first, and I 100% agree. The article is comparing data costs for data over the Internet to data costs within their network.
It's like me saying my DSL costs my $5 per gigabyte (~ 10GB/month, $50 DSL), and since I transfer 100GB of data on my home LAN each month, that costs me $500. Flawed comparison. My LAN architecture is in place and all I pay to transfer data is the electricity to power the switches.
All BS (AT&T) has to do is lay a fat pipe to my house and start offering IPTV. Once they have the shows on their network and the infrastructure is in place, it doesn't cost them any more to distribute it to me and hundreds of other IPTV users.
Now, if we were all downloading IPTV over the Internet, it would be a different story.
--
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. --Albert Einstien | |
|
| | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: The cost... said by phathead296 :All BS (AT&T) has to do is lay a fat pipe to my house and start offering IPTV. Once they have the shows on their network and the infrastructure is in place, it doesn't cost them any more to distribute it to me and hundreds of other IPTV users. Note: You have to distinguish IPTV of shows AS they are being aired over the air/cable [where everyone is seeing the same thing at the same time] and VOD (Video on Demand) [where each user has their own private transmission]. With the former, you can go with Multi-Cast where there is only ONE TCP/IP session going over the network and the user's modem is listening to it (so the bandwidth usage is the same as only one user). With VOD, each user has their own private session so the load is much more.
Basically with Multi-Cast, the transmission is made once to each leg of the network (so long as at least one user on the leg is asking to see the transmission). With a Non-Multi-Cast setup (VOD or not), each user has their own session eating up bandwidth EVEN THOUGH, each session has the same content. | |
|
| | |
phathead296
Got Slack?
join:2001-11-09
Charleston, SC
| Re: The cost... Yes, you do have to make that distinction, but all that traffic is still within the BS network. The $1 for 2 GB seems to be BS cost for Internet traffic, not traffic on their network. Once the infrastructure is in place, there is virtually no ongoing cost of supplying the data to homes--multicast or non-multicast.
That, of course, assumes you put in enough capacity to begin with, which is a huge initial investment.
--
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. --Albert Einstien | |
|
| | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Maybe I missed something or I am just stupid to all this IPTV stuff, but who said any of IPTV was going through the internet anyway?
It is my understanding that the phone companies will get their TV the same way cable does and the only difference is that it will be delivered through an IP transport to the set top box. Am I wrong on this? | |
|
| fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Well, there is a cost - at first - as they have to invest in the equipment, however, that cost, with consumer signups, quickly becomes nothing. But you are correct. They aren't purchasing anything from other providers to transfer proprietairy services over their own network. | |
|
| bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
 ·Packet8
| Exectly... These numbers are highly suspect becuase the 1 Terabyte number seems to be based on the same cost per gigabyte as regular internet traffic. The costs, however, of bandwidth across a privately owned network are much lower since you essentially are only paying equipment and maintenance costs on the circuits, not transport costs.
I'm guessing the costs to Bellsouth to provide HD content for their end users would be half of what they are quoting here, if even that much.
--
New Rule: People who defend economic systems, like capitalism & communism, from ANY criticism, need a life. | |
|
qdemn7
Smurf in My Loop
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX | A Terabyte a Month? My god!  How in holy hell are the providers going to be able provide that much for all those customers? It just doesn't seem possible. | |
|
| 
Bill
Light Up The Halo
Premium,VIP
join:2001-12-09
clubs:
1 edit | Re: A Terabyte a Month? Price increases would be a logical way. Consumers wouldn't like it though. | |
|
| | Freezone
join:2000-09-29
Southfield, MI | Re: A Terabyte a Month? I still remember 300 buad modems. There will come a time when even this amount of bandwidth will seem like nothing. | |
|
| |
Toadman
How do you like these Apples
join:2001-11-28
Medina, OH
| All comes out in the wash Right now it shows that average joe is overpaying and megauser is making out. Corporate auditors - Good, keep charging average Joe $29.99 Set cap or better yet, charge $ for over 2 GB for megauser. Bottom line is Bellsouth is making a boat load of money. I now feel even less sympathetic that those saps will be loosing their job when ATT / SBC buys them out. | |
|
| 
fiddelm3742
I Hope You Learned Your Lesson
join:2003-02-19
Waterloo, IA
clubs:
·Qwest.net
| Re: All comes out in the wash Couldn't agree more. I avg 5+ gig per month costing them approximately $4.50 I pay them (big cable co's) approximately 35 dollars. I've had internet from them for about 2 years so they have made at least $732 dollars on me. I say too bad for them!
