Approaching The Zettabyte Era Cisco report measures looming bandwidth explosion... Cisco yesterday came out with a new report that claims global IP traffic will increase around 46 percent annually between 2007 to 2012, nearly doubling every two years. The result will be an annual bandwidth demand on the world's IP networks of approximately 522 exabytes (1 billion gigabytes), or more than half a zettabyte (1 trillion gigabytes). In 2012, Cisco predicts, Internet video traffic alone will be 400 times the traffic carried by the entire U.S. Internet backbone in 2000.
|
 | | Great, More Ammo For The Cap Arguments Well reports like this will be sucked up and fed to us by the cro...er, large ISPs as "proof" that they must implement bandwidth caps and throttling et al. | |
|  |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Great, More Ammo For The Cap Arguments its also a nice way to pump their stock.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | | | It is a rate of GLOBAL use. While they may try to use it, many other countries already have 100Mb connections and can consume more bandwidth than many of us here in the States can ever dream of. | |
| |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | said by pabster:Well reports like this will be sucked up and fed to us by the cro...er, large ISPs as "proof" that they must implement bandwidth caps and throttling et al. Either costs go up or caps come on. Your pick.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | |
1 edit | Re: Great, More Ammo For The Cap Arguments My thoughts on this whole issue are basically a response to an article I read in PC magazine: »discuss.pcmag.com/forums/1004401···ost.aspx
The big telecoms such as AT&T, Verizon, and now even Comcast and TWC want to distinguish between types of packets. The PR cover story is that they merely wish to distinguish high priority packets (such as video or phone) from low priority (email - if it arrives a second later we customers really don't care). However, they told their shareholders that they want to distinguish between, for example, Google's packets and Yahoo's packets, and charge them different rates. The legal power to charge different rates is the legal power to destroy or help a business, and that is the heart of the net neutrality issue.
It is the difference in rates that is the problem, not really the rates themselves. Don’t get me wrong, none of us want to pay higher rates. But the real problems start when a company is charged higher rates just to put them at a disadvantage or out of business.
Example: Netflix has streaming movies now, and if you have a Netflix account there is no additional charge per month, just a $99 converter box to plug in between your Ethernet and your TV. Comcast has streaming movies too, at $4 per movie. If you watch more than four movies per month, which would you rather have, the Comcast account or the $17 per month Netflix account?
Now consider what happens if Comcast tells Netflix “we won’t carry your movies unless you pay us the equivalent of $20 per user per month.” Comcast, Verizon and AT&T have proposed to Congress to be allowed to do exactly that, and this is why net neutrality legislation is so important.
Or imagine a scenario where Google wants to promote YouTube, so it approaches AT&T and proposes a grand scheme: AT&T will charge Yahoo $1 for every video that Yahoo downloads. Google will pay AT&T for any lost Yahoo revenue over what AT&T currently gets from Yahoo plus a premium. Yahoo’s video business will disappear, Google wins. And once Yahoo loses, Google can simply raise its prices to more than cover any additional outlay. Or perhaps it would be the other way around, and Yahoo schemes with AT&T to win.
The result is that the incumbent telecoms become kingmakers. They will decide which businesses succeed. Big players like Google, Amazon and MSFT will play Machiavelli games in backroom deals. Little companies don’t have a chance.
This isn’t a result of my fertile imagination. These very scenarios have played out before: Imagine the year is 1900. I run a steel company, and you run a railroad. I sell steel for, say $50 per ton and you carry it on your railroad to various places for a metered rate of $3 per ton. I have two major competitors. I come to you and tell you that I will give you $10 per ton if you agree not to carry steel for the other two. You know that number will give you far more profit for far less effort, so you say yes. You're happy. My two competitors cannot move steel from Pittsburg to Kansas any other way (what, by horse and wagon?) so they go out of business, or a least their business is limited to local purchasers or those on water routes.
What happens next is that I raise my price of steel from $50 per ton to $75 per ton. What choice do the consumers have? I make huge profits. I'm happy. You make huge profits. You’re happy. The consumers and my competitors aren't happy, but who gives a flying f*** about them?
This is the history of the railroad business in the late 1800s. This scenario played out again in the 1920s in trucking. Congress stepped at both times and mandated that any shipping company must charge the same amount for all customers, based only on size of goods or weight. These laws are still with us today.
Shipping internet packets isn't conceptually different from shipping freight. Rather than size and weight we now have megabytes and bandwidth speed. The U.S. has had 100 years of history and success with "net neutrality" so far. The major telecommunications carriers want to go back to the days of the robber barons, where they can make or break companies with backroom deals.
