Will Slingbox 'Bring Down the Network?'Providers may block, throttle and/or prohibit Slingbox ( old news - 10:05AM Tuesday Sep 12 2006) Many Verizon wireless users who utilize Slingbox have run into the company's invisible 10GB per month download cap, receiving account termination warnings from the provider. At a conference this week in Amsterdam, mobile broadband providers voiced concern Slingbox bandwidth consumption "could bring down the network". Slingbox CEO Blake Krikorian called the suggestion "stupid", saying it was a "good problem to have." The fear of Slingbox competing with their own mobile-video services, justified by a fear of bandwidth consumption, may lead many providers to mirror Verizon's rather Draconian EULA, which prohibits everything but browsing and e-mail.
|
 |  | 
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
 ·Packet8
edit:
September 12th, @10:47AM
| Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit said by TK Junk Mail  :The Slingbox issue for wireless providers like Verizon have the same solution that should be implemented to address all bandwidth hog issues, regardless of infrastructure - a pay per bit pricing model. With that model, those who consume the most bandwidth pay the most money. This does 2 things: It puts the burden of upgrading infrastructure on those causing the need for an upgrade. And it puts a self-limit on those biggest bandwidth hogs - how much are they willing to pay to consume huge amounts of bandwidth. At some point they will cut their usage to match their available funds. Spoken like a true cable astroturfer - everybody pays for his/her bandwidth already. There's no need to change the business modell and there's no legal basis to cap unlimited service.
It's only the problem of wireless and cable providers - there's no capping on DSL or FIOS and we know the reasons for both...
And no, the cable companies won't get a free ticket to avoid those questions about long years of postponed or completely missing network upgrades. You got your service fees, your money, you SHOULD HAVE UPGRADED ALREADY.
If you have miscalculated then fire your execs and get a loan or close your business.
It's the sheer greed of (your) cable industry, nothing else - there's no sane arguments behind this prosposed business modell change.
Cable industry is similar to Hollywood, to the **AAs: they don't want to invest into serious upgrades, rather change the course to make sure their government-granted yet illegal monopolies remain intact without any serious investment. | |
| | | 
yock
The Internet Is For Porn
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit said by kamm :Spoken like a true cable astroturfer - everybody pays for his/her bandwidth already. There's no need to change the business modell and there's no legal basis to cap unlimited service.It's only the problem of wireless and cable providers - there's no capping on DSL or FIOS and we know the reasons for both... While I understand the basis for your rebuttal, it ignores an unfortunate fact of life. ISPs oversell their network because of the nature of bandwidth usage.
You receive huge breaks in the price of service because they know you can't possibly use 100% of it all the time, so that adds a lot of unseen capacity. If you had 5Mb/384kb of dedicated bandwidth that was yours and yours alone to use, the price would be astronomical...not to mention completely out of your price range.
So before you go insulting a well-educated user, perhaps you'll research the current ISP business model a bit more.
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge | |
| | | |
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·Packet8
edit:
September 12th, @10:56AM
| Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit said by yock :said by kamm :Spoken like a true cable astroturfer - everybody pays for his/her bandwidth already. There's no need to change the business modell and there's no legal basis to cap unlimited service.It's only the problem of wireless and cable providers - there's no capping on DSL or FIOS and we know the reasons for both... While I understand the basis for your rebuttal, it ignores an unfortunate fact of life. ISPs oversell their network because of the nature of bandwidth usage. Um pal, hate to say this but you just proved you don't understand the whole (not just mine) point.
You receive huge breaks in the price of service
No, I don't.
because they know you can't possibly use 100% of it all the time, so that adds a lot of unseen capacity.
Pretty cheap spin - they don't know it, they are assuming things and they do it only to SAVE MONEY on investments.
It's - 'capping' - a cable-only phenomenon in case you don't know it.
If you had 5Mb/384kb of dedicated bandwidth that was yours and yours alone to use, the price would be astronomical...not to mention completely out of your price range.
Uhhh.  On DSL they don't have this problem. On FIOS they don't have this problem.
And do you know why?
So before you go insulting a well-educated user, perhaps you'll research the current ISP business model a bit more.