--
Fiddelke.org | |
|
| 
blackjeep
join:2001-07-12
Atlanta, GA | You know what, Toadman, as a BellSouth employee myself, I say F*** you! First of all, noone is asking for your sympathy, second of all, "those poor saps" as you call us, sure as hell aren't the ones who are netting a boatload of money as you say. | |
|
| EngineerDave
join:2001-08-27
Hattiesburg, MS | "I now feel even less sympathetic that those saps will be loosing their job when ATT / SBC buys them out."
That has got to be one of the most classless remarks I have ever heard.
By the way, it's "losing" not "loosing." | |
|
microserf
@cgocable.net
| 2+2=5 Average user (bits come from global destinations)
2GB @ $1 = $0.50/GB
Projected average user (bits come from global destinations)
9GB @ $4.50 = $0.50/GB
IPTV user (bits come from BellSouth, stay on BellSouth network)
224GB @ $112 = $0.50/GB
HD-IPTV (bits come from BellSouth, stay on BellSouth network)
1024GB @ $512 = $0.50/GB
All Kafka has proved to me is that BellSouth makes more money per customer than I thought. That, and he's a shill.
said by Henry Kafka :
Among the potential solutions to this dilemma, he conjectured, are new approaches to content caching, new network management controls and new business models for Internet services themselves. But the most important to Kafka would be any solution that dramatically reduces carriers’ cost per byte—or what he called “massive amounts of cheaper bandwidth.” Translation: we need to bleed more money from our current customers so we can bankroll infrastructure upgrades we've neglected for a decade. We'll keep coming up with stories until we find one you like.
Thank you. Come again. | |
|
kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL
clubs:
| I question those costs....... I had heard a while ago (around 2001) that my former cable provider Time Warner paid something on the order of 5~10 cents a gig, which included routing. Hasn't bandwidth prices dropped since then?
Does anybody actually know where to find wholesale bandwidth costs that these big ISP's buy from? | |
|
| 
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| Re: I question those costs....... said by kaila :Does anybody actually know where to find wholesale bandwidth costs that these big ISP's buy from? That's a tough one because the ISPs that actually have a "real" network are shedding a ton of traffic to peering connections. The peering contracts can get pretty complicated, but you can probably assume that they split the costs on the circuits that connect them. A good peering strategy will reduce costs dramatically, as all you pay for is the bandwidth that goes through your transit links that you have no route to via the peers...
Don't tell Whitacre about that though.
--
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity | |
|
| 
Ark
join:2002-06-08
Hudsonville, MI | I pay about 15 cents per GB/month of transfer with my current hosting provider. I know they have better deals as low as 5 cents per GB/month if you use the volume (near 40TB/month total). They still profit from that too, I'm sure. | |
|
Woof Woof
I Miss Brother Iz
join:2004-09-01
Keller, TX
| What the 'ell? The costs per month they are quoting are for backbone traffic, correct?
So what in heck does IPTV traffic have to do with backbone traffic? IPTV would be local traffic between the CO and the user, and would not be backbone traffic that costs $.
Yes, downloading movies will increase backbone traffic, but that has nothing to do with the outrageous calculations of $560/month, or even $112/month that they are quoting by including IPTV.
Sounds like another ISP "cry wolf" scenario similar to the Google fiasco. | |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
1 edit | It would matter if... ...residential connections were even fast enough to stream hi-def. With the exception of FIOS none are reliably able to do it. My 8Mb CC connection was lucky to sustain 6Mb which would barely do well compressed Hi-def and during the evenings throughput would drop to the 2-3Mb range, and I see the same with most cable operators (according to DSLR speed tests anyway) attempting to match the speed of FTTH.
So the discussion of the costs of passing 1TB of data is irrelevant when their current services can't even deliver that much throughput.
