 
53059959
Temp banned from BBR more then anyone
join:2002-10-02
PwnZone
1 edit | low caps? uhh 100gb? with 50mbps? you could max your cap out in 30 minutes.
btw: FIRST | |
|
 | 
Hehe
@ssa.gov
| Re: low caps? said by 53059959  :uhh 100gb? with 50mbps? you could max your cap out in 30 minutes. btw: FIRST I think your math is wrong.
100GB at 50Mb/s will take almost 6 hours. | |
|
flycuban
join:2005-04-25
Homestead, FL | So? So why bother having a faster pipe, if it comes with a limit attached? | |
|
| 
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
 ·Comcast
| Re: So? said by flycuban :So why bother having a faster pipe, if it comes with a limit attached? Because speed has value to customers other than the bandwidth-sucking P2P music&movie stealing customers. Doing something quickly doesn't mean you have to be downloading non-stop to get your money's worth.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
| |
sdfgg
@ab.ca | Re: So? Yes it does 
Why does a company have to dictate to me what i can and cannot do over the internet. | |
|
| | |
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
·Comcast
| Re: So? said by sdfgg :Yes it does Why does a company have to dictate to me what i can and cannot do over the internet. Because it costs more to provide what you want than you are willing to pay for it. So they have to control how much you get for what you are willing to pay.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
| | | |
sdfffg
@ab.ca
| Re: So? The price i pay as far as i am concerned as the consumer takes care of all their costs which seems to be 39.95/month.
This includes pay, equipment maintenence and power supply for running the network. If it costs them more then thats not my problem as a consumer. | |
|
| | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| Re: So? said by sdfffg :
The price i pay as far as i am concerned as the consumer takes care of all their costs which seems to be 39.95/month. And it does...based on the specified caps, ToS, and AUP. You get what you pay for  | |
|
| | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| As long as they're telling you up front what service they're selling you, it's exactly the same as every other non-shady transaction completed.
As far as I'm concerned, you seem to be ignorant to the fact that bandwidth is a variable cost to ISPs. Therefore, in order to offer you a fixed price they need to either, cap your speed, or cap your monthly total usage. What they should do, in my opinion, is just have a variable additional cost over the 100gb set limit. Although, I would put a opt-in clause for user to be put on the variable overage plan. | |
|
| | | | | | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
·SONIC.NET
| Re: So? I'd prefer they get a decent margin over the charges they're actually paying: traffic to certain destinations (within their network, for instance) would have their within network prices, and traffic to certain other destinations (those carriers they have peering and transit agreements with and even private connections to) would have the costs associated and appropriate for each of those other carriers. That way, I can start blacklisting or avoiding the carriers they are using that are costing me too much, and those that are so cheap that they don't work well enough, and focus on the good value ones. | |
|
| | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: So? That would be cool.
So would A-la-carte cable pricing. I don't see either happening ever.  | |
|
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| said by sdfgg :Yes it does Why does a company have to dictate to me what i can and cannot do over the internet. I don't see where the companies are dictating what you can and cannot do over your internet connection. They are simply limiting how much you can do over your connection. | |
|
| 
binarycode
join:2003-04-30
USA | Why drive a car that has a top speed of 120 mph or more when the speed limit is no where near that? | |
|
| | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: So? Actually, a better analogy would be why buy a car capable of 120 MPH if you can only drive it 100 miles/month? The answer is to be able to get somewhere faster for the few times that you need to instead of more times while driving slower. Buy a Prius for daily driving expecting to drive a lot of miles and save the Lamborghini for the once a month, show off to the ladies, drives. | |
|
| | |
binarycode
join:2003-04-30
USA
·Comcast
| Re: So? It wasn't meant to be an analogy. It was only an example of limitations on things we buy that people have come to accept. Sometimes I think folks just need to get over it. It's fairly well known that you can't have your cake and eat it too. | |
|
MarkyD
Premium
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| I tend to agree... why offer these kinds of speeds if you're going to burn through the monthly cap in no time? seems kind of pointless. Why not offer a truly unlimited option for more money, for those who are willing to pay it? I'd pay $150 a month for a truly unlimited residential connection at those speeds.
