dslreports logo
 story category
Moffett: AT&T Caps Herald 'Next Generation of Communications'
If By Next Generation You Mean Artificial Scarcity

An ISP bull rush toward metered billing has long been the hope of investors like Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett, who has relentlessly been pushing for steep broadband overages for as long as we can remember. Moffett takes any opportunity to try and push meters; like when the FCC imposed neutrality rules, when the discussion of cord cutters recently heated up -- or as a huge fan of AT&T's decision to kill off unlimited iPhone data. Moffett is now insisting AT&T's new caps "provide air cover that makes it easier for all of them to follow." Moffett's latest research note also once again cheers the arrival of new restrictions and pricing, insisting it heralds the "next generation of communications":

quote:
The goal of moving to usage based pricing is not to undermine competition from Netflix (or anyone else… although it certainly wouldn’t be good news for Internet video). And it is most decidedly not to simply “raise prices for broadband” as Public Knowledge or New America would have it (although it might well do precisely that, too). Instead, it is nothing less than to re-align the entire business model of today’s infrastructure providers with the next generation of communications… so that broadband providers might stop fighting against the tide and embrace it instead.
Except if you've followed Craig Moffett over the years, the very last thing he's interested in is embracing the "next generation of communications." Moffett has long criticized any serious upgrades by broadband ISPs, be it Verizon FiOS or even the less expensive DOCSIS 3.0 upgrades being undertaken by most cable operators. That's because as an investor, what Moffett's interested in isn't the next generation of connectivity, it's the next generation of milking consumers. In this particular case Moffett -- and the industry he feeds off of -- is interested in creating artificial scarcity.

The broadband industry began pushing this effort with the Exaflood, or the repeatedly-debunked idea that bandwidth demand is growing so quickly that we'd all be facing connectivity blackouts if the carriers weren't allowed to charge by the byte. Except independent data from Cisco and numerous Universities has long shown bandwidth demand is growing at a reasonable rate -- entirely manageable with fairly basic upgrades. In AT&T's case, current flat rate pricing remains very profitable, and AT&T's DSL and U-Verse network has little to no congestion.

So what's really going on here? As voice becomes just data, calls approach free and voice revenues fall. As Internet video grows, TV revenues fall. The solution? Impose steep new limits and per byte overages on bandwidth that are absolutely detached from any real-world economics. Artificially constrict and meter the pipe, and you've not only got a great new way to deliver investor returns and offset TV and voice losses, but you've managed to retain power in an age where the traditional carrier continues to lose relevance (see Google Voice).

Supporters of imposing low caps and high overages can't just admit that this bandwidth rationing is about turf protection and layers of unreasonable new fees that offer no benefit to the consumer. That's why investors and the broadband industry will often try to insist that these price hikes (not to be confused with real pay per use) are somehow about altruism, saving grandmothers, or a love of "next generation communications." This showmanship tends to add insult to injury amidst a public that's generally smarter than the industry gives them credit for.
view:
topics flat nest 

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 recommendation

FFH5

Premium Member

Cable has to recoup costs of lost TV subscribers

The inevitable reality is that cable companies have an infrastructure cost that supports cable TV & internet. If TV revenue is dropping and Internet costs are rising as users switch to Internet video, then they WILL switch their business models to get more revenue from the Internet side of the business. And right now that looks like UBB is going to be the mechanism to do that. And people who argue that the businesses involved should just suck it up and accept lower profits don't understand business AT ALL.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: Cable has to recoup costs of lost TV subscribers

And people who argue that the businesses involved should just suck it up and accept lower profits don't understand business AT ALL.

Who argued that have to suck it up? Obviously they have to adapt -- it would just be preferable if their effort didn't involve screwing consumers with unreasonable new fees.

Clickstream data sales, behavioral ads, DNS redirection ads, in-home security services, home automation, etc. There are a million ways for an ISP to make money without imposing new, unnecessary overage-driven pricing that's incredibly unpopular among consumers.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Cable has to recoup costs of lost TV subscribers

said by Karl Bode:

There are a million ways for an ISP to make money without imposing new, unnecessary overage-driven pricing that's incredibly unpopular among consumers.

Price increases are unpopular? Really? Shocking.

Average broadband usage is still just south of 15GB/mo, so the vast majority of folks aren't going to see any impact on their bill whatsoever.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: Cable has to recoup costs of lost TV subscribers

Price increases are unpopular? Really? Shocking.

It's not just a price increase. It's a completely new pricing model, imposed on a public that for the most part has no idea what a gigabyte even is, just as streaming HD video begins to soar.

Average broadband usage is still just south of 15GB/mo, so the vast majority of folks aren't going to see any impact on their bill whatsoever.

The move isn't about the users of today, as I imagine you know.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Cable has to recoup costs of lost TV subscribers

said by Karl Bode:

The move isn't about the users of today, as I imagine you know.

This just makes the outcry about lacking evidence of congestion today even more ridiculous.

Usage today is too low to trigger any of these extra fees, and is also low enough to avoid causing major contention for bandwidth.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

1 edit

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: Cable has to recoup costs of lost TV subscribers

This just makes the outcry about lacking evidence of congestion today even more ridiculous.

Not at all. AT&T insists it's about congestion. The pricing isn't about congestion, it's about protecting revenues in the face of Internet video and the death of the voice minute, which I already stated.

Usage today is too low to trigger any of these extra fees

I'm sure Canadians will be interested to learn this from you, as will AT&T DSL users who enjoy HD video.
Expand your moderator at work
56403739 (banned)
Less than 5 months left
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL

56403739 (banned) to SpaethCo

Member

to SpaethCo
said by SpaethCo:

Average broadband usage is still just south of 15GB/mo, so the vast majority of folks aren't going to see any impact on their bill whatsoever.

Where do you get your figures from? My wife and I use 50-60 GB per month and we do not stream HD video, do P2P or anything anyone would consider high-bandwidth unless you think a 128 kbps audio stream is "excessive".




Maybe people who only watch an occasional Youtube video stay south of 15 gigs but I suspect your number is on the low end of the bell curve.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Cable has to recoup costs of lost TV subscribers

said by 56403739:

Where do you get your figures from?

Right here: »www.cisco.com/en/US/solu ··· _WP.html

Or here: »transition.fcc.gov/Daily ··· 02A1.pdf
said by 56403739:

My wife and I use 50-60 GB per month and we do not stream HD video, do P2P or anything anyone would consider high-bandwidth unless you think a 128 kbps audio stream is "excessive".

You're also posting to a forum called DSLReports / BroadBandReports, so you don't really match a demographic that represents the average broadband subscriber. As you have found this forum, you're more likely to be engaged in online activities that would lead to higher usage.
56403739 (banned)
Less than 5 months left
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL

56403739 (banned)

Member

Re: Cable has to recoup costs of lost TV subscribers

Your assumptions about me and mine are totally faulty. I can say with certainty that my usage is very representative of those in my neighborhood and most if not all of my peers. None of them know what "broadband reports" even is.

So, do you consider having two computers connected to the Internet an activity that would lead to higher usage? An occasional Netflix SD movie? Internet radio streaming? Email? That doesn't include any iCrap or servers, gaming or other data suckers. I know you feel it necessary to defend your industry at any cost but at least try to do it with some integrity.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Cable has to recoup costs of lost TV subscribers

said by 56403739:

Your assumptions about me and mine are totally faulty.

And yet your usage is higher than the baseline average.
said by 56403739:

I know you feel it necessary to defend your industry at any cost but at least try to do it with some integrity.

It's not my industry -- I have no interest in defending it. I'm simply injecting some facts into the conversation, or what I believe to be facts because the data correlates across numerous studies. For another data point, take this study of broadband usage out of Japan where FTTH is the norm: »www.caida.org/workshops/ ··· ffic.pdf

Even if you factor in Netflix traffic, which has the greatest statistical likelihood of being the largest consumer of bandwidth of the applications you identified, the numbers still don't add up to a reflect a majority of broadband subscribers.

The OECD places US wired broadband connections at 83,344,927. (Source: »www.oecd.org/document/54 ··· ,00.html) Netflix has 23 million subscribers across the US and Canada (Source: »ir.netflix.com/).

Even if all 23 million Netflix subscribers were from the US, and 100% of them were streaming on a regular basis, and all of that streaming only occurred over fixed broadband connections.. that's still only about 28% of broadband users streaming Netflix video content. The real numbers are obviously much lower than that.

The use cases where people are creating high demand still are in the minority.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4 to Karl Bode

Member

to Karl Bode
And when they put in DNS Redirection ads and behavioral ads they become public Enemy #1 with certain people.

David
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL

David

Premium Member

Re: Cable has to recoup costs of lost TV subscribers

said by hottboiinnc4:

And when they put in DNS Redirection ads and behavioral ads they become public Enemy #1 with certain people.

You mean or are talking about Karl0 See Profile right? There seems to be a lost concept around here. If I can't have my cake and eat it too, what makes you think you will? Surprisingly, the number of people that comment around here or write articles forget just that!

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

1 edit

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: Cable has to recoup costs of lost TV subscribers

My complaints concerning DNS redirection ads have involved companies that launch these services before implementing opt-out systems that work, or fail to offer "clean" DNS servers to users who might want them. The point being there are many ways to make money. The other point being there are ways to make money without treating your customers like crap. Suggesting I've ever argued ISPs don't have the right to make a profit (have their cake and eat it too) is nonsense.