--
WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, except ending slavery, facism, communism, Nazism.... | |
|
| EngineerDave
join:2001-08-27
Hattiesburg, MS | Re: It would matter if... In BellSouth territory, it will be two 12Mbps pipes bonded together to make 24Mbps with a limit of about 5.5Kft of copper. | |
|
Eek2121
join:2002-10-12
Andover, NJ | This data is incorrect. I disagree with this data. I am CEO of a small web hosting company and can get bandwidth much cheaper then this. If i can get bandwidth cheaper then this, i know telcos can. | |
|
| Freezone
join:2000-09-29
Southfield, MI | Re: This data is incorrect. I bet it is even cheaper now that they will be going through att network for free instead of paying qwest. | |
|
| Necronomikro
join:2005-09-01
1 edit | I know! I'm paying $60/month for a server, with 1.2TB/month of transfer included. That's a fraction of what they say that they'd pay for one user using up that much... and that includes my server and everything! | |
|
| |
| | Necronomikro
join:2005-09-01 | Re: This data is incorrect. They pay for all traffic coming in and out of their network from other isps. That's a given. What I want to know is what idiot negotiated their contract, because they're getting ripped off, royally (If they're telling the truth.) | |
|
nightwalker
Nightwalker
join:1999-08-07
Appleton, WI
2 edits | flawed comparision It appears they are including their total costs, and not just bandwidth.
For example, using $50/mbit as the average cost of bandwidth.
1,024 kbit / 8 x 86400 (secs per day) x 30.5 (days in a month) / 1,048,576 = 321 gigs / month.
$50.00 mbit / 321 gigs = 16 cents per gig for 'bandwidth' only.
--
»www.reverse.net | |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Pittsburgh, PA | Creative Accounting Telcos have always been good at Creative Accounting, it's in their DNA. | |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA | 2 GB/month? I do 2GB/month in pr0n alone! LMAO!
Please! | |
|
| moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: 2 GB/month? said by dadkins :I do 2GB/month in pr0n alone! LMAO! Please! You must be a lite user.  :D:D | |
|
| |
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA | Re: 2 GB/month? Eh, it all gets repetative after a while... LOL! | |
|
| | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD | Re: 2 GB/month? You need more variety. :D:D
YOU SICK LITTLE MONKEY!!!!!!!!!!!! | |
|
| hurfy
Premium
join:2002-08-06
Spokane, WA
| hehe, we can assume the average user will NOT be d/l the demo/pre-order for AutoAssault then. I think that burned like 4G then connected and did another 750M patch the next day :O
No i havent actually played it, but it gave my computer something to do over the weekend :/ | |
|
|
| |
| grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY | How is 3TB in one week possible who is your ISP because it sure isn't FIOS. | |
|
_spike_
@nl.ali | Bull Oh come on, $80 a month can get me a whole dedicated server with 1000gb of bandwidth on a 100mbit pipe. These are connected really close to the backbone so its a load of crap that bandwidth costs as much as quoted in this mess of an article. | |
|
mmoon
join:2005-12-03
Marietta, GA
| Take a look at the companies involved Take a good look at the different divisions(corporations) that actually make up BellSouth. Each is a different corporation and must charge for their service. That was implemented to "deregulate" or separate the "Unprofitable" local voice service from the moneymakers. The costs are indeed overinflated by too many corporate overheads(too many companies). That fact is why the whinings continue as each company must still "pay their own bills"(make a profit) driving up the complexity and costs. Too many hands in the pie so to speak. | |
|
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
| AT&T Buying Bellsouth Stupidity So it seems that AT&T is inheriting some stupidity as well as ignorance.
I sure hope senior management there are part of that 10,000 being laid off.
--
FIOS chat »www.fioschat.com MacChatter »www.macchatter.com | |
|
TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Wesley Chapel, FL
|  Sound Bites
--
Do you own/manage a barn with lesson horses? Go here! »www.otsysinc.com/EquiSense.htm | |
|
jcony
join:2004-05-24
Addison, IL
| external traffic Anyone ever think the cost might be for EXTERNAL traffic from their network? All this IPTV is going to be on their lines with their bandwidth and once they have the bandwidth, it will cost them nothing for that internal traffic. That 224GB/month of IPTV traffic will probably cost them less than the 2GB/month of normal web browsing/downloading taffic. | |
|
| 
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL | $1 for 2 Gigs? My web hoster only charges me $19.95 for 2 tb transfer a month, which is $.01 a gig. Creative Accounting sunk Enron too.
I use about 100-150 gigs a month. Average user is probably around 20-30 gigs. | |
|
|
|
|
Average User: 2 GB/month, Costing BellSouth $1
Re: Good-Bye Caps!
Makes plain old cable TV a bargain compared to IPTV
·
·
1 TB a month? Heh! I consume 1Tb in 3 days!
)
:p:p:p