--
MarkyD, Paper Tiger
MCSA 2K3, SCNP, MCDST, MCITP, ACHDS, ACDT, ACPT, ACTC, A+, Network+ Security+, Server+, ITIL Foundations | |
|
| 
tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
·Comcast
| Re: I tend to agree... said by MarkyD :... I'd pay $150 a month for a truly unlimited residential connection at those speeds. $150? How about $500? or $5,000 per month ''for a truly unlimited residential connection'' ? or some number that more represents the true cost of the bandwidth/backbone capacity costs? And what are you going to do with the terabytes of downloads each month? | |
|
| axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Cox HSI
| The difference here is that there's true competition (as far as I can tell), so if a new provider wants to offer service on the Utopia network with a higher cap, they can. They are telling people up front what their cap is, and 100GB is reasonable. As internet usage grows, competitors can raise the caps to compete with each other.
I am curious what the business reason for the cap is, if the network is so robust. | |
|
| |
UTOPIA
@iauq.com | Re: I tend to agree... All UTOPIA is, is a FTTH ethernet network. Xmission and AT&T have to buy their internet connections and that's where the cap and cost issues come into play. | |
|
| | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Because the network has to pay the backbone; or restrict users to just the network. | |
|
| |
| |
MarkyD
Premium
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| Re: I tend to agree... said by wifi4milez :said by MarkyD :why offer these kinds of speeds if you're going to burn through the monthly cap in no time? seems kind of pointless. Why not offer a truly unlimited option for more money, for those who are willing to pay it? I'd pay $150 a month for a truly unlimited residential connection at those speeds. 50Mbps/50Mbps business class (i.e. unlimited) connections will run you between $4000 and $10,000 per month, and that price only applies if you are in an on-net building. Add in an OC3 or two DS3 local loops if you are in an off-net location, and you are talking about $8000 to $20,000 per month. YOU would gladly pay that?? If so, send me a PM and I will get the paperwork in your hands this afternoon! Verizon is offering 20/20mbps uncapped. Why can't UTOPIA providers do something similar?
Your argument is actually moot. a 50/50 business connection comes with an SLA. FTTH does not. It's becoming more and more common for users to crank up the speeds on residential connections...Don't offer 50/50 if you're going to cap it. There are plenty of legitimate reasons that one would use 100GB or more per month, many of which have nothing to do with P2P or file trading. | |
|
| | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: I tend to agree... I'm sure you can find a service provider on Utopia that is not capped. But you'll pay considerably more for the extra bandwidth to cover the costs. Verizon is offering uncapped (maybe) 20/20 now, because only a small fraction of their internet base has access to it, and most users don't use the bandwidth that their monthly fees cover. IOW they have economies of scale working for them... | |
|
ztmike
Mark for moderation
Premium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN
·Comcast
1 edit | Waste What a waste of tax payer money to build this out and then they give you these fat connections yet their capped? lol wow.
I would be PISSED if i lived there.
--
"I am the worst president in US history, I'm either stupid or dumb most of the time, but people still believe me." George W. Bush | |
|
| nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | Re: Waste it's not UTOPIA putting the caps on, it's the resellers.
get pissed at AT&T and the other companies, not the municipal fiber wholesaler. | |
|
| Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Be glad you don't. For we would then have to point and laugh at you for your ignorance. | |
|
| RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| said by ztmike :What a waste of tax payer money to build this out and then they give you these fat connections yet their capped? lol wow. I would be PISSED if i lived there. Glad you do not live here, that way those of us who want UTOPIA and understand what it is, what the limits are, and how the system really works do not have to put up with your whining. I wonder, since you hate to have our (not yours) tax dollars spent on UTOPIA, why are you using the internet? That was paid for with one heck of a lot more tax dollars than UTOPIA is suppose to take since it took the government in conjunction with academia to create the net, not 'private industry'.
Actually, one of the ISPs that you can get with UTOPIA (or DSL), Xmission, does have provisions for more down load volume at $50/100GB. The 100 GB cap is their way of balancing the email checkers who need to gulp a M$ fix occasionally and those who have various up/downloads like Linux or streaming video or even 'pirates' getting a music fix. Unlike a few other companies who have a vocal 'presence' here, Xmission tells you up front what you have to pay and what you really get for that payment, no waffling on hidden caps and changing the rules for different areas.