It's quite finny to read after all this as this would be a perfect advice to follow yourself, especially when you don't even understand the business point, the sneaky rationale behind capping and /or business modell change he's proposing at all, let alone calling our well-known corporate shill & FT cable industry astroturfer Tjunk a "well-educated user" ROFLMAO.  | |
| | | | |
yock
The Internet Is For Porn
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
edit:
September 12th, @11:04AM
| Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit DSL does in fact suffer from this phenomenon. The marketing information about its dedicated nature only refers to the "last mile" and ignores the major transmission infrastructure. They count on lack of consumer knowledge to manufacture product differentiation, when none really exists.
In fact, it was the phone company, *NOT* cable television, that invented multiplexing; the technology that allows multiple discrete signals to travel along the same cable. This notion that phone companies don't share similar business models is a crock.
Again, I urge you to do some research into this, as you seem to have a genuine interest in the technology. Communication companies of all shapes, sizes, and industries all oversell their real capacity due to the nature of its usage. There are predictable peaks in usage, and that is how communication companies design their networks. Cover the peak and you cover everything else, and the peak is nowhere close the the cumulative total of sold capacity.
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge | |
| | | | | |
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·Packet8
edit:
September 12th, @11:29AM
| Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit said by yock :DSL does in fact suffer from this phenomenon. The marketing information about its dedicated nature only refers to the "last mile" and ignores the major transmission infrastructure. They count on lack of consumer knowledge to manufacture product differentiation, when none really exists. In fact, it was the phone company, *NOT* cable television, that invented multiplexing; the technology that allows multiple discrete signals to travel along the same cable. This notion that phone companies don't share similar business models is a crock. Again, I urge you to do some research into this, as you seem to have a genuine interest in the technology. I guess one question explains to you everything: why can't you see any DSL or FIOS company to use capping?
That's all you have to answer.
Communication companies of all shapes, sizes, and industries all oversell their real capacity due to the nature of its usage.
And there's nothing new and nothing wrong with overselling as long as they maintain
a good level - see DSL providers.
FYI: there are hosting companies who undersell their capacity. For example this is purely the sole reason why Rackspace - I'm using them too, I have couple of dedicated servers hosted, mostly in their Fort Worth DC - showed such a crazy growth during the last few years.
There are predictable peaks in usage, and that is how communication companies design their networks. Cover the peak and you cover everything else, and the peak is nowhere close the the cumulative total of sold capacity.
My point was that most cable companies, driven by sheer greed and/or arrogant execs, postponed or minimized their necessary investment and now these are in very bad shape to compete with 50+Mbit FIOS and similar offerings in the future. They will have to foot much bigger bills, thanks to thoise missed years and that's why they try to change the rules instead of facing the consequences of their bad decisions. | |
| | | | | | | FightingBlue
join:2006-04-08
Warsaw, NY
 ·FrontierNet Intern..
 ·HughesNet Satellit..
| Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit Kamm is correct here: the reality is that if networks can't keep up with people using them, the network has to be fixed. Period. And charging more isn't the answer--in fact, it's possibly the stupidest idea in the whole mess. There's no shortage of bandwidth. If you look at all the dark fiber and other unused trunk space, you'd realize that service providers, particularly backbone providers are trying to sell bottled water for $20 a gallon. Then they have the temerity to complain when someone actually uses the service as promised, because that shaves a little off their profit margins, and reduces how much they can oversell their service without upgrading it. | |
| | | | | | | | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit I'm amused that the argument here focused so quickly on cable ISPs and their overbuilding needs--the article focused on Verizon Wireless, not cable.
I'm also in that school of thought that ISPs may have to charge by the bit to cover the cost of shared facilities (i.e., connections at peering points and the backhaul from those points to the local hub). I also agree that not immediately building facilities to let every user have 100% bandwidth to the peering points 24/7 makes good economic sense.
In the next breath, however, it's necessary to say that the ISPs' obligations include building enough shared facilities to handle demand and to disclose any limits they may place on their services up front. Having "invisible" caps is ridiculous and likely a deceptive trade practice.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | | | | 
kammer
@comcast.net
| Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit That's because people like kamm are BBR's telco lobby. In case you haven't noticed, pretty much anything he says is somehow related to how evil cable companies are.
If he were really unbiased, he'd simply say the truth: both the telco and cable industries are greedy and stupid. | |
| | | | | | | 
owenhome
keeper of the magic blue smoke
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Wichita Falls, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T Southwest
edit:
September 12th, @12:57PM
| To be honest, you're both right.