I am amazed that there even is a debate in Congress about this. The only people who don't want net neutrality are telecom execs, their employees and shareholders. For the other 299 million of us the issue is a no-brainer.
So, metering itself won’t make the net neutrality issues go away. The net neutrality debate is about whether everyone gets to pay the same rates. | |
| | | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Great, More Ammo For The Cap Arguments That post needs like 10,000 Thumbs up. | |
| | | | |  knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | Re: Great, More Ammo For The Cap Arguments said by KrK:That post needs like 10,000 Thumbs up. I gave him a thumbs up, that needs to be painted on the back of my vehicle. I always loved history in school and that's why the common phrase "those that don't know history, always repeat the same mistakes" applies to people that don't bother to learn it.
--
Fight NebuAD and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data | |
| | | | | |  james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | Re: Great, More Ammo For The Cap Arguments said by knightmb:I always loved history in school and that's why the common phrase " those that don't know history, always repeat the same mistakes" applies to people that don't bother to learn it. I believe the quote should read: "those who fail to learn history (or are ignorant of history) are doomed to repeat it".
Honestly I feel we're doomed to repeat history regardless of our knowledge simply because it is human nature to seek power over others and to control the general population. But you can always delay the inevitable for a generation or two before people get soft and think to themselves "oh, that couldnt happen nowadays, not to us." then... Dictatorship again. | |
|
| | | | | | Say "NO" to caps and "YES" to more speed and innovation I Agree with KRK, a very well done comment jjeffeory!
We are all at a pivotal moment in internet history, there are new technologies and products just starting to mainstream like VOD, offline backups, social networking apps, legal torrents, distributed computing and research. The net today is so much more than the net of yesterday, it is an informational hub, it is a service hub, it is many things yet to be imagined.
I am personally against caps and packet discrimination, but at the same time I understand and respect the residential TOS and managing network performance. There must be a better way. If I had a choice between caps and a price increase of say extra $5.00 per month to avoid caps, I would gladly pay extra $5.00 to avoid caps. | |
|
| | |  Rogue WolfAte Your Homework, And Framed The Dog
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY | Excellent summation using real-world historical examples to prove the point. This should be required reading for everyone piping up about the net-neutrality issue! | |
| | | |  NerdtalkerWorking Hard, Or Hardly Working?Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ | Wow, amazing analogy, I'm surprised I haven't heard that before. Some legislators in Washington could benefit from reading that, as it's exactly what everyone is saying. | |
| | | |  NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | There are a few of us telecom employees who can see beyond balance sheets.
Net Neutrality lost, they've applied the prices to the customers and already there's no choice between providers who do or do not meter. Unless you're lucky enough to have FIOS and I expect they will come along after they get a few more customers.
Were the group that congress listens to last so I doubt anything will be done about it anytime soon. By then the American IT sector will probably be raped and pillaged and there will be little congress can do that will change the face of things for a decade or more. When it all plays out, America will not be producing Googles. India and China will be doing this.
Get to working on your mandarin. | |
| | | | | | said by jjeffeory:So, metering itself won't make the net neutrality issues go away. The net neutrality debate is about whether everyone gets to pay the same rates. Nice post.
The other problems this will have is "metered" news and other content. Sen. Larry Craig would never have been found out so widely had the gay guy he had sex with before posted the info online. News will become what they want you to know rather than what you need to know. Ask Barack Obama how voting for Credit Card companies the new ability to screw anyone at any time. 30% rates. He voted for them.
I wonder if these ISPs Union Employees are for metered pricing? Hard to find out the truth about your company's anti-union behavior (yes, I busted a union or two in my time--it's not hard---"Like all those perks? Well, if you unionize, they go away." Union was voted down 199-1. I guessed they liked onsite babysitting, negotiating your own raise, and getting stock options more than they liked the Union.) if you can't do research.
If consumers don't want this crap, get off your a@@ and write your Senator and Reps. Don't call or send emails. WRITE A LETTER! If you can't write a letter, you deserve metered bandwidth and all those restrictions.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
|
| |  pspcrazyAnime Freak
join:2008-02-06
San Diego, CA | Or they can take the money the've been taking from us each year for the last 10 years and actually build some real infrastructure. Just because user's are now actually starting to use the internet like it's been advertised to be used doesn't give them an excuse for caps. | |
| | |  DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Why are those the only two choices.