And Xmission does not care if you share your connection, just be wiling to pay for extra bandwidth if your 'friends' move too many bits.
Disclaimer: I am a customer of Xmission (my 9th 'ISP' in over 25 years) and I do not have any stake in them other than I think they are doing a good job balancing all aspects of the business and do not want them to fold or sell out to comcast, verizon, qwest, MSN, or other national ISP.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | this is the framework for the rest of the u.s. low caps aside, the structure of the utopia fiber network (muni-owned, customers can pick their own isp) is the ideal. if only more cities would break free of the oligopoly controlled system... | |
|
| flycuban
join:2005-04-25
Homestead, FL | Re: this is the framework for the rest of the u.s. Sounds like utopia is charging the other providers - bandwidth....because if all the ISP's have cap's in place...then it sounds like utopia is making the $$$ off the bandwidth that crossing over the fiber network... | |
|
| |
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | Re: this is the framework for the rest of the u.s. right. that only makes sense. they have to pay for that somehow. | |
|
| | 
kontos
xyzzy
join:2001-10-04
West Henrietta, NY
| said by flycuban :Sounds like utopia is charging the other providers - bandwidth....because if all the ISP's have cap's in place...then it sounds like utopia is making the $$$ off the bandwidth that crossing over the fiber network... No, the ISPs have to pay for the lines that take the data from the UTOPIA network to the internet. Faster lines cost more money for the ISPs, so they need to limit their customer's overall usage in order for the business case to make sense. | |
|
| LostInWoods
join:2004-04-14
| I don't really care whether the gov't owns the infrastructure or it's owned by a regulated private entity, but I've come to the opinion that structural separation between information access and information services is the only thing that makes sense. It kinda grates at the libertarian in me, but from a public benefit standpoint it makes more sense than a hands-off corporatist mindset that has shown that it gouges customers and stymies innovation.
Physical access to customers is really a natural monopoly, even if we have more than one type (e.g, telephone, cable, electricity, water/sewer, gas, roads, etc...) If you buy the premise that high-speed information is a 21st century necessity, then it make sense to me that the physical access to information has become a utility and should be treated as such. In essence, that's what Utopia does. | |
|
| | 
Trub
join:2002-12-25
Plano, TX | Re: this is the framework for the rest of the u.s. Hu hu hu he said "stymies" hu hu hu | |
|
|
bubb1sz
@insightbb.com | this is exactly how the rest of the US should be set up. I'd like to see the caps raise, (or removed), but its a legitimate tradeoff. | |
|
HotRodFoto
Premium
join:2003-04-19
Denver, CO | Why have caps with Fiber?? I don't understand why you would even have caps with Fiber anyhow?? What is the purpose?
--
Capturing the images of Colorado
»jdebordphoto.com | |
|
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Re: Why have caps with Fiber?? Did you forget your sarcasm tag? The purpose is to actually be able to sustain and support the network while not going bankrupt. | |
|
diehardspeed
Premium
join:2003-05-14
Salt Lake City, UT
| Caps in contracts, not in practice. I have MStar 15/15Mbps at home (so I could bundle TV) and was never told of a cap for home users (though I am sure they exist in writing somewhere), however they have one they have NEVER enforced it. ZZZZOOOOOOOOMMMMMM!
I have Xmission here at work and they have a 100GB cap on our 30/30Mbps Fiber. I have seen us go over a few times however they have never charged nor even notified us this happened. They rule ZZZZZZZOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMM!
I Love Utopia! | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY | kaps... Muni fiber with kaps?
WHAT?!?
YUCK! | |
|
| 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: kaps... said by tmc8080 :Muni fiber with kaps? WHAT?!? YUCK! yeah. why bother
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
ccoggle
join:2001-08-06
Salt Lake City, UT
| I have Xmission While they do have 'caps' in place I think its really more of a guideline than a rule.
While I don't 'abuse' per say I don't exactly watch my quota either and rarely come in under the 100gs. So far I have never heard from Xmission or been charged.