Every ISP oversells their capacity. This has been a constant back to the days of dial-up. For this very reason a dial-up provider only needed 30 lines and a T1 to support 200 users. Nothing has changed through today.
Your not going to find capping on DSL, not for the fact they don't oversell, which they do, but rather because the ISP generally owns their pipes, unlike some cable companies which have to buy their bandwidth from someone else.
Yes this is an issue of greed, but more so, it's an issue of practicality. There's no reason to upgrade an entire network because a handful of users are taxing it. Service providers, like Easynews, are correct in stating that 10-20 users put by far the biggest strain on their bandwidth, while the thousands of other users cost relatively nothing to service. The way their business model, and that of every ISP works, is simply on the law of averages. Average usage, average bandwidth, average cost, average profit, consolidating the entire user base down to a number. When they have aggressive users that throws that average out, they let them know.
This would be an entirely different situation if they designed their network in such a way that every user would have 100% of their bandwidth available to them, 100% of the time. But it's not, and there's no reason to. 99% of the networks capacity would go unused. That's why they build the network to support that 1%. No more is needed. Until, of course, little Johnny's warez fetish takes over and he's using 100s of times more than the average user.
Verizon, as it's well known, does not have the network resources in place to support aggressive users. They brought 3rd gen into play before they had the resources to effectively support it. They're getting better, day by day, but for the most part, EVDO from Verizon, at present, depends on low usage to function. As such, they have to take sometimes seemly drastic measures against customers to keep it running. Once these tooth-cutting issues are done and over with, we will likely hear little to nothing more about it. But for now, while EVDO is still in its infancy, and some towers are still being serviced by such things as their original T1 (gag) while having to provide service for however many people are connected to it, they will have to keep usage down.
I will be the first one to agree, we already pay for our bandwidth, but only to a point. And I will also be the first one standing up yelling at the ISP's to "tell it like it is" but the plain and simple fact of the matter is, if we were actually paying for our bandwidth, we would be paying multitudes more than we are now. The cost of bringing the network up to support 100% of every users max capacity would be astronomical, and those costs would be met by astronomical charges to its users. If an ISP specifies "unlimited" than that's exactly what it should be. If they have a magic cap, they should include such information in their advertising to avoid such situations. The FTC has failed us here, as this is obviously deceptive. But at the same time, we have to understand why these caps are in place, at least for "some" ISP's (like Verizon wireless).
But some other ISP's drastically oversell their network and/or they don't want to pay for any more bandwidth than absolutely required. This speed craze ISP's are going through now is making the situation even worse. They want to keep their customers, so they jack up speeds more and more, but they don't want to sink any more money in their network. These are by far the worst. In order to support average users, the network is already greatly overtaxed, it's already tapped out. But they are trying to keep costs down to remain profitable, so they don't invest any more to bring up capacity. These ISP's are the scum of the earth in my opinion. They depend on average users because that's all they can support. When an aggressive user comes about, using 100s of times more bandwidth than an average user, that throws their barley balanced network over the edge. These ISP's go after aggressive users with great resolve. Throttling them down, killing speeds, tossing down ridiculous caps, and seemingly driving them off like a bad employee. Hopefully, over time, such ISP's will be forced out of business or forced to support their users.
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. | |
| | | | 
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
edit:
September 12th, @11:03AM
| ISPs oversell their network because of the nature of bandwidth usage.
Then perhaps they should not "oversell"?
This isn't a problem of users, but rather the company not accurately predicting usage through unpredictable circumstances. | |
| | | | |
yock
The Internet Is For Porn
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit said by tsu :ISPs oversell their network because of the nature of bandwidth usage.Then perhaps they should not "oversell"? It would be nice, but then your DSL or cable connection would cost about $800 a month. I certainly don't want that.
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge | |
| | | | | |
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
edit:
September 12th, @11:07AM
| Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit How about some rational figures to back that assertion up?
To whit: if there is that much risk involved ($760 rough risk) per line, then I really have to wonder how the market stays afloat. Because, honestly, they seem to be making plenty of money. | |
| | | | | | |
yock
The Internet Is For Porn
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit said by tsu :How about some rational figures to back that assertion up? To whit: if there is that much risk involved ($760 rough risk) per line, then I really have to wonder how the market stays afloat. Because, honestly, they seem to be making plenty of money. It's a number that roughly equates to 5Mb of commercial access with a Service Level Agreement. It may very well be incredibly inaccurate, as I do not work in the industry.
