 | | Huh? So it's like being on a real network instead of what your local ISPs are willing to sell you? (Nah, that'll never catch on... too easy.) | |
|
 |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
1 edit | Re: Huh? said by mod_wastrel:So it's like being on a real network instead of what your local ISPs are willing to sell you? (Nah, that'll never catch on... too easy.)
And when it stops being free, how many will pay for speeds above 20 mbps up and down? We'll see. If 20/20 sells for $40 or $50 and 150/100 sells for $200 what do you think will happen?
Verizon offers 50/20 for $140/mo and that is the 1 yr intro price. Couldn't find what it costs after promo is over.
--
Record your speedtest.net results in DSLReports SpeedWave
»www.speedtest.net/wave/afe201cb84d45c88 | |
|
| | | | Re: Huh? $55 is about the most I'm willing to pay for any broadband. Very few customers would actually notice any difference in speed (doing the typical things they do) between 10mbps and 50mbps, so faster doesn't typically mean better (unless you've got a bunch of people using one connection all at once). However, I was referring to speed tiers as being a hindrance not only to customers but also to ISPs. Because ISPs sell speed, they're also obligated to deliver that speed (or close to it). If they simply sold access w/o capping it, then their "network" would be easier/cheaper to manage. Fine, perhaps less revenue from tiers (or maybe not), but they could always sell customers priority instead of speed (for those "congested" periods). | |
|
| | | | | Re: Huh? artificially congested..
I would imagine that sites like hulu/netflix/etc. would load a lot faster with these kinds of speeds. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Huh? Marginally faster, I think. The player buffers would fill up a lot faster, though, but most people wouldn't typically notice that (except for some players which might degrade PQ till buffers are "full"). | |
|
| | | Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Yeah - I'm not wanting to go beyond $55 if I can help it. I don't personally need 50/20Mbps, or even 24/3Mbps.
6Mbps/1Mbps was what I subscribed to (old all the best package)
Its currently ~10Mbps/1Mbps, ~30Mbps/1Mbps with boost.
If I need faster - my work can pony up some $$$$. | |
|
| | | | | Most consumers want to be in that $45-60 range and what ever speed fits that price range is what they go with. | |
|
| | | |  r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·row44
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Huh? said by battleop:Most consumers want to be in that $45-60 range and what ever speed fits that price range is what they go with.
I have been paying $20 a month of the past year for 6meg/768k dry loop dSL with ATT. (reg price $25)
ATT capped so I will switch to a DSL reseller.
They have the 6 meg/768k for $30 with no caps.
I could not imaging having to to pay $40+ a month especially for capped internet.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Huh? Oplink I'm guessing? Yeah they're pretty solid. | |
|
| | | | |  marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2 | Over here in St Louis, best I can get from AT&T is 1.5/512 for $52/month. Too bad the trial is not expanding to this side of the State. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Huh? That's worth $52? I pay $36.99 for 10/512 with 300 GB of bandwidth. I'll soon be getting a dollar off that for referring my friend. That can't be your only choice in a big city like St. Louis. | |
|
| | | | | |  FronkmanAn Apple a day keeps the doctor awayPremium
join:2003-06-23
Saint Louis, MO | i pay $45 a month for 4/1 ATT DSL in st. louis, maybe you should call them
--
Everyone should own a Mac! | |
|
| | | | | | | marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2 | Re: Huh? I have AT&T.
Somehow I am both 'in' u-verse territory, but ineligible for u-verse or any speeds higher than 1.5/512.
So, i have to pay u-verse internet rates (because I am 'in' u-verse territory), but the maximum speed I can get is 1.5/512, and I cannot get u-verse tv either.
