 
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
 ·Comcast
| The publicity is starting to build. We're seeing a lot of stories with the metered-billing-as-money-grab motif lately, and of course there was the whole issue of TWC backing down on trying out metered billing.
It'll be interesting to see how they come at it next. Because one thing is for sure, they aren't going to let it go.
--
There *are* no answers, only questions; or, rather, every answer begs another question. | |
|
 | me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Re: The publicity is starting to build. Yeah, I think we will see a big fight soon. hopefully the costumers will win. I mean no ISP that I know of has even provided any data that supports their claim. I hope we at least up the caps to 1TB if nothing else, but I would rather they go away. | |
|
| | 
SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17 | Re: The publicity is starting to build. said by me1212  :hopefully the costumers will win. Nice pun! | |
|
| | |
rdmiller
join:2005-09-23
Richmond, VA | Question I don't have an oar in this boat, just a question. If caps are bad, is metered billing less bad or more bad? | |
|
| gmoney_indy
join:2004-01-29
Fishers, IN | Re: Question More bad, of course...depending on how low of a cap. | |
|
| 
JsonOD
@comcast.net | Neither are bad. If you put on your ISP hat and think about what each do, you'll rightly conclude that caps protect your infrastructure investment, and metered billing protects you from going broke. | |
|
| | jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA
| Re: Question said by JsonOD :
Neither are bad. If you put on your ISP hat and think about what each do, you'll rightly conclude that caps protect your infrastructure investment, and metered billing protects you from going broke.
Except when you're NOT going broke and having record profits with the current billing method. The metered billing is about even MORE profits and discouraging use. Win, win, win for you... | |
|
|
Unkown User
@covad.net
| Metered billing done correctly probably wouldn't be so bad. You should have a very low connection fee, then base everything else on a reasonable price per GB. That way, grannies and technologically impaired people could have a much smaller bill than what they are currently paying, and only those who really download extreme amounts would be paying extreme amounts.
Of course, all the terms used are relative. Reasonable on a consumer basis and reasonable to the Cable Co. are going to be two different numbers.
The problem is, that a lot of users would be charged less than what they are paying now for their current usage under a true metered scheme, while probably not enough users would be charged more to make up for that. Which irks the Cable co's profits. | |
|
| | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| Re: Question said by Unkown User :
Metered billing done correctly probably wouldn't be so bad. You should have a very low connection fee, then base everything else on a reasonable price per GB. That way, grannies and technologically impaired people could have a much smaller bill than what they are currently paying, and only those who really download extreme amounts would be paying extreme amounts.
TWC isn't interested in true metered billing because they want to soak those grannies and technologically impaired people too. Asking a cable company to bill internet at no more than $10/month and $0.25 a GB is like asking them to offer al a carte. | |
|
| | |
vzw emp
@qwest.net
| Re: Question Let's make one thing clear: Neither Time Warner, AT&T or any other company planning on charging by the byte is lacking either capacity or profits. The capacity issues are nullified by technology and smart management, the profit issues is nullified by their 10k's (annual reports). Time Warner is making money hand over fist, and AT&T even more so.