Consider that a dedicated T1 line costs around $400/mo for 1.5Mb up and down these days, my estimation for 5Mb might even be low.
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge | |
| | | | | | | |
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit It's a bit lower than that, actually. And, regardless, that's still inflated quite heavily. Taking into account that most home users don't expect 99.9999(or more)% uptime, that lowers the cost rather dramatically. Even something like 98% would suffice, especially if the downtime were limited to notable off-peak hours. Business class lines pay for both uptime and QOS. Dedication of line isn't really all that expensive, in and of itself, as most DSL providers tend to showcase (yes, slightly flawed analogy, but that is "good enough" for the average/above-average home user)
All this fuss over people using the network that is "oversold" just means that 95% (random statistic: popular figure of 5% "heavy" users) of the users are getting fleeced.
--
"You do not secure the liberty of our country and value of our democracy by undermining them, that's the road to hell." - Lord Phillips of Sudbury. | |
| | | | | | | |
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·Packet8
| said by yock :said by tsu :How about some rational figures to back that assertion up? To whit: if there is that much risk involved ($760 rough risk) per line, then I really have to wonder how the market stays afloat. Because, honestly, they seem to be making plenty of money. It's a number that roughly equates to 5Mb of commercial access with a Service Level Agreement. It may very well be incredibly inaccurate, as I do not work in the industry. Consider that a dedicated T1 line costs around $400/mo for 1.5Mb up and down these days, my estimation for 5Mb might even be low. You might want to take your own advice and check out the industry then: most of the extra you pay for a T1 comes from the SLA behind it: the routing, those various peering routes the ISP must secure to be able to back up its "five-digit 9s" SLA. 
Contrary to this we don't want SLA, nobody expects 99.999% service but everybody expects uncapped service.
The two barely has anything to do with each other if it's not cable, not a shared last-mile system. | |
| | | | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by yock :It's a number that roughly equates to 5Mb of commercial access with a Service Level Agreement. It may very well be incredibly inaccurate, as I do not work in the industry. Home users do not get anywhere near the service of a "service level agreement." | |
| | | | | | | | |
yock
The Internet Is For Porn
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit said by moonpuppy :said by yock :It's a number that roughly equates to 5Mb of commercial access with a Service Level Agreement. It may very well be incredibly inaccurate, as I do not work in the industry. Home users do not get anywhere near the service of a "service level agreement." Which is exactly my point. Since you are not promised every bit of that bandwidth every moment of every day, they can over-sell their networks.
Either way, I feel I've made my point to the best of my ability. The great thing about our discussions here is our right to disagree. I'll exercise that right...right now. =)
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge | |
| | | | | | | | | |
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·Packet8
edit:
September 12th, @11:52AM
| Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit said by yock :said by moonpuppy :said by yock :It's a number that roughly equates to 5Mb of commercial access with a Service Level Agreement. It may very well be incredibly inaccurate, as I do not work in the industry. Home users do not get anywhere near the service of a "service level agreement." Which is exactly my point. Since you are not promised every bit of that bandwidth every moment of every day, they can over-sell their networks. No, you are confusedon multiple counts.
1.SLA is more about the service quality - bandwidth is there anyway.
2. Slowing down periodically has nothing to do with deliberate capping. Capping for using your PAID service is CLEARLY illegal and has no merits.
Either way, I feel I've made my point to the best of my ability. The great thing about our discussions here is our right to disagree. I'll exercise that right...right now. =)
 | |
| | | | | | |
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·Packet8
| said by tsu :How about some rational figures to back that assertion up? To whit: if there is that much risk involved ($760 rough risk) per line, then I really have to wonder how the market stays afloat. Because, honestly, they seem to be making plenty of money. Ouch, another great one - touche'! | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·Packet8
edit:
September 12th, @11:28AM
| said by yock :said by tsu :ISPs oversell their network because of the nature of bandwidth usage.Then perhaps they should not "oversell"? It would be nice, but then your DSL or cable connection would cost about $800 a month. I certainly don't want that. Another ignorant comment. FYI: an SLA-backed T1 starts around $300 - and that's 1.5Mbit guaranteed, both ways. | |
| | | | | | |
owenhome
keeper of the magic blue smoke
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Wichita Falls, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit No, no it's not. It's guaranteed yes, but the bandwidth available at the ISP itself to support your T1 is not up to the task of supporting every T1 at 100%. They depend on each T1 to be below a certain average capacity. When I worked for an ISP who sold T1's, many moons ago, the average we used was 25%. It was only when customer's complained that we would do something about it.