Charter is the only other choice, and since our house is not wired for cable, it is not much of a choice.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|
| | | | | they don't have to deliver any set speed when your TOS/AUP states "up to" and easier/cheaper to manage by just selling speed- not really. you manage it to keep people from hogging all of the speed. You can have a few people bring down ANY network by downloading huge files all at once. | |
|
| | | | r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·row44
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Huh? said by hottboiinnc:they don't have to deliver any set speed when your TOS/AUP states "up to" and easier/cheaper to manage by just selling speed- not really. you manage it to keep people from hogging all of the speed. You can have a few people bring down ANY network by downloading huge files all at once.
That is not true unless the ISP is selling people speeds they know their network cannot handle.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Huh? and that is everyone. all are "up to" and do manage their network. And EVERYTHING is oversold to some point- except for FiOS - at this time. No company is NOT going to under sell their network due to not making any $$$$. POTS networks are the same way. Get about half of the people your city to pick up the phone at the same time and see how fast you get "all circuits are currently busy" message. Networks are designed to be over sold and have always been. | |
|
| | | | | | r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·row44
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Huh? said by hottboiinnc:and that is everyone. all are "up to" and do manage their network. And EVERYTHING is oversold to some point- except for FiOS - at this time. No company is NOT going to under sell their network due to not making any $$$$. POTS networks are the same way. Get about half of the people your city to pick up the phone at the same time and see how fast you get "all circuits are currently busy" message. Networks are designed to be over sold and have always been.
Phones are circuit switched, so that is managed completely different than packet switched.
I understand they oversell, but they should not be advertising "up to". They should be selling you a connection at a certain speed the network can handle at peak times + "speed boost" up to a certain amount.
Just stating the boost speed of the network that can only handle at non-peak times is misleading.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. | |
|
| | | | Having more than minimal upload bandwidth is improvement enough. Not sure that Google will necessarily play games with bandwidth tiers, which are mostly a marketing gimmick used by abusive ISPs. | |
|
| | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: Huh? said by Wilsdom:bandwidth tiers are mostly a marketing gimmick used by abusive ISPs. In the same way those "abusive" grocery stores charge you more for a gallon of milk than for a half gallon... Don't believe the ignorant who try to get you to believe such nonsense. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Huh? said by jcremin:said by Wilsdom:bandwidth tiers are mostly a marketing gimmick used by abusive ISPs. In the same way those "abusive" grocery stores charge you more for a gallon of milk than for a half gallon... Don't believe the ignorant who try to get you to believe such nonsense. You, no doubt, believe the bytes transmitted by those customers on the faster tiers actually travel faster than the bytes transmitted by customers on the slower tiers... you know, to fill up those milk cartons faster. | |
|
| | | | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: Huh? said by mod_wastrel:You, no doubt, believe the bytes transmitted by those customers on the faster tiers actually travel faster than the bytes transmitted by customers on the slower tiers... you know, to fill up those milk cartons faster. No, the bytes travel at the same speed, but more bytes can flow through per second on the "faster" plans. Bigger pipes cost more than smaller ones ya know.  | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Huh? Oh, some customers get to use bigger pipes than other customers. I see. | |
|
| | | | | | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: Huh? said by mod_wastrel:Oh, some customers get to use bigger pipes than other customers. I see. Um, yeah, the ones who pay more for a bigger pipe. How does that NOT make sense? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Huh? Lets say I take a gigabit switch over to your house. I hook up my computer to port 1 and set the port speed to 100mbit, give myself a 3 yard cat 6 cable and plug in. Then I hook up your computer to port 2, set the port speed to 10mbit, give you the same 3 yard cat 6 cable and plug it in.
Explain to me how it costs me any reasonable amount more to run port1 than it does to run port 2.
Guess which one costs me more. It's the customer that calls customer service with questions, issues, is late at paying, breaks their cable and so on. It doesn't actually matter much which customer uses the most GB per month (assuming we're talking average consumers keeping things below ~500GB) It could even be the 10 mbit customer that uses more data.