When I see accurate, complete information from TW or AT&T which support their claims I'll gladly agree to their demands. These people have ulterior motives for moving to this billing method, and it has absolutely nothing to do with helping their customers. | |
|
| 
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| said by rdmiller :I don't have an oar in this boat, just a question. If caps are bad, is metered billing less bad or more bad? think of the ISP as providing access to a tollway. They then say that because theres so much traffic, they're going to tell you where you have to get off the road unless you want to pay an extra fee. So rather then adding lanes, they want to charge an extra fee. Now if everyone decides to pay the extra fee, just how does that relieve the traffic? | |
|
| |
JasonOD
@comcast.net
 from:
GOLFnSUN
| Re: Question said by S_engineer :..... Now if everyone decides to pay the extra fee, just how does that relieve the traffic? You don't, BOTH caps and metered billing are necessary in this case. The alternative would be to just acknowledge that not all packets are equal (they're not), but we mussn't upset the net neutrality nuts. | |
|
| | | 
rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY
| Re: Question Do you work for Comcast? Your defense of a blatant move to totally screw customers who are forced to buy a product from a monopoly indicates that. It's a modern world, the world has changed. The switch providers or drop the service argument doesn't float anymore. Internet access is now a utility just like electricity and these companies were given monopolies and now they are abusing their market position and need to be regulated. | |
|
| | | | 
Hangmn
Don't Fight It...It's Inevitable
Premium
join:2000-04-08
Philadelphia, PA
1 edit | Re: Question said by rit56 :Do you work for Comcast? Your defense of a blatant move to totally screw customers who are forced to buy a product from a monopoly indicates that. It's a modern world, the world has changed. The switch providers or drop the service argument doesn't float anymore. Internet access is now a utility just like electricity and these companies were given monopolies and now they are abusing their market position and need to be regulated. Why does the anon troll need to work for Comcast? Comcast is not proposing low balled metered overages, its TWC and now AT&T. If ANYTHING Comcast has used VERY GENEROUS caps if that's where its going I would rather be on Comcast than TWC...seriously though
--
»davescustompc.com | |
|
| | |
| | | dforan
join:2000-12-09
Willoughby, OH | Re: Question Why is my neighbor hood still have 30 yearold plus infrastructure.. Cause we takes you money and run..
BUNK | |
|
| | | dforan
join:2000-12-09
Willoughby, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
| BUNK
My neighbor hood infrastructure is 30 plus years old
All they EVERY did was raise rate and then take the money and RUN... Right AT&T oh I forgot they took the money and laid every one off then sold out to Comcast and then went to Road Runner and no improvments
redefines SUX | |
|
| | | donh
join:2006-11-27
Jackson, WY
| They have been charging for expansion and maintenance all along. But instead of investing in the future and maintenance they have used it as dividends and bonuses. Now they expect us to pay for it again. Its the americun thing to do. Get em coming, get em going and kick them on the way down. And of course they were able to right off all the fake investment on there taxes.
What a great system we have. Fake competition, fake taxes and fake investments with real greed.
Don | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | 
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
| Re: Question said by GOLFnSUN :I, like many other stockholders, Explains your Comcastic attitude.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
| Re: Question said by GOLFnSUN :said by sturmvogel :said by GOLFnSUN :I, like many other stockholders, Explains your Comcastic attitude. Does it? I, like many others, invest in MANY, MANY companies. These companies even create jobs. Maybe even one you may someday have. Doubtfull, I have an ethics standard regarding who I work for.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX | Re: Question Unfortunately, I do. | |
|
| | | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| If general usage on the internet is increasing, then they need to collect those fees from every user. Raise your prices for all users.
How much of that usage increase is due to faster speeds being offered by the very same ISP's?
How much of that usage increase has something to do with these ISP's marketing that you can download more faster with their service??
They are begging for the traffic, but complaining when they get it. Nice plan.
cw | |
|
| | | | DarkLogix
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
·Comcast Workplace
·Comcast
| Re: Question that would be great but last study I looked at showed internet traffic leveling off not the exponential increase that they claim
what Comcast and all cable ISPs need to do is run RG-11 rated to 3GHz to every one then their RF infrastructure would be as near perfect as possible and it would have the side effect of people seen doing something as oposed to doing stuff behind the scenes that although more needed is so quiet that people think nothing is happening
every once in awhile you need people to see your people doing something and at the same time any amps could be checked over completely, grounding blocks checked to meet spec | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | DarkLogix
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX | Re: Question thats still not the exponintial growth that they claim | |
|
| | |
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
| said by GOLFnSUN :said by S_engineer :Now if everyone decides to pay the extra fee, just how does that relieve the traffic? The extra fees underwrite the cost of adding more infrastructure. Except that they take the money and do not upgrade the infrastructure.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | |
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
1 edit | Re: Question said by espaeth :said by sturmvogel :Except that they take the money and do not upgrade the infrastructure. How do you explain the well documented DOCSIS 3.0 rollout if they "do not upgrade the infrastructure" ? The real big issue with infrastructure is the cable. Docsis 3 is just a bandaid to cram more into the same obsolete cable system. A true upgrade would be to have real fiber connections to their customers, as FiOS does. That would be a true upgrade that would warrant all that talk about investing in infrastructure.
The much hyped Docsis 3 upgrade shows its worth in the fact that the same 250 GB cap remains regarding of the upgrade status.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. | |
|
| | | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| said by GOLFnSUN :said by S_engineer :Now if everyone decides to pay the extra fee, just how does that relieve the traffic? The extra fees underwrite the cost of adding more infrastructure. thats the problem. it NEVER goes into improvements, just the FATCATS pockets!
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| peak hour All they have to do is drop more packets during the times their system is overloaded. It's what routers are supposed to do, TCP/IP is supposed to decrease its transfer rate when that happens. Doesn't cost them a thing, it's network neutral, and it only costs the user a little bit of time.
There's incentive to grow their network, because a competitor will if they don't. You only see growth stop when the competition isn't there or doesn't care.
Maybe someday the demand for bandwidth will settle down. We can only use so much water and electricity, which is why metering makes sense for them. Landline and bandwidth are mostly fixed costs, which is why they tend towards fixed price contracts. As cell phone networks become more fixed cost, so will the prices. | |
|
|
mskitty
@covad.net
| Re: peak hour Hey Axus -
Where in DC do you live? I'm trying to line up a new ISP as soon as we can get out of our earthlink DSL contract (not til July - AUGH!) and read your posts about Verizon. I'm paying for 3mbps download speed and getting 144kbps. They say it's because we're in Mt Pleasant and too far from the "main feed" but I think Verizon has turfed the lines. Can't spend another hour of my life on tech calls to Mumbai, but can't stand this lack of speed anymore. Thanks for any help/info. I'm not a stalker, just looking for good info.
k | |
|
| | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: peak hour I live on the East side of DC. I haven't heard anything good about the cable companies here, but I don't use them either. From what I've heard, Comcast is more reliable than RCN, but you'll get a better deal from RCN. RCN doesn't offer service at my address, and I'm not interested in Comcast messing with my bits.
Best thing to do is ask your neighbors; one of the unique things about DC is people love to be outside their house ;p | |
|
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
| The Times got its numbers wrong. The Times article claims that it costs Comcast about $7 per month to double a user's capacity. But that's the cost for the last mile only -- not for backbone bandwidth. If the user pulls another 10 Mbps, all day and all night, it'll cost the ISP much more than that. Remember, the wholesale price of bandwidth, undelivered, is at best $3 per Mbps per month -- and that's for big players who buy by the gigabit. And delivering it to the last mile network usually costs much more than that. | |
|
| Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
1 edit | Re: The Times got its numbers wrong. Superwisp
Drawing 10Mbps constant would be over 3TB per month, and nobody is talking about the "average" person using anywhere close that amount in the near term(10years?). What they are talking about is going from 250GB/month (0.8Mbps constant) to 500GB/month(1.6Mbps constant), net increase of 0.8Mps). (0.8Mbps * $12/Mbps/month = $8/month) That is taking data from the top of their cap tier. If you look at 6GB/month(0.02Mbps constant) going to 12GB/month(0.04Mbps) a jump of 0.02Mbps, you are looking at an increase of $0.24/month.
Edit: I also forgot to mention that Mbps charges are only added up during peak hours(peak hours is all the ISPs pay for). All other Mbps costs the ISP nothing in either transit costs or hardware costs. | |
|
|
|
|
Times: Deployment Costs Sink As Prices Rise
·
Re: Question
·