Can you see the forest despite the trees?
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. | |
| | | | | | | 
wifi4milez
In Need Of Garbage Pail Kids 1st Series
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| said by kamm :said by yock :said by tsu :ISPs oversell their network because of the nature of bandwidth usage.Then perhaps they should not "oversell"? It would be nice, but then your DSL or cable connection would cost about $800 a month. I certainly don't want that. Another ignorant comment. FYI: an SLA-backed T1 starts around $300 - and that's 1.5Mbit guaranteed, both ways. Incorrect. T1 lines under ideal circumstances START at $300 from small providers, with many people still paying or being quoted $800 or even $1000 or more depending on where they are located. As for the SLA, its not a true guarantee in that it (the T1) will never go down. The SLA is simply there to distinguish the BUSINESS class service from a RESIDENTIAL service and to provide for a (very small) monetary "break" if/when the service goes down. At the end of the day there is not a single ISP in this country that will cover monetary damages incurred by loss of service, so at best the SLA being broken will allow you out of a contract.
--
я люблю медведей! | |
| | | | |
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·Packet8
| said by tsu :ISPs oversell their network because of the nature of bandwidth usage.Then perhaps they should not "oversell"? This isn't a problem of users, but rather the company not accurately predicting usage through unpredictable circumstances. Exactly - this was one of my points. | |
| | | |
wifi4milez
In Need Of Garbage Pail Kids 1st Series
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
edit:
September 12th, @12:46PM
| said by yock :said by kamm :Spoken like a true cable astroturfer - everybody pays for his/her bandwidth already. There's no need to change the business modell and there's no legal basis to cap unlimited service.It's only the problem of wireless and cable providers - there's no capping on DSL or FIOS and we know the reasons for both... While I understand the basis for your rebuttal, it ignores an unfortunate fact of life. ISPs oversell their network because of the nature of bandwidth usage. You receive huge breaks in the price of service because they know you can't possibly use 100% of it all the time, so that adds a lot of unseen capacity. If you had 5Mb/384kb of dedicated bandwidth that was yours and yours alone to use, the price would be astronomical...not to mention completely out of your price range. So before you go insulting a well-educated user, perhaps you'll research the current ISP business model a bit more. GOLF CLAP FOR YOCK!!!! Nicely put, and no rational or reasonable person can refute that . You pretty much just nailed the argument, although I am sure some uninformed individuals will still complain that they should be getting dedicated, uncapped, 50 meg symmetrical lines for what they are paying now.......
EDIT: I am sure someone will also blame the "evil" and "greedy" corporations somehow.
--
я люблю медведей! | |
| | | JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| said by kamm :said by TK Junk Mail :The Slingbox issue for wireless providers like Verizon have the same solution that should be implemented to address all bandwidth hog issues, regardless of infrastructure - a pay per bit pricing model. With that model, those who consume the most bandwidth pay the most money. This does 2 things: It puts the burden of upgrading infrastructure on those causing the need for an upgrade. And it puts a self-limit on those biggest bandwidth hogs - how much are they willing to pay to consume huge amounts of bandwidth. At some point they will cut their usage to match their available funds. Spoken like a true cable astroturfer - everybody pays for his/her bandwidth already. There's no need to change the business modell and there's no legal basis to cap unlimited service.It's only the problem of wireless and cable providers - there's no capping on DSL or FIOS and we know the reasons for both... And no, the cable companies won't get a free ticket to avoid those questions about long years of postponed or completely missing network upgrades. You got your service fees, your money, you SHOULD HAVE UPGRADED ALREADY.If you have miscalculated then fire your execs and get a loan or close your business.It's the sheer greed of (your) cable industry, nothing else - there's no sane arguments behind this prosposed business modell change. Cable industry is similar to Hollywood, to the **AAs: they don't want to invest into serious upgrades, rather change the course to make sure their government-granted yet illegal monopolies remain intact without any serious investment. Jesus your like a 3 year old on crack . Focus ! The story is about Verizon wireless services not cable. The word is model not modell by the way. Did you buy a pair a sneakers there or something?