What's being provided to the 100mbit customer has virtually no larger cost burden. It is a "value add". In true competitive environments value add's are usually free as a way to get you to jump from the competitor. Where there is little or no competition then you get to pay for them. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: Huh? Good theory, until you factor in that there is a lot more to the cost than the last port a customer plugs into. But yes, the equipment that supports higher capacities does cost more, but there are also backhaul, upstream routers, and plenty of other places that all the bandwidth is combined. Upgrading from a 10 megabit backbone, to 100 megs, 1 gig, or 10+ gig adds costs.
Is charging based on raw connection speed the best method for determining price? Well, it depends on the situation. Different customers have different usage patterns, so (as you point out) the one with the faster speed may actually be costing the company less than one with a slower speed. You could charge based on usage, but then you get the people complaining who do their downloads during off-peak times and aren't "stressing" the systems.
No single method is perfect, but charging based on speed is (at least for now) the most accepted and understood form for customers to grasp. Maybe in the future it will change. I hope it does, but it will take some testing to figure out the "best" system, and then customers will have to accept it before it is able to be made "the standard". | |
|
| | | | | | | | |  whfsdudePremium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC
·T-Mobile US
| said by del ftl :Lets say I take a gigabit switch over to your house. I hook up my computer to port 1 and set the port speed to 100mbit, give myself a 3 yard cat 6 cable and plug in. Then I hook up your computer to port 2, set the port speed to 10mbit, give you the same 3 yard cat 6 cable and plug it in.
Explain to me how it costs me any reasonable amount more to run port1 than it does to run port 2. 1. Uplink modules. It's more expensive for 10 gig switch module than a two 1 gig modules in a port channel.
2. Switch backplane, how much traffic can switch process. This becomes really important when you talk about core switches which sit near the end of the access network. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | said by jcremin:said by mod_wastrel:Oh, some customers get to use bigger pipes than other customers. I see. Um, yeah, the ones who pay more for a bigger pipe. How does that NOT make sense? What you don't seem to get is that everyone's traffic travels over the same cables (aka "pipes"). The only thing that differentiates one customer's "speed" from another customer's is a number value in a config; the ISP doesn't actually do anything, operationally speaking, differently for one versus another. All of the "pipes" are actually the same for everyone [on the same node]. The 35/35 that one customer pays for doesn't actually cost the ISP any more than the 15/2 that his neighbor pays for. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: Huh? That's not necessarily true. While it may apply to something like a cable system, it wouldn't apply to active fiber. Depending on what the "last mile" technology is, the customer may be plugged into a higher capacity port than another customer. Sure, what you say may be the case on a cable system assuming nobody is using their connection. But customer A using 100 megs DOES cost the ISP more than customer B using 10 megs.
But the big thing that you don't seem to get is that capacity is a cumulative thing. Taking a "worst case" scenario and assuming every customer is using the full capacity of their allocated speed, it will cost the ISP MUCH more to deliver 100 megs to each customer as opposed to 10 megs. On a cable system, it may not cost the ISP more to have more "faster" customers physically hooked up, but once they have to increase capacity to account for those faster connections, your theory goes out the window.
For the record, I do run a small independent ISP so I do know what the hell I'm talking about. Some simply don't care about my (or other ISP operator's) experience. They prefer to think they are know-it-alls and can whine their way into being right without any real knowledge of how an ISP really works. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Huh? Imagine that, I'm talking about a system of [ISP] networks that 90+ percent of the country uses. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | said by mod_wastrel:said by jcremin:said by mod_wastrel:Oh, some customers get to use bigger pipes than other customers. I see. Um, yeah, the ones who pay more for a bigger pipe. How does that NOT make sense? What you don't seem to get is that everyone's traffic travels over the same cables (aka "pipes"). The only thing that differentiates one customer's "speed" from another customer's is a number value in a config; the ISP doesn't actually do anything, operationally speaking, differently for one versus another. All of the "pipes" are actually the same for everyone [on the same node]. The 35/35 that one customer pays for doesn't actually cost the ISP any more than the 15/2 that his neighbor pays for. so then what you're telling me is that besides the setup costs, it costs the ISP nothing to have 2 customers instead of 1, besides the physical costs of customer 2's modem... | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Huh? What I said was that it costs the same for each customer. So, if one customer costs n, then 2 customers cost 2n, and 3 customers cost 3n, and I am talking about "setup". | |
|
| | | | | | | | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: Huh? said by mod_wastrel:What I said was that it costs the same for each customer. So, if one customer costs n, then 2 customers cost 2n, and 3 customers cost 3n, and I am talking about "setup". So you are simply talking about the cost to physically connect the customers to the network, and not factoring in actual bandwidth usage? In that case, then yes, I agree with you about that for most situations.