I think they used it as a means to deal with people who are abusive. | |
|
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
as_usual
@verizon.net
| Bandwidth Cost Whats the real cost of "Bandwidth"? Is a residential connection so much different in terms of bandwidth than a web host? For example in general terms godaddy:
on a month to month contract(no discounts)
$2.99 (2mo. min) will get you 250gb transfer
$14.99 (1mo.) will get you 2000gb transfer
(ISP's usually charge more than 14.99 per mo. try 50-60+tax/fees)
Does it really cost an ISP more money than a Web Host because the actual internet seems the same between the two? Although an ISP will have additional overhead, it seems that charging for "over using" bandwidth is just another hidden fee passed on to the general consumer. | |
|
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Bandwidth Cost said by as_usual :
Whats the real cost of "Bandwidth"? I would say that the "real" cost of bandwidth is whatever your upstream provider is charging you for a connection. Good data centers have a large amount of bandwidth available from various providers. They procure bandwidth to a single point and may be part of a telco hotel with other providers to leverage existing/shared infrastructure to reduce costs. The data center's network is typically internal to a building or campus of buildings so there is no cost to extend infrastructure across hundreds/thousands of miles. Try routinely transferring 2 TB (I seriously doubt your shared host is even capable of transmitting that much data) per month and see how long your remain a Godaddy customer at $14.99/mth.said by as_usual :
charging for "over using" bandwidth is just another hidden fee passed on to the general consumer. Not very hidden if you're told you have a cap up front. | |
|
| | dobbs
join:2006-12-16
Wenatchee, WA
1 edit | Re: Bandwidth Cost As I understand your post, telco hotels distribute cabling costs between many (hosting, service, what-have-you) businesses. These companies then distribute their operating costs (space rental, power, bandwidth...) to their customers marketed as rack-space or CPU time+storage rental, uptime and bandwidth.
To apply this model to the topic at hand, the "inherent" cost of residential internet service can then be blamed on cabling maintenance and upstream bandwidth?
The following is my mind rambling along this concept. The healthiest option is probably to ignore it.
In Washington, the Chelan County PUD has deployed a residential fiber network (»fiber.chelanpud.org/ ). Not having familiarised myself with this Utopia network I can only assume it's similar, but it should work fine for this discussion. To spell it out, the PUD offers commercial ISPs an option to rent virtual connections between peoples' homes and the ISP's office, which are all (ISP office, residences) on the PUD's network. The PUD charges the ISP a flat fee per virtual circuit. These virtual circuits are uncapped and purchased by bandwidth alotment, meaning you get 5, 10 or 100Mbps or whatever that doesn't run out. Beyond that flat fee per customer, the ISP has to pay for its (upstream) internet connection. The ISP where I worked bought internet bandwidth in discrete chunks. So if we were serving 1000 customers each with 5Mbps links and they all constantly drew 5Mbps, we would need to purchase 5000Mbps*24h*3600s*30.5d = ~13Pbits every month. ISPs operate on the assumption that this isn't the case, so they don't have to buy the theoretical maximum amount of internet bandwidth their customers could use and pass the savings onto the customer. It's a happy little world.
Unfortunately, customers demand their bills be predictable when they themselves are not.
Enter bandwidth caps. In the round-about explanation above, an ISP makes more money on customers that don't use bandwidth and less on those that do. Caps provide a legal framework to remove customers that don't earn them as much profit. Actually, they could legally deny service to anyone, so maybe it's a form of communicating the rules to the customer. This of course doesn't answer the question posed, which is how much profit an ISP makes on the piddly amount of bandwidth you use at home; that's an economics question.
Hmm, and going with the idea of local proxies to reduce backbone transfers, I wonder if/how much an ISP could save by running P2P software that only uploads to their customers, assuming nobody sued them for piracy. The answer is probably along the lines of, "Not as much as blocking it altogether." Which is more ethical, I wonder. | |
|
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Bandwidth Cost said by dobbs :To apply this model to the topic at hand, the "inherent" cost of residential internet service can then be blamed on cabling maintenance and upstream bandwidth? And customer service, management costs, taxes, franchise fees, etc.said by dobbs :This of course doesn't answer the question posed, which is how much profit an ISP makes on the piddly amount of bandwidth you use at home; that's an economics question. Yep, and the only one who will really know the "cost of bandwidth" is the one signing the lease from the upstream provider.said by dobbs :I wonder if/how much an ISP could save by running P2P software that only uploads to their customers, assuming nobody sued them for piracy. The answer is probably along the lines of, "Not as much as blocking it altogether." Ask Bram Cohen. Obviously, blocking P2P will cost the ISP less in the long run.said by dobbs :Which is more ethical, I wonder. Depends on whether you dictate to your customers what the rules are before they become your customers. | |
|
| | | | dobbs
join:2006-12-16
Wenatchee, WA
| Re: Bandwidth Cost said by openbox9 :Depends on whether you dictate to your customers what the rules are before they become your customers. Good point. However, two problems stand out. Blocking is a cloak-and-dagger arms race. P2P can and will hide behind other 'mainstream' traffic. Some authorized traffic will suffer. Secondly and far less technical (esoteric?), how many people actually read their EULAs and AUPs? Companies expend tremendous effort in covering their own asses such that contracts aren't written in language understood by the population at large. Yes, yes, it's the customer's responsibility to read and understand the contracts to which they agree. What incentives does a business have to make their contracts easily understandable?
0x5468 0x6573 0x6520 0x7175 0x6573 0x7469 0x6f6e 0x7320 0x6172 0x6520 0x696e 0x7465 0x6e64 0x6564 0x2066 0x6f72 0x2070 0x7572 0x656c 0x7920 0x6879 0x706f 0x7468 0x6574 0x6963 0x616c 0x2064 0x6973 0x636f 0x7572 0x7365 0x2061 0x6e64 0x206e 0x6f74 0x2074 0x6f20 0x7461 0x7267 0x6574 0x2061 0x6e79 0x2073 0x7065 0x6369 0x6669 0x6320 0x6f72 0x6761 0x6e69 0x7a61 0x7469 0x6f6e 0x206f 0x7220 0x7065 0x7273 0x6f6e 0x732e 0x00 | |
|
Andreas
@comcast.net
| UTOPIA I live in Draper, UT...very close to a UTOPIA city but not within one, sadly. I have Comcast and I am paying more money for less. My internet is slower and more expensive than something UTOPIA cities can provide me with. I have no problem with the 100GB limit per month, I can deal with that especially since I'm getting faster speeds for less $$$ than with Comcast or Qwest...seems like a no-brainier to me which service I would chose if I had the opportunity. | |
|
|
ztmike
Mark for moderation
Premium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN
·Comcast
| Re: UTOPIA said by Andreas :
I live in Draper, UT...very close to a UTOPIA city but not within one, sadly. I have Comcast and I am paying more money for less. My internet is slower and more expensive than something UTOPIA cities can provide me with. I have no problem with the 100GB limit per month, I can deal with that especially since I'm getting faster speeds for less $$$ than with Comcast or Qwest...seems like a no-brainier to me which service I would chose if I had the opportunity.
Having a connection like 50/50 or 20/20 you would BURN threw that in a matter of days, If people go for those kind of connections they plan to use them..
--
"I am the worst president in US history, I'm either stupid or dumb most of the time, but people still believe me." George W. Bush | |
|
| 
Assault
join:2001-12-14
Garland, TX | I'm glad I have FiOS instead of that S#it! | |
|
needspeednow
@comcast.net
| Not sure who wrote that piece but As far as I know only Xmission has a Cap of 100GB which you can easily increase by contacting them for higher use packages.
AT&T 's line does have a cap and neither do the other two Mstar and Nuvont. I have AT&T 15/15 ($40) on utopia at my temp house in murray and host my personal webserver on that connection and last month I did 582GB up on it. This month will probably end with 400-450 upload.
I don't really like caps but if I had to choose between a cap and unknown cap (Comcast) based on your ISP feeling you as a burden... then I take the cap. Atleast then I can negotiate with the ISP on how to increase my Cap. Also, you have Utopia, then not only can you get a 15/15 or 50/50 connection but you can also score a Comcast Cable for $20 bucks. My comcast 8MB was 65 bucks a month. Now I have 15/15 for 40 & backup comcast 6MB for $20. Total cost is still below my original comcast bill but now I have 2 high speed connections. | |
|
|
|
|
·
·
·