Now back to the article in hand. Freaking 10 GB on a cell phone, that is just sick. Man those folks eyes must be hurting. As long as people agree to Verizon's TOS than there is not much they can do. End of Story.
--
A shotgun blast to the head will clear that right up. | |
| | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit said by JSRoman :Now back to the article in hand. Freaking 10 GB on a cell phone, that is just sick. Man those folks eyes must be hurting. As long as people agree to Verizon's TOS than there is not much they can do. End of Story. If that is the case then why is Verizon advertising video viewing on their phones?
This is NOT about using a slingbox but about paying for VCast content. Verizon wouldn't care if you used 100GB/month as long as it was all VCast content that you paid for.
All cell phone companies hate it when you bypass their content for free content. Ringtones and wallpapers are 2 examples. Some phones you can put your own ringtones on but cell phone companies discourage it (using the copyrighted material excuse.) | |
| | | | |
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·Packet8
| Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit said by moonpuppy :said by JSRoman :Now back to the article in hand. Freaking 10 GB on a cell phone, that is just sick. Man those folks eyes must be hurting. As long as people agree to Verizon's TOS than there is not much they can do. End of Story. If that is the case then why is Verizon advertising video viewing on their phones? This is NOT about using a slingbox but about paying for VCast content. Verizon wouldn't care if you used 100GB/month as long as it was all VCast content that you paid for. All cell phone companies hate it when you bypass their content for free content. Ringtones and wallpapers are 2 examples. Some phones you can put your own ringtones on but cell phone companies discourage it (using the copyrighted material excuse.) Excellent point. Every wireless company would love to serve you 100GB video if you'd buy all of that from their catalog. | |
| | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| said by moonpuppy :All cell phone companies hate it when you bypass their content for free content. Ringtones and wallpapers are 2 examples. Some phones you can put your own ringtones on but cell phone companies discourage it (using the copyrighted material excuse.) ...and supermarkets hat it when you park your car in their lot but walk next door and shop at their neighbors. Some of them will even tow your car. As long as they've posted the rules, why do you complain?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit said by calvoiper :said by moonpuppy :...and supermarkets hat it when you park your car in their lot but walk next door and shop at their neighbors. Some of them will even tow your car. As long as they've posted the rules, why do you complain? calvoiper The complaint is not what the rules are but the rationalization. The cell phone companies won't come out and say that you can't use your slingbox because you aren't using their services (and costing them lost revenue.) I know if I go into a parking lot meant for certain stores (their property) that I can be towed if I do not patronize those stores at that time. | |
| | | |
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·Packet8
| said by JSRoman :said by kamm :said by TK Junk Mail :The Slingbox issue for wireless providers like Verizon have the same solution that should be implemented to address all bandwidth hog issues, regardless of infrastructure - a pay per bit pricing model. With that model, those who consume the most bandwidth pay the most money. This does 2 things: It puts the burden of upgrading infrastructure on those causing the need for an upgrade. And it puts a self-limit on those biggest bandwidth hogs - how much are they willing to pay to consume huge amounts of bandwidth. At some point they will cut their usage to match their available funds. Spoken like a true cable astroturfer - everybody pays for his/her bandwidth already. There's no need to change the business modell and there's no legal basis to cap unlimited service.It's only the problem of wireless and cable providers - there's no capping on DSL or FIOS and we know the reasons for both... And no, the cable companies won't get a free ticket to avoid those questions about long years of postponed or completely missing network upgrades. You got your service fees, your money, you SHOULD HAVE UPGRADED ALREADY.If you have miscalculated then fire your execs and get a loan or close your business.It's the sheer greed of (your) cable industry, nothing else - there's no sane arguments behind this prosposed business modell change. Cable industry is similar to Hollywood, to the **AAs: they don't want to invest into serious upgrades, rather change the course to make sure their government-granted yet illegal monopolies remain intact without any serious investment. Jesus your like a 3 year old on crack . Focus ! The story is about Verizon wireless services not cable. The word is model not modell by the way. Did you buy a pair a sneakers there or something? Now back to the article in hand. Freaking 10 GB on a cell phone, that is just sick. Man those folks eyes must be hurting. As long as people agree to Verizon's TOS than there is not much they can do. End of Story. FYI: I have merely pointed out what's behind our well-known cable indusrty shill's idea. | |
| | | | |
See 6 replies to this post | |
| | |
Ironix
@algx.net | "Jesus your like a 3 year old on crack... ...The word is model not modell by the way."