The cost of bandwidth on a unit basis is coming down which is why the data services divisions of companies like AT&T are seeing INCREASES in margins despite these increases in traffic and despite not having caps.
These providers needing to cap is a myth. | |
| | | | knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | Re: Great, More Ammo For The Cap Arguments said by Dogfather:Why are those the only two choices. The cost of bandwidth on a unit basis is coming down which is why the data services divisions of companies like AT&T are seeing INCREASES in margins despite these increases in traffic and despite not having caps. These providers needing to cap is a myth. It is true. As a small ISP, I can tell bandwidth is on the dirt cheap. I won't comment on other ISP prices, they are surely getting a better deal than ours, but basically for each customer, for every dollar we spend on bandwidth, customers pay $8. So that means Grandma who checks her e-mail and Johnny File Share who burns up his bandwidth 24/7 on BitTorrent still puts us quite ahead each month. That means we can invest more in increasing coverage area and keeping up with bandwidth needs of the customer.
--
Fight NebuAD and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data | |
|
| | | | Bring on the cost. I'll pay my share if you (and everyone else) pays theirs. I'm fine with that. | |
| | | | ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | Re: Great, More Ammo For The Cap Arguments said by pabster:Bring on the cost. I'll pay my share if you (and everyone else) pays theirs. I'm fine with that. Guess what - 95% of the people aren't fine with that. Only those on the very high end of bandwidth use want everyone's rates raised so they can download more than everyone else.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | |
1 edit | Re: Great, More Ammo For The Cap Arguments said by ThrowDemsOut:said by pabster:Bring on the cost. I'll pay my share if you (and everyone else) pays theirs. I'm fine with that. Guess what - 95% of the people aren't fine with that. Only those on the very high end of bandwidth use want everyone's rates raised so they can download more than everyone else. Not here.... I don't use a terribly high amount of bandwidth, but I don't like where this is going. History tends to repeat itself... Metered usage and caps will stifle the internet. | |
| | | | |  fireflierCoffee. . .Need CoffeePremium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo | I keep seeing this magical "95%" being thrown around like it will apply until the end of time. It won't and so far as I know it's little more than a number some TWC exec pulled out of his ass to justify their ridiculously low cap testing. As I've said before, in 5-7 years, it won't be 95% based on current traffic stats. Once more consumers get on-board with emerging broadband technologies (VOD, on-line gaming and downloads, Music/video purchases on-line, and any number of things that will show up) that 95% will be more like 80% or perhaps even lower.
Applying 95% as a number representative of any user that's not a pirate (which is simply villifying anyone who would dare use "large amounts of bandwidth" as defined by an ISP) is inaccurate and misleading. Some advanced app non-pirating users make up that 5% and represent what's coming. TWC and others are just making their moves now to pick up another revenue stream before a small minority becomes a much larger more vocal minority which will get in their way toward even more profit.
So, please stop assuming that 5% is all related to pirating or gross misuse of the network. The math for hitting TWC's 40GB highest-tier cap using DTV's VOD isn't hard to do and does not represent unreasonable network use and it certainly won't seem so for future users.
Having said all of that, I also don't believe higher prices are necessarily justified until these ISPs can demonstrate that their infrastructure is becoming saturated and justifies massive investment to fix it. They seem to be forgetting that while investors may give them the bucks to build, it's their customers who give them a reason to build in the first place.
Are other industrialized nations' telecoms having this much trouble with infrastructure? I can't answer that but I'm sure some in the forum can.
--
Wishes: When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a meteorite hurtling to the Earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much hosed no matter what you wish for. Unless it's death by meteor. --despair.com | |
| | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
1 edit | I think metered bandwidth will throttle our technological future. I'm also OK with paying for what I use--- **IF** it's what I want to use it on.
I am NOT okay with paying for content I don't want, like ads, spam, portscans, security patches, DRM, Bloatware, and the like. Metering is just a bad idea in general.
Also, the providers **absolutely should not** be able to have their cake and eat it too. Fine, if they want metered bandwidth, so be it, but it better be usage based, not "$49.95 a month PLUS $1.00 per gig over 40"... if you use 4GB a month, your bill should be .... about $1.00 for the month.
Use almost nothing? Pay almost nothing. It's only fair.
(yeah, I know it will never happen...) | |
| | | | | pspcrazyAnime Freak
join:2008-02-06
San Diego, CA
1 edit | said by ThrowDemsOut:Guess what - 95% of the people aren't fine with that. Only those on the very high end of bandwidth use want everyone's rates raised so they can download more than everyone else. Has anyone noticed from like 1 month ago there's been like 2-3 posters who have just kept saying caps are essential, without caps the internet will die, or caps are awesome? Oddly these posters have began posting like this just recently when the corporations started to think that cap's are needed. It's almost as if they've been planted to shift the way users think about caps (it's not working either). I've never heard these posters ever say anything negative about caps, nor agree with anyone on anything logical behind not capping.
Just something I noticed that I thought was odd. | |
| | | | | | ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | Re: Great, More Ammo For The Cap Arguments said by pspcrazy  Has anyone noticed from like 1 month ago there's been like 2-3 posters who have just kept saying caps are essential, without caps the internet will die, or caps are awesome? [b :Oddly these posters have began posting like this just recently [/b] Do a search on my ID and you will see I have been posting caps and bill-by-byte for over a year now.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | | | |  MysticGogetaThe Robot DevilPremium
join:2005-03-14
League City, TX | Re: Great, More Ammo For The Cap Arguments I don't fully agree with caps the idea makes sense but the problem would be the future development of infrastructure. Once there able to meet the demands the execs and CEO's are going to sit back and rake in the money and laugh in disbelief, that this plan actually went through.
What I find interesting is company's that are going through with caps or in testing (Such as TWC) It will probally weed out the bandwidth hogs and they will flock to another provider. Just think for a moment do you think the savings on their end will be passed onto you as a lower rate?  They will take our money and come up with another way of charging more , such as making you pay for access to certain websites (Youtube,Google, etc)
Don't you remember there was a few providers a while back trying to get them to pay them. What do you think they are working on now?
--
Team Discovery-Join the fight | |
|
| | | | james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | said by ThrowDemsOut:Guess what - 95% of the people aren't fine with that. Only those on the very high end of bandwidth use want everyone's rates raised so they can download more than everyone else. Guess what - 95% of the statistics in your comment were pulled out of thin air.
The cost of bandwidth is a fraction of what they try to bill the end user for overages, it's a blatant money grab on their part. If an idiot like me can see that, why can't you? | |
|
| | | | | I have no problem with paying according to usage. That's how most everything else is priced, so why not?
I expect to pay more if I'm consuming 500GB per month than if I only use 5GB. | |
| | | | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Great, More Ammo For The Cap Arguments said by pabster:I have no problem with paying according to usage. That's how most everything else is priced, so why not? I expect to pay more if I'm consuming 500GB per month than if I only use 5GB. Problem is they'll charge you $45 even if you used 0 GB in a month. | |
| | | | | | ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | Re: Great, More Ammo For The Cap Arguments said by Dogfather:said by pabster:I have no problem with paying according to usage. That's how most everything else is priced, so why not? I expect to pay more if I'm consuming 500GB per month than if I only use 5GB. Problem is they'll charge you $45 even if you used 0 GB in a month. My water company charges a minimum per month whether I use any water or not. Why should ISP's be any different?
The water company has to maintain infrastructure(the water pipes) whether I am home; on vacation; using water or not. The ISp has to maintain cables, wires, routers, switches, etc. whether the user use 1 GB or 100GB. There is a base cost - use or not.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | | | |
4 edits | Re: Great, More Ammo For The Cap Arguments said by ThrowDemsOut:said by Dogfather:said by pabster:I have no problem with paying according to usage. That's how most everything else is priced, so why not? I expect to pay more if I'm consuming 500GB per month than if I only use 5GB. Problem is they'll charge you $45 even if you used 0 GB in a month. My water company charges a minimum per month whether I use any water or not. Why should ISP's be any different? While it is true that the water company has to maintain infrastructure or "the water pipes" whether one is home or on vacation, using water or not, & an ISP has to maintain cables, wires, routers, switches, etcetera whether the user uses 1 GB or 1000GB, that's where the similarities materially end.
Paying for "internet access" is NOT like paying for "water or electricity". Water and electricity are finite resources, not "access to" other services. We pay for the water and electricity BECAUSE they are finite resources, we also pay an added fee for the infrastructure as part of that bill. With ISPs we are simply paying for the infrastructure or "access to" other services. In this way the internet is not like other "utilities". Of course the ISPs would LIKE to FORCE you to pay for extra "services" from them, but that's not really cool from an ethical standpoint the way things are setup... The internet is also interactive and affected by outside forces beyond the user's control, or at least the control of the average user. They simply don't have the time or expertise to bother dealing with the many "services" that eat away at their bandwidth usage.
Carrying the water analogy further, I pay the ISP for the pipe or access to other services. The ISP shouldn't care if water, tea or beer is coming down that pipe nor where I get it from, who I pay for it, etcetera. Their job is simply to keep the pipe in working order so that it can carry the amount of liquid that we mutually agreed that they would support.
But the ISPs are ticked because the sellers of the water are making more money. They want into the game, and want to get money from both sides... Really they just need to get over it and be the pipe. They are the truck that delivers the furniture, not the furniture sellers.
And as was pointed out earlier in this thread-- we are already metered/capped. I subscribe to a particular speed. Speed * Time = Max bits I can download. Ignore for the moment that we never achieved the max speed that the ISP states that they provide even after overhead is taken into account and the consumer should be upset at the agreement before any talk of metering begins!
Metering, no matter how logical the original reason, will only lead to abuse by the service providers. The consumer is ALREADY being taken for a ride based on agreed speeds that they're not getting... I guarantee that metering will not solve any ISP problems and will happen to start an endless stream of rate hikes until the most basic user will be paying what we all pay right now.
The net grew because of UNLIMITED plans. Speeds increased, the web became more interesting, and delivered better and more varied content. Metering will undo ALL of this because people will STOP using all of these NEW interesting pieces of content.
ISPs shouldn't be using our phone and cable bills as models for Internet billing; other services should be using ISP all-you-can-eat billing as a model for their billing. In fact, cell phones are starting to do this. Check out all the unlimited plans, and the family plans, and the unlimited in network plans.... All-you-can-eat works.
Granted, it doesn't work for all areas of utility service; electricity absolutely should be metered, since every watt consumed has to be generated, and therefore requires outlay on the part of the power company. The Internet doesn't work that way. It costs a whole lot less to administer my account, for one thing; for another, the ISP's costs don't change at all whether I download one byte or 30 GB per month. (Now, if the entire subscriber base pushes bandwidth to the max, it can cause support and reliability issues, and resolving those issue does cost some money--but not nearly enough to nickel and dime us over.)
The only real costs ISPs incur seem to be:
1) Initial infrastructure and upgrades. Unfortunately, I hear conflicting reports over whether we're at our limit or whether there's a glut of unused bandwidth. Consensus seems to be that we desperately need to complete buildouts to rural areas, but the telcos are taking their damn sweet time about it despite collecting $2.95 per person per month for a Universal Service Fee that's supposed to have accomplish just that. Where di that money go? **ahem**
2) Maintenance and administration. This is a legitimate expense, but the cost is not directly proportional to bandwidth use, especially at lower usage levels. Administration never, ever changes, no matter how much or how little bandwidth I use. In fact, if bandwidth were metered, it seems like all someone would have to do to wreck the billing system is start up a whole bunch of unused accounts...but I think that would be illegal and wrong, so don't ever do it.
3) Marketing. Not our problem.
4) Lobbying. Sooooo not our problem.
5) Shareholders. The less-nearsighted of these will eventually realize that if you make a service suck hard enough that nobody wants to use it, the dividend checks will stop flowing.
6) CEOs. Screw the CEOs. Any *** can golf and network his way to an MBA and wear $2000 Brooks Brothers suits. Look at the schmucks who are doing it now.
Metered access will kill things like the very rich text editor used for these comments. Metered access will not improve our quality, speed, or reliability. Japan and Korea charge less per byte and still deliver better bandwidth.
I don't begrudge anyone the right to earn a living. The key word is earn. What has your ISP done for you (or to you) lately?
All-you-can-eat buffets seem to be staying in business despite the occasional gluttonous family. Prices are simply adjusted accordingly. If someone shows up and just has a piece of toast, maybe they're not getting what they pay for, but there's no reason to think that someday they might start eating more. Plus, someone can always open a shop that just sells toast at a reasonable price. Dial-up internet is still an option. However, our oligopoly seems to have an unfair advantage at this point for more competition to popup.
Creating a metered internet is going to destroy a lot of businesses, and shut down a lot of modestly-capitalized companies that made the internet what is! | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Great, More Ammo For The Cap Arguments The biggest problem I have is that the MSO's are constantly painted to be the bad guys. They carry the load that delivers all the traffic and the only thing they can do to improve their infrastructure and business is bill the customers. This ofcourse makes them the bad-guys and the 'content' people the poor guys getting the shaft.
You drive past a construction site and see the dumpster and think I have a couch that I need to get rid of. You ignore the sign that says "no public dumping" and you throw it in the dumpster and move on with your life. Someone else paid for that dumpster and now they have to pay more to empty it because of what you did. The ISP backbones are in the same category (and I don't mean in the trash 
I'll take the example of *some* of these Internet Video stb's in circulation. Several of them use p2p or a variation to distribute their content. These companies exist on a model that says they don't have to pay for bandwidth to deliver their service. Or atleast not nearly as much bandwidth as would be required if they sourced the content 100% themselves. So why can't these large content providers share their profits with the MSO's and help with investing in the infrastructure to provide better services.
Earlier threads reference the satellite VOD systems that use the internet for the content. Great the satellite company gets paid. But when the MSO needs to upgrade the Satellite company doesn't exactly come forward and say "Don't raise the rates.. here is a $10million to invest in your infrastructure".
So the MSO's are faced with three choices Much larger rate increases, traffic management, and nothing.
What's the right answer I have no idea.. I know the existing model is broken.. I think that billing the customers for usage isn't the answer. I think billing the content source is more appropriate than the "customer". Let these internet business truly factor in bandwidth costs in their business model. | |
| | | | | | | | | Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Re: Great, More Ammo For The Cap Arguments As a customer I expect my rates to climb , and I f I am paying for hi speed net connections , then I am putting into their funds to increase the strength of the network.
Why should the satellite company ? I pay the Cable co anyway.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Do what??? You act like the MSO's aren't already billing the customers. They are already bringing in very "healthy" profits, why can't they use those profits to upgrade their infrastructure? Make the service better so that people are willing to pay a little more for it raise rates slightly for the more advanced services that have been added, rince and repeat!
Oh wait, that's because MSO's want people to pay them for NOTHING! They are already price gouging, and now they want even more money for not doing or adding ANYTHING?????
Seems to me that these companies want to change their business structure to be more like a casino, give us your money and hope you get something in return, if not for "F* yourself"...... | |
|
| | | | | | james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | said by ThrowDemsOut:The water company has to maintain infrastructure(the water pipes) whether I am home; on vacation; using water or not. The ISp has to maintain cables, wires, routers, switches, etc. whether the user use 1 GB or 100GB. There is a base cost - use or not. Yes, so supposing that the $45 a month base cost covered all the infrastructure and bandwidth up to 20 gigs and reasonable profit, the bandwidth above 20 gigs should be sold to the end user at cost, not at a price many times higher. Blatant cash grab. | |
| | | | | | | | | Here we go again.
Equating a service with an actual product.
If I understand you correctly. My partner has a 7 line telephone system as do I. I use all 7 lines 24/7. My partner is rarely on the phone. Yet we pay an identical bill.
Why is that? | |
| | | | | | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
4 edits | Because ISP infrastructure doesn't decay when idle and the water company doesn't charge me for a lot of water unless I actually use it.
Meanwhile my water "hookup" fee is less than $10 and the water company isn't capping water usage to protect their electricity revenues. Additionally, technology for water delivery isn't scalable and can't be improved and is greatly affected by terrain and distance. ISP efficiency improves with time. Water delivery does not. Fluid mechanics is fluid mechanics and pumps are pumps. The water pump guys don't roll out pumps with exponential improvements in efficiency and performance every few years.
You can't even begin to compare water delivery with data delivery. In terms of data, a lot of ISPs pay for the pipe size, regardless of actually how much data goes through it.
IOW, the ISP charging $45 PLUS overage fees is like the water company charging $200 plus overage fees. That $45 for the ISP covers every type of user just as $200+ water bill would allow water users to leave their hoses on 24/7.
And the proof that the $45 covers the users is that the data services division profit margins are increasing, despite increased traffic. Caps are absolutely unjustified. The ISPs aren't running at capacity and they're already overcharging for service. | |
| | | | | | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
4 edits | If ISPs want to do the water model, they'd charge $10/mo and .10/GB.
$10 maintains the infrastructure (proved by POTS pricing) and .10 gives them margin on usage since they're their own tier 1 provider.
But I have a feeling they'd rather stick to the $45 whether you used it or not model, overcharging customers for their service.
Capping is to protect video revenues. There is nothing in their (AT&T) books or limitations in their capacity that justifies caps. And with cable, DOCSIS 3 and SDV fixes their capacity issues and they'll have no excuses for caps. | |
| | | | | | | | NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | Re: Great, More Ammo For The Cap Arguments That's what it's all about. They want to provide IPTV, and be the only choice for it. Suing VOIP providers out of existence is slowly working, they cant cap it down to make that impossible. We'll Hughes Net Can | |
|
| | fireflierCoffee. . .Need CoffeePremium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo | At the present rate of greed, I'd say both caps will come on AND costs will go up despite no substantive proof to justify either option aside from giving execs and investors huge windfalls. Of course the fact that these scenarios won't be playing out as frequently outside the U.S. will also be conveniently ignored.
Keep toeing that corporate line. . .
--
Wishes: When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a meteorite hurtling to the Earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much hosed no matter what you wish for. Unless it's death by meteor. --despair.com | |
| | | james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | said by ThrowDemsOut:Either costs go up or caps come on. Your pick. That's not really true, equivalent technology becomes cheaper as time goes on. That's like saying that Computers of the future can't get any faster unless you want to pay more, while the inverse has proven to be true.
Also, they dont need to cap people, if the network gets filled, it gets filled. Who cares? TCP will divide the traffic equally between everyone anyways. Everyone wants their traffic to have priority over everyone elses, and guess what, its not physically possible. | |
| | | | | said by ThrowDemsOut:said by pabster:Well reports like this will be sucked up and fed to us by the cro...er, large ISPs as "proof" that they must implement bandwidth caps and throttling et al. Either costs go up or caps come on. Your pick. Have you ever worked in any sort of capacity where you would be qualified to make a statement like that ? Seriously, have you ever priced or purchased connectivity in anything more than a residential broadband connection ?
Contrary to your statement, the cost of bandwidth and providing services DECREASES constantly. I remember pricing out a T1 for a client years ago and just the price of those puny circuits have fallen drastically. | |
| | | |
See 6 replies to this post |
|
4 edits | said by pabster:Well reports like this will be sucked up and fed to us by the cro...er, large ISPs as "proof" that they must implement bandwidth caps and throttling et al. The big problem that I have is that we are already metered. We already pay money for access to the internet. As other posters have pointed out, we are billed based on speed. Speed * Time in a Month = Max number of bytes exchangeable. That's what we need for the internet to work as it should and be what it CAN potentially be.
ISPs originally signed us up for broadband service based on speed. They had no byte caps. Now that the subscriber base is potentially outstripping their capacity ( This is what THEY say), they want to cap us. They want to change the game after the game has started and we're an hours into it. They know we're hooked!
The alternative is obvious: Build out the capacity to provide the service levels that were promised.
As far as the argument that "At least on a metered basis, the abusers will pay."
As noted above, they ALREADY pay.
Besides, the issue isn't that they aren't paying. The issue is they impact the service level of the rest of the network. This is the fault of the PROVIDER, not the subscriber!! The subscriber isn't doing anything afoul of the service agreement; at least they likely weren't until recently. It is only recently, at least for my ISP, that caps have been discussed.
So let's say that the "abusers" get charged more. Will service in the impacted area be improved? Unlikely... Companies chase new customers, they don't do much to keep current customers unless it is painfully obvious that a bunch of them are about to be lost.
Metered service is the path to doom. To the ISPs: Don't sell what you can't deliver. Build capacity and raise the rates to cover it, but metering will take away the internet.
A metered web connection means that you will have to pay for:
1. Watching ads. No, not in the round-about way where by watching ads you are more likely to buy a product and thus you are kind of paying for ads. I mean paying extra to see ads that are part of a web page or ads that you can't block.
2. Downloading security updates. Do you really want to download that latest 100MB+ Windows Service Pack or
Apple Update knowing that it will cost you extra to do so?
3. Updating anti-virus. Should give you second thoughts about having that money ticker in the system tray eating away at your bank account each time it updates its virus definitions.
4. Spam. Sure, the guy sending spam has to pay for it as well, but he also makes money off it.
5. Phoning home software. Whether it's a DRM scheme or an operating system, using it will cost money.
6. Spyware, adware, malware and viruses. Software that downloads itself, replicate itselfs and spreads to other computers eats up bandwidth and will end up costing you money. The question is, what will cost you more, the viruses or the anti-virus updates?
7. Firesharing. The entertainment industry will likely accuse the ISP's of making money off their contents by paying by the bit while copyrighted content is shared over P2P, and they will want a cut. Prices soon goes up.
8. Rich media content. And this is the biggest problem, I think. People will hesitate to download podcasts or stream video and the internet will cease to evolve. No Netflix, no Hulu, no pesky competing DirecTV video on demand, no WoW, no Xbox Live Marketplace, No Sony online gaming, no VPNing into work or to help family, or whomever, no pesky competing VoIP, & no slingbox! As far as the VoIP goes, so what if you have free long distance, you have to pay by the byte.... The ISPs will be the maker of Kings!
Basically, if the ISPs get to go the "metered by the byte way" they will be given another excuse not to expand the physical net the way it should be while racking up major, major profits.... Then we'll not likely need all of that storage! ISPs are selling ACCESS to the internet, not water or electricity. This is NOT a finite resource. You add capacity, and people use that access as THEY see fit;. Dumb pipe. | |
| | |
See 6 replies to this post |
NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | Fair Pricing, Amazon Gets it. AT&T and others should Discovered Amazon S3's pricing page for storage..
United States
Storage
$0.15 per GB-Month of storage used
Data Transfer
$0.100 per GB - all data transfer in
$0.170 per GB - first 10 TB / month data transfer out
$0.130 per GB - next 40 TB / month data transfer out
$0.110 per GB - next 100 TB / month data transfer out
$0.100 per GB - data transfer out / month over 150 TB
Requests
$0.01 per 1,000 PUT, POST, or LIST requests
$0.01 per 10,000 GET and all other requests*
* No charge for delete requests
Now seeing how they're putting in overhead for some EXPENSIVE equipment and I'm talking orders of magnitude over core routers and fiber that's already paid for(Trunks not build out), oh and profit.
This shows that $1.50 per gig is gouging the customer.
I could live with ten cents a gig for a lot of different applications. I feel that's a fair price if we have to adopt a metered approach. I also would like to see QOS put on the network that priortizes HTTP/EMAIl/SSH and a few other things and marks downloads as bulk.
--
Mac Chatter
»www.macchatter.net | |
|  MikePremium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA | Verizon DSL by 2011 Will still be at 3mb/768k. | |
| | | | Re: Verizon DSL by 2011 All that adding above equals to 3.0/768 lol. | |
| | |  a333A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
 ·Cingular Wireless
| grrr8!!! The more, the merrier. Current fiber backbones are hardly utilizing the net theoretical capacity of the medium. Throw in more DWDM upgrades down the road, and you'll always stay ahead of capacity issues. The choice for backbone/peering carriers is clear. Upgrades= More data passed= more money. As simple as that...
--
Linux: Because a PC is a terrible thing to waste | |
|
| | | No it will still be 1.5mb/384. They don't put in remote terminals for people just barely in range of dsl. Heck when I got Verizon dsl it was 768/128 and they told me 1.5/384 was available but when I got dsl they turned around and said that it was never available. Funny though that I went round and round with them to end up with a upper management person that takes care of dsl problems and I had my 1.5/384 connection two days later.
Sorry a little off subject of the thread. | |
| | | | If still at this location then I will still be at 1500/256 | |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Yeah right quote:
In 2012, Cisco predicts, Internet video traffic alone will be 400 times the traffic carried by the entire U.S. Internet backbone in 2000.
Not if AT&T, Time Warner and Comcast have any say in it. That video traffic would be at the expense of their own services. And they're moving to caps in order to stop it. | |
| | | In Related News... The National Association of Luggage Manufacturers today reported that most luggage while be obsolete by next year and everyone will need to buy new luggage. | |
| robertflPremium
join:2005-10-10
Mary Esther, FL | who cares.. if we can't use it, what's the fucking point!
dial up will soon make a comeback when all of this shit happens!
-rob | |
| | Reviews:
·CenturyLink
·Verizon Wireless..
·Mediacom
| Re: who cares.. said by robertfl:dial up will soon make a comeback when all of this shit happens! ...And Ma Bell will laugh all the way to the bank, per usual.
I can see it now.
Super-Duper Dial-Up "Unlimited" Internet Service. LOL! | |
| | |  Xioden
join:2008-06-10
Monticello, NY | Re: who cares.. said by pabster:Super-Duper Dial-Up "Unlimited" Internet Service. LOL! Would have a higher "cap" than some companies are considering offering. | |
|
| EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | said by robertfl:if we can't use it, what's the fucking point! dial up will soon make a comeback when all of this shit happens! -rob That's why Time Warner is getting rid of Time Warner Cable but keeping AOL! It'll make a comeback, we swear! | |
|
 dancy70Premium
join:2005-01-29
Hudson, FL | Caps, etal Some of these posts need to go to Washington, DC - all congressional offices, FCC, etc. Then pray the people getting them either understand or realize they do not understand and seek help | |
|  AnonProxyProxy of AnonPremium
join:2001-05-12
ß | bla bla bla They did a great job copying Moore's Law for Interwebs use.
I wonder if they predict a need for bigger "tubes"!?!?! | |
|
| |
|
|