Does that also mean that you agree that a customer that consumes 10x more capacity DOES actually cost the ISP more to provide that capacity to? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | said by mod_wastrel:What I said was that it costs the same for each customer. So, if one customer costs n, then 2 customers cost 2n, and 3 customers cost 3n, and I am talking about "setup".
I would disagree with you...
I think there is a base cost.. say the
cmts, OSP, etc...
So customer one costs a shitload, because all of that needs to be purchased. You can't have customer #2 without customer number 1 and the base equipment. Then customer number 2 is simply the cost of cable plus the modem. Then cost of customer 3 to customer 512 (or whatever the limit of the head end device is). But customer 513 actually costs a lot more, because you need another head end device. This theoretically can all be averaged out depending on the amount of customers but that has to be predictable. In terms of cash flow it doesn't work out all nicely. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Huh? just an FYI. dates on products are NOT true "sell by dates" their only suggestions by the FDA. | |
|
| | |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by Wilsdom:Having more than minimal upload bandwidth is improvement enough. Not sure that Google will necessarily play games with bandwidth tiers, which are mostly a marketing gimmick used by abusive ISPs.
I doubt they will. goog doesn't have overpriced outdated VIDEO distribution to protect. they do however have stockholders to keep happy. 850 people? why is this even news?
--
Oh YES! let me drop everything i'm doing regardless of who it affects to deal with your petty little problem! | |
|
| | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Other than because lack of competition means they could, why would these speeds cost $200/month? Would the interconnect fees mandate such a high price because of the massive amount of data a lot of customers with this bandwidth could move?
While I would think most drivers would operate a powerful, quiet, performance-oriented vehicle at faster speeds than a rattle trap that starts to shake at school-zone speeds, does the same apply to network services? I mean the size of a movie doesn't change when more bandwidth is available. True, some who trade files or other stuff might download more but are those numbers significant compared to the average person who might notice the faster speed but wouldn't really change the total bytes per month. I suppose if the net really zooms, they might do more clicking but I would say most cable/FIOS connections today are more limited by the web server than the end-user's connection. Would we really "feel" the speed if we weren't starting a movie we're going to watch anyway, downloading some kind of new program, a Windows update, a Linux distro, an iOS upgrade or something else really big.
Is there any data on when cable companies increase the speeds of their tiers (which over the years has happened several times) that a corresponding increase in an average user's consumption? I would say it's far more tied to if the new speed enables something new that wasn't possible before or some other "environmental" change occurs (some kind of new, gotta be on it 24 hours a day facebook site or something like Fox's rude wall that apparently has caused an increase in pirating their movies...of course I guess this is the same bytes, just a different provider...) | |
|
| |  Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | said by Linklist:said by mod_wastrel:So it's like being on a real network instead of what your local ISPs are willing to sell you? (Nah, that'll never catch on... too easy.)
And when it stops being free, how many will pay for speeds above 20 mbps up and down? We'll see. If 20/20 sells for $40 or $50 and 150/100 sells for $200 what do you think will happen? Verizon offers 50/20 for $140/mo and that is the 1 yr intro price. Couldn't find what it costs after promo is over. The costs are about the same for every user regardless of what package they are on.
You have to pay for a port on a switch and the physical line regardless of what speed you use.
1 Gbps would be 125 MBps
If you had a GB price of 1/10 of a cent then technically bandwidth would cost you $240 a month on a 1 Gbps connection for a 24/7 connection at 30 days. But charging by usage makes no sense so you would just charge for the fixed costs of the network and just give people the max speeds the network can handle.
Now since they are building their network from scratch with newest technology they can buy 1 Gbps port switches balanced with uplinks to handle the max usage. | |
|
| | Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX | said by Linklist:said by mod_wastrel:So it's like being on a real network instead of what your local ISPs are willing to sell you? (Nah, that'll never catch on... too easy.)
And when it stops being free, how many will pay for speeds above 20 mbps up and down? We'll see. If 20/20 sells for $40 or $50 and 150/100 sells for $200 what do you think will happen? Verizon offers 50/20 for $140/mo and that is the 1 yr intro price. Couldn't find what it costs after promo is over. My prediction is 60 bucks, 1Gb symetrical.
We'll see a year from now. | |
|
| | | dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | Re: Huh? said by Kamus:said by Linklist:said by mod_wastrel:So it's like being on a real network instead of what your local ISPs are willing to sell you? (Nah, that'll never catch on... too easy.)
And when it stops being free, how many will pay for speeds above 20 mbps up and down? We'll see. If 20/20 sells for $40 or $50 and 150/100 sells for $200 what do you think will happen? Verizon offers 50/20 for $140/mo and that is the 1 yr intro price. Couldn't find what it costs after promo is over. My prediction is 60 bucks, 1Gb symetrical. We'll see a year from now. I wonder what the speeds will be capped to OUT OF THE USA like in other countries that have ultra cheap super highspeed offerings. out of their respective countries their speed is dismal.
--
Oh YES! let me drop everything i'm doing regardless of who it affects to deal with your petty little problem! | |
|
| | | |  elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | Re: Huh? whats funny is i get my best speeds from Japan and the EU most of the time
only other place that even comes close to maxing me out is Steam | |
|
|
| Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX | Re: POLL: How much would you pay for internet this fast? said by crizCraig :http://www.wepolls.com/p/2028308
The poll is flawed... that's the results from the speedtest server, not the actual connection. Same goes for 5ms...
The ping is only that low because of the proximity of the server. Fiber does lower your ping, but not nearly as much as you seem to believe. (it's around 7-12ms lower than say.. ADSL2+) | |
|
 crazyk4952Premium
join:2002-02-04
united state
kudos:1 | And the catch is.... Soon to have a 50GB cap! | |
|
| rmdir
join:2003-03-13
Chicago, IL | Re: And the catch is.... 50TB maybe. | |
|
| | crazyk4952Premium
join:2002-02-04
united state
kudos:1 | Re: And the catch is.... Yeah but 50GB fits way better with the ISP mantra of 'Get less for more'. | |
|
| | | Hopefully no other country will end up like Canada. | |
|
|  MichailPremium
join:2000-08-02
Boynton Beach, FL
kudos:1 | I don't think google would do that. And if they did it would probably be at a more reasonable cost compared to what the ISPs do now.
AT&T could care less about home wired services and the likes of them and Comcast are entrenched in old business models. Hopefully google can shake things up. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| 150...what about 1gb? If they're gonna do 1gb in Kansas.. might as well do 1gb in Stanford.
How much is 150/150 worth? I think Verizon is around $125 for 150/35. Getting below the psychological price of $1 per megabit will be important going forward for symmetrical plans. Some speed tests probably max out their upstream @ 100mbits, as faster is NOT common among internet (1) customers. | |
|
| | | Re: 150...what about 1gb? DO WANT
Way better than Comcrap, bring that over here, I am kind of close to Stanford. | |
|
| | | Yeah, I was wondering same thing. Not exactly 1Gbps. Are they using the same architecture/infrastructure planning to go into KC? | |
|
 DavidNow accepting new patientsPremium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:78 | I agree with a lot here Speeds are nice but I am not paying over $50 a month for broadband service. I don't need it that GD fast! | |
|
|
|