Perhaps you shouldn't correct typos when you don't know the difference between "your" and "you're" yourself... | |
| | | | wev567
join:2006-02-25
Pittsburgh, PA | Aren't the caps applied to laptop card users, who use the mobile connection like a wired cable or dsl line? | |
| | | | | | | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit Additionally, let's face it.
Regardless of whatever arguments we make about cable and DSL, wireless bandwidth is BOTH shared and limited.
If any wireless provider sold only enough subscriptions so that every customer could have full bandwidth 24/7, they'd have about 137 customers in each metro area.
Bandwidth management issues (on whatever portions of any ISP's network that are shared) are going to be a continuing challenge. Pricing by the bit is the normal free-market answer to a limited, shared resource--just as pricing by the barrel is the free market answer to the limited, shared resource we know as petroleum.
Of course, if Kamm were King, somebody else would pay for his 24/7, 100 Mb service.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | |
anoniam
@shawcable.net | only problem with that is that most companys mainly candian ISP needs approval by the governing party on this, being the CRTC, they have to approve so that the ISPs can charge per gig | |
| | 
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Netcong, NJ
| said by TK Junk Mail :...a pay per bit pricing model. With that model, those who consume the most bandwidth pay the most money. This does 2 things: It puts the burden of upgrading infrastructure on those causing the need for an upgrade. And it puts a self-limit on those biggest bandwidth hogs - how much are they willing to pay to consume huge amounts of bandwidth. At some point they will cut their usage to match their available funds. With this I agree 100%. Anyone that thinks their $29.95 pays for the bandwidth, support, infrastructure and hardware is just delusional. This is not about free speech. There are many hosting providers out there that will get your message out (upstream) for a very reasonable fee.
I have no interest in subsidizing some kid's porn/warez/spears file-sharing habits. | |
| | |
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·Packet8
| Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit said by sporkme :said by TK Junk Mail :...a pay per bit pricing model. With that model, those who consume the most bandwidth pay the most money. This does 2 things: It puts the burden of upgrading infrastructure on those causing the need for an upgrade. And it puts a self-limit on those biggest bandwidth hogs - how much are they willing to pay to consume huge amounts of bandwidth. At some point they will cut their usage to match their available funds. With this I agree 100%. Anyone that thinks their $29.95 pays for the bandwidth, support, infrastructure and hardware is just delusional. For you, perhaps but apparently it generates plenty of wealth for every ISP.
This is not about free speech.
Excuse me? You're pretty confused here... it's not your usual the civil liberties/freedom-bashing topic...
There are many hosting providers out there that will get your message out (upstream) for a very reasonable fee.
I have no interest in subsidizing some kid's porn/warez/spears file-sharing habits.
I have no interests to feed the stockholders sheer greed, represented here by various people.
If I pay for unlimited service, I'm entitled to unlimited service, period. Capping is illegal. | |
| | | | 
Bill
Light Up The Halo
Premium,VIP
join:2001-12-09
clubs:
| Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit The stockholder/employee/troll comments really start to get annoying when they are almost always untrue. The idea that anyone who disagrees with you must be doing it for financial benefit is absurd and it's very sad that this ideology has spread like wildfire around this site.
Bandwidth is already bought based on "usage" in most datacenter environments and it works very well. As said in the original post, this is the only way I see faster speeds (100 Mbps+) coming into a large number of residential homes anytime soon. ISPs can not afford to give out those types of speeds with low prices (less than $100/month) and have people use the full connection 24/7. Latency would skyrocket and connections would become unreliable.
While I would love to have a low cost, 100 Mbps, unlimited usage, connection to my home, it just doesn't make financial sense for ISPs to provide it. As soon as you start buying bandwidth outside the home or small business, you'll see.
--
Check out our public servers | |
| |
|
|
Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit
