  gatorkramNeed for SpeedPremium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:2 |  Wouldn't it be something if....
I wonder if it would make any difference.
--
What the heck is a GatorKram? »www.gatorkram.com | |
|
 |  somms
join:2003-07-28
Salt Lake City, UT | Re: Wouldn't it be something if.... said by gatorkram:we had 10-15 different local providers to choose from...
I wonder if it would make any difference.
»www.utopianet.org/residential
I have a choice of a half-dozen different residential ISPs with my municiple FTTH. I would say it does make a difference!  | |
|
| |
1 edit | Re: Wouldn't it be something if.... Do any of those Utah providers have no bandwidth caps?
XMission certainly has caps.
The speeds and pricing of UTOPIA ISPs are put to shame by Google Fiber.
I'll take Kansas's tornadoes over Utah's Mormons any day. | |
|
| | | somms
join:2003-07-28
Salt Lake City, UT
1 edit | Re: Wouldn't it be something if.... said by 09129800:Do any of those Utah providers have no bandwidth caps?
XMission certainly has caps.
The speeds and pricing of UTOPIA ISPs are put to shame by Google Fiber.
I'll take Kansas's tornadoes over Utah's Mormons any day.
»Re: The greedy incumbents should be worried....
Google 1Gbps fiber will rule when it gets installed in the future but I'll take the FTTH I have right now over either Comcast/Xfinity or Qwest/Century Link or whatever the greedy incumbents have relabeled themselves as this financial quarter!  | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Wouldn't it be something if.... Well, if you're stuck with Comcap and CenturyStink, I don't blame you for sticking with UTOPIA. That cable company and that telco both have bandwidth caps now and as such they are useless.
Still, I'd take the uncapped cable DOCSIS 3.0 offering from Time Warner over capped UTOPIA. | |
|
| | | |
| elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | said by gatorkram:we had 10-15 different local providers to choose from...
I wonder if it would make any difference.
Your local utility poles have room for, at best, 1 new attachment. Google found this out the hard way. And there isn't typically sufficient interest to support even the one incumbent, i.e. VZ Fios.
How are you going to attract 10? | |
|
| | gatorkramNeed for SpeedPremium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:2 | Re: Wouldn't it be something if.... said by elray:said by gatorkram:we had 10-15 different local providers to choose from...
I wonder if it would make any difference.
Your local utility poles have room for, at best, 1 new attachment. Google found this out the hard way. And there isn't typically sufficient interest to support even the one incumbent, i.e. VZ Fios. How are you going to attract 10? You could either force cable to share or get a 3rd party to lay fiber.
--
What the heck is a GatorKram? »www.gatorkram.com | |
|
| | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: Wouldn't it be something if.... said by gatorkram:said by elray:Your local utility poles have room for, at best, 1 new attachment. Google found this out the hard way. And there isn't typically sufficient interest to support even the one incumbent, i.e. VZ Fios.
How are you going to attract 10?
You could either force cable to share or get a 3rd party to lay fiber. "Forcing" cable to "share" isn't competition, its regulation, and will yield predictable as well as unforeseen consequences. Do you really think we'd see the low pricing and high bitrates we get from cable today, if they had no incentive to upgrade and pursue telco?
How will you "get" a third party to lay fiber, if the market doesn't support the incumbent(s)? Do you really think the masses will pay $70+/month for broadband? | |
|
| | | |  MemphisPCGuyTaking Care BusinessPremium
join:2004-05-09
Memphis, TN | Re: Wouldn't it be something if.... As a cord cutter I am already paying $72.95 for internet only from comast. My alternative is ATT DSL for half that price and a 3rd the speed.
--
Onsite Computer Support in Memphis
»www.memphispcguy.com | |
|
| | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: Wouldn't it be something if.... If you're paying $72.95/month for Comcast, I'm not sure what "cord" you cut, but I digress.
While you and I are willing to pay these rates, we're the exception, and for different reasons. You do it for the speed, I would do it to have a choice other than typical AT&T - I'm willing to pay a premium to avoid dealing with them.
But in places where Fios is offered, the uptake isn't there. Mom isn't willing to spend $60+/month when she can get cable modem service for $30. "Blazing speed" simply isn't a priority. | |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | Comcast Speed Increases Comcast will point to the recent speed increases and claim that they are doing the customer a favor, and when my rate increases inevitably come, they will use this as justification, yet it's nothing for them to bump my speeds.
They can charge more for their service while saving money on the back end. I think there are a lot of folks out there that would rather keep the speeds they have, but pay fewer dollars for it. I know, not gonna happen. | |
|
| rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: Comcast Speed Increases I'd rather keep my speeds and get rid of the meter. Although Charter doesn't appear to be overly energetic about enforcing them, yet, it's inevitable as they try to replace cord cutter revenue. | |
|
| |  The Bandwidth Cap Scam
Somebody's getting duped into overpaying for bandwidth here... and it's not the ISPs. | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·Time Warner Cable
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·voip.ms
| Re: The Bandwidth Cap Scam If that weren't for a comedic curtain call, a vast majority of the heavy bandwidth streaming is done IN NETWORK via CDN so there are ZERO transit charges. In addition with peering agreements these costs may even be lower.
They were really getting killed w/ P2P because they were really having to pay some $$$, but now with P2P being replaced by In net CDN, they are loving life, and on top of that they can charge Netflix and the like for in network access in their datacenters. A true double dip.
Of course the transit exchange are only going to be at major hubs at the lowest cost. | |
|
| | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | Re: The Bandwidth Cap Scam said by elefante72:If that weren't for a comedic curtain call, a vast majority of the heavy bandwidth streaming is done IN NETWORK via CDN so there are ZERO transit charges. In addition with peering agreements these costs may even be lower.
Of course the transit exchange are only going to be at major hubs at the lowest cost.
Transit costs are extremely low for these companies anyway and not much of a factor for the amount they're purchasing. The bigger costs come from long haul connections which they share with all of their traffic whether it is to access transit links or peering links. Peering isn't "free" when you have to pay for the long haul links that make up their backbone. | |
|
| | | | | Re: The Bandwidth Cap Scam Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. | |
|
| | | |
| |
| | | | Re: The Bandwidth Cap Scam This is false. All of Comcap's packages are really only around 1 Mbps, because that is the maximum average speed you can use them at in a month.
With Comcap's new Internet Overcharging bandwidth capping scam in place, if you actually use that 50 Mbps Comcap plan to its full potential you will be looking at a monthly bill of over $3,000.
50 Mbps can do 16 terabytes of traffic in a month. $10 per 50 GB of data used is obscene.
I would take uncapped 3 Mbps over Comcap's capped garbage any day. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon FiOS
·voip.ms
| Re: The Bandwidth Cap Scam That may be a hasty decision. 3 Mbps can barely get you 1 HD stream. Consumption models for any service are not priced to 100% of theoretical usage. I would surmise if you needed to download 16TB that you are probably running a business and need another tier.
Keep in mind there are no caps because they will happily sell you units of 50GB for $10. These are just surcharges.
The point I have made is that allowances (not caps) are set by actuaries, and have no real connection to the infrastructure because there is no infrastructure problem. It is meant for revenue enhancement and to keep video streaming from usurping the ever rising cable cost. And you have sports to thank for that.
This is totally the behavior of a monopoly. Raise prices arbitrarily for a falling price commodity.
You should be angry, however they know you need internet and until somebody breaks these guys up, it is going to get much more expensive to make up for the content fees.
100% of this problem is the content cost. This is driving all of the rest of the bad behavior. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: The Bandwidth Cap Scam The problem is that they aren't just trying to make up for the lost fees from people ditching cable TV. They are trying to get that lost money back AND exponentially increase the cost of Internet access far beyond what Internet+TV used to be: ~$150/month.
Previously a 50 Mbps connection could push terabytes just fine before they brought the caps in. And it cost around $150 a month for that uncapped high speed connection + cable TV.
Now we're all supposed to be happy with paying thousands of dollars a month for the same amount of bandwidth we were allowed before for $100 a month?
I DON'T THINK SO BUDDY! It's one thing to double the price of your Internet access to recoup lost TV revenue, it's another thing entirely to multiply it by a factor of 30!
Bandwidth caps have severe implications on the quality of Internet content. We would never have 1080p and 4K YouTube videos if bandwidth caps were around at the start of the 2000s.
Now that they are being introduced in the 2010s Internet streaming of Super Hi-Vision/8K/Ultra High Definition TV will never be able to happen.
Even though we'll have the speed necessary to handle such high resolution video, we won't be allowed to transfer that high resolution video unless we want to be extorted out of thousands of dollars by our ISP. | |
|
| | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| ...and I would take Mediacom's tier structure, with 50M speeds and a 999GB cap for $100ish, over uncapped 3Mbit (or 5Mbit) service any day.
Unless you're streaming a live video feed 24/7, you won't only be able to use 1 Mbps on a Comcast connection without going over the cap. 'net traffic is bursty, online video aside (which only takes a few Mbps anyway, unless you're streaming 4K, which you shouldn't be unless your monitor is >1080p, which it probably isn't), and downloading or uploading a big file is a much better experience at 20 Mbps than 2 Mbps.
Never mind the fact that the price of using a Comcast 50M connection to its fullest potential (which they never would have allowed pre-cap either...it's a shared system and monopolizing 30% of the capacity of a node 24/7 would quickly make Comcast figure out a reason to boot you) is not $3000. It's $190, the price of a business-class connection. If you want to throw in the $300 install fee for no-contract service, fine. But even then the price is 75% more than the sticker price for 50M service (which I've transferred over 700GB on without paying extra or getting angry calls from Comcast), not a few thousand percent.
At least Comcast has reasonable business-class rates. Time Warner Cable...doesn't. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: The Bandwidth Cap Scam With taxes and fees Comcap's 50 Mbps business class is over $200 a month.
That is not reasonable at all when Google can roll out symmetrical 1 Gbps service with no caps for $70 a month. Even Verizon does better than that, offering uncapped 300 Mbps for $200 a month.
You can bet they won't be leaving business class uncapped forever either. | |
|
| | | | |  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
·Comcast
| Re: The Bandwidth Cap Scam said by 09129800:With taxes and fees Comcap's 50 Mbps business class is over $200 a month.
That is not reasonable at all when Google can roll out symmetrical 1 Gbps service with no caps for $70 a month. Even Verizon does better than that, offering uncapped 300 Mbps for $200 a month.
You can bet they won't be leaving business class uncapped forever either.
Google can (and I believe is) roll it out in limited areas, well below cost and offer all sorts of "FREE" benefits, because the have very deep pockets, something no company in business for profit can do on a widespread basis.
Even google can't do this a that price everywhere, UNLESS the experiment (and that's ALL googlefiber is so far) comfirms one theory that google can make upto $5k per year reselling your private browsing habits  something that when even suggested (unproven that they even thought about it) that ComCast or others MIGHT try brought out SCREAMS of anger over privacy invasion where as when Google who is specifically in that business seems to intend to do it it is fine?
One company offer a reasonably fast, reasonable private, connection for a reasonable price and you hate them.
Company 2 offer a very fast, very cheap connection but will record, analyse and resell your every move, but you love them. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: The Bandwidth Cap Scam As long as Google doesn't form the Google police to come and arrest me for my disturbing activities on the Internet, I could give zero fucks whether or not there's some Google employee analyzing my traffic in order to subsidize symmetrical uncapped 1 Gbps fiber-to-the-home infrastructure.
Comcap could do the same thing and I wouldn't care either as long as they provided the same quality product.
People would be up in arms if Comcap tried monitoring peoples' traffic because they provide such a SHIT product. | |
|
| | | | | | | tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: The Bandwidth Cap Scam That's what YOU say, but their are alot more here and out in the real world a lot more worried about privacy then they are about saving a few buck on broadband if, as is most likely, google if they were intent on expanding,which is unknown, MIGHT instead subsidize not the full amount just enough to make it irresistable to many or most. which might be to offer googlefiber but match local ISP's (competition ?) pricing. Would you jump then? same price but NO privacy? Remember whatever they get is theirs in perpetuity and they do respond to court orders.
Look at how many freaked from google maps WiFi grab which to me seemed as legit as the pictures they take. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Re: The Bandwidth Cap Scam said by tshirt:That's what YOU say, but their are alot more here and out in the real world a lot more worried about privacy then they are about saving a few buck on broadband
HAHAHA! Good one!
»www.alexa.com/siteinfo/google.com
US Traffic Rank: #1
Global Traffic Rank: #1
»www.alexa.com/siteinfo/facebook.com
US Traffic Rank: #2
Global Rank: #2
Did you even think before you typed that crap out? Come on dude.
The top 2 most visited websites in the WORLD are dedicated to data mining and removing your privacy.
I think you're the one who isn't living in the real world if you think most people actually give a shit about their privacy on the Internet.
I'm being nice and not expanding it out to the top 10 websites which includes Twitter, a site dedicated to sharing every thing you are doing at every moment, and YouTube, a site dedicated to sharing everything you are doing at every moment in video format. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: The Bandwidth Cap Scam I recognize the "threats"/risks that google and others represent. the difference in them being most visited is, I as a visitor, get to choose my search engine and CHOOSE to visit google or not, CHOOSE to block their trackers or not, and so on.
I'm not yet sure it will be a choice when they are the sole provider of connectivity, DNS and search as they will be for Googlefiber users.
Even the usefulness of a VPN becomes doubtful.
I'm not saying google is evil, but general opinion seems to be deifying them because they claim to do no evil, and provide FREE* services.
YOU are free to do what you wish.
I'm just trying to see what googles actual goal is here.
*nothing is truly FREE sometimes we fail to understand the value of the currency required until it is too late. | |
|
| | | | | | | It's $70/mo because Google is doing this at a loss. If you really think that it costs less than $70/mo to deliver 1Gbps you really have absolutely no understanding of business economics nor what it takes to deliver such a product.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Bandwidth Cap Scam It does cost less than $70/mo to deliver 1 Gbps...
I think it is you who has no understanding of business economics. You've been brainwashed by big cable into believing that fiber optics are somehow not feasible.
The estimated average cost of Google's FTTH rollout in Kansas City is around $3,000 per home. A premises would then need to subscribe to the $70 a month service for around 3 1/2 years for that location to reach its break even point. Everything after that should be pure profit. And we're not even counting the money Google will earn from researching its subscribers' traffic habits. This project should be completely profitable within five years with that combined monthly revenue + data mining revenue.
It is an investment which will result in long term profits, but in the Capitalist States of America, if there's not an immediate pay off then greedy investors will throw a bitch fit. And thus, our current pathetic infrastructure situation. | |
|
| | | | | | |
See 10 replies to this post |
| | | | | LOL I am amazed at the lengths that people will go to to justify their point of view. | |
|
| |  EricthornIt only hurts when I laughPremium
join:2001-08-10
Paragould, AR | said by iansltx:*shrugs* Some Comcast areas can get 50/10 for under $80. It's not great, but it's not the worst thing either.
You know what's bad? Some places can't get more than 3 Mbps for less than $40, or more than 3 Mbps at all unless they want highly-capped ViaSat exede.
I live in a town of just short of 30k in NE Arkansas. We are not 'rural' by any means. We are serviced mainly by the city utility, offering 'Business Class' cable, 4/1, for 62.95/mo. The only valid competition (other than satellite) is AT&T dsl, and they have only one CO here, so their coverage is extremely limited, but they do offer 6/1 naked dsl for about 40/mo. The truly sickening part is, in a number of smaller towns around us, they get better speeds. If we lived outside the city limits, we could get a 10/1 package for about 75$.
Every time I see people bitching about their speed and pricing I just cringe.
--
Ever try stuffing a melted marshmallow up a wildcat's ass? It can be done, but you have to like your job. - This Is The Way The World Ends by James Morrow - Join a DC club, it can't hurt you! | |
|
| | |
See 12 replies to this post |
 bbeesleyVIP
join:2003-08-07
Richardson, TX
kudos:5 | Only part of the network costs IP transit costs are only a small portion of the total cost of delivering service to a group of subscribers and saying these have gone down is akin to saying "gas prices are cheaper so the cost of a car is going down"
bandwidth consumption continues to necessitate investment in Long-Haul and Metro network capacity at rate that appears to be accelerating (100G interfaces are not cheap) and increasing speeds to subscribers requires investment in local delivery infrastructure
It could be argued that revenues are increasing and this should be included as well
A study on bandwidth costs really needs to include all the above to get a clear picture of whether it is getting cheaper or more expensive to run these networks | |
|
|
See 34 replies to this post |
|
| | Just because... Just because the raw bandwidth is getting cheaper doesn't mean costs don't go up overall.
Sure, if an ISP sticks with what it has and doesn't add anymore bandwidth, costs will go down. And so will the service level, as more and more content is downloaded/streamed over the same transit links.
The reason bandwidth costs are going down is because more of it needs to be purchased to support applications that are using it in order to maintain a decent level of service. This requires more hardware to support more ports in order to receive more of that "cheaper" bandwidth. And that may include router upgrades or forklifts depending on the growth of traffic.
Then because suddenly you opened the floodgates to allow more "cheap" bandwidth in to your customers, now you have to deal with the last mile being congested. So you have to upgrade there as well. All to provide this "cheaper" bandwidth.
Do you really think the ISP's selling the transit to other ISP's are taking less money themselves? Hardly. They're making more money because they're selling more bandwidth at lower prices. That's how it works. | |
|
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| chart makes it seem higher than it is.. I thought price per mbit was around $1/mbit in NY, not $3 (unless they're accounting for price gouged wireless data from cell phone use).. and you can't really know how much it is or will be per month w/o balanced peering ratios, it could be as much as $0/mbit or "cost neutral" to maintain a large ISPs peering backbone.. | |
|
| | | Re: chart makes it seem higher than it is.. Yeah, at that price, my 30mbit connection from TWC should cost $105, so I'm getting a STEAL of a deal for what they charge  | |
|
| | JTR
join:2012-05-19
Carbondale, IL Reviews:
·Mediacom
| Re: chart makes it seem higher than it is.. said by talz13:Yeah, at that price, my 30mbit connection from TWC should cost $105, so I'm getting a STEAL of a deal for what they charge
Do you understand the concept of overselling? | |
|
| brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | You don't seem to know what median price means. | |
|
 ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
·magicjack.com
·AT&T U-Verse
| Last mile "competition" This is just another way of trying to cover up technological efficiency. Of course it's getting cheaper. Once deployed properly it requires less and less maintenance. Is redundantly powered. As soon as we employ other even more efficient power methods it will get cheaper yet. But a capitalist market can't have you understanding that or their profits disappear. Sort of a false scarcity tactic only it's at the "isp" end.
--
----
As long as superstition prevails, we will fall short of eradicating war, poverty, and hunger. -J. Fresco
khanacademy.org
en.lernu.net
www.k12.com
churchofreality.org
kopimistsamfundet.se
zeitnews.org
thezeitgeistmovement.com
thevenusproject.com
--- | |
|
|
|