David
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL

David

Premium Member

And I am sure you would be just chomping at the bit if you seen the following.

1.) myispservA (dns redirected) $33.95/month
2.) Myispservb (no dns redirected) $43.95/month

you would pay the $43.95/month right?

You would do what everyone here would do... pay the $33.95/month, and complain to either consumerist or here about it right?

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: Cable has to recoup costs of lost TV subscribers

Who are you talking to? You replied to yourself.

You would do what everyone here would do... pay the $33.95/month, and complain to either consumerist or here about it right?

Are you suggesting that consumers would complain about a ten buck rate drop if they agreed to ads? I've never seen such a choice offered.

David
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL

David

Premium Member

Re: Cable has to recoup costs of lost TV subscribers

said by Karl Bode:

Who are you talking to? You replied to yourself.

yea I didn't realize that till after, my bad.
said by Karl Bode:

Are you suggesting that consumers would complain about a ten buck rate drop if they agreed to ads? I've never seen such a choice offered.

Sure they would.... They would complain that it should be $1 between pkg differences not $10. Or they would complain there should be no ads at all.

Hell you don't have to look far to see what I am talking about. Look in the magicjack forum for complaints in that scale if you want a comparison. People over there pay $19.95/yr and still complain! Yet at the same time people feel like they are getting a bargain from vonage at $24.99 a month. Some people even pay $40/month for VoIP yet my pots+DSL+LD doesn't break at most $60/month.

No- I don't get employee pricing either!

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: Cable has to recoup costs of lost TV subscribers

Sure they would.... They would complain that it should be $1 between pkg differences not $10. Or they would complain there should be no ads at all.

Some might, some might not.

I don't buy into the meme I see perpetuated by some industry employees around here that all broadband customers are just ungrateful whelps that want "something for nothing" and don't appreciate the financial realities. Grumpy idiots just tend to be more vocal -- it's the Internet. That doesn't mean they reflect any kind of majority. Consumer broadband prices are high in North America. This is not something that's hallucinated.

Moot point anyway since you'd never see a company like AT&T do this.

David
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL

1 edit

David

Premium Member

Re: Cable has to recoup costs of lost TV subscribers

said by Karl Bode:

Sure they would.... They would complain that it should be $1 between pkg differences not $10. Or they would complain there should be no ads at all.

Some might, some might not.

I don't buy into the meme I see perpetuated by some industry employees around here that all broadband customers are just ungrateful whelps that want "something for nothing" and don't appreciate the financial realities. Grumpy idiots just tend to be more vocal -- it's the Internet. That doesn't mean they reflect any kind of majority. Consumer broadband prices are high in North America. This is not something that's hallucinated.

Moot point anyway since you'd never see a company like AT&T do this.

yea I don't buy into everything consumers tell me either. I learned that really quick learning that at a gas station back in college, with fake id's for cigarettes and beer.

As far as ungreatful welps... you should see my mailbox sometime.... You would be amazed what I get.

I don't even need e-mail I can provide a perfect example (actually the forums can): »[Rant] Comcast and thier ignorant employees...

To date I still haven't tracked down the person using the trashmail address about trying to have me tell him who he/she/it/they are. Frankly, I don't have time for that crap. I still like the ones that send me a paypal invoice and I should pay them for their services.
grazed
join:2006-10-15
Havertown, PA

grazed to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
Bandwidth costs have been dropping a TON over the recent years. ISPs pay a penny or so for a gig of data.

These overages equate to price gouging. There's no other way around that fact.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: Cable has to recoup costs of lost TV subscribers

And you forget about everything else; a wired network to support, in-house staff, servers, etc. Truck rolls for those who have problems with whatever. That all costs money. But maybe they should charge you to talk to someone on the phone- After all Sprint PCS used to do that. Didn't want to talk to Claire, you paid $2. Maybe they should charge you for truck rolls too- $50? I think that will cover the rising costs of fuel, and insurance, etc. Telephone Support? You can pay for that as well.

Should keep the actual cost of the product low.
grazed
join:2006-10-15
Havertown, PA

grazed

Member

Re: Cable has to recoup costs of lost TV subscribers

Funny, since when does your broadband usage change their monthly support costs?

Care to try again?
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: Cable has to recoup costs of lost TV subscribers

How do you figure it doesn't? Who's working at the CO to make sure everything is running fine? Who is working at the Help Desk/Customer Service? Those cost $$$$$ and to off set those costs they increase something else; put in a cap or easily; increase the cost of the service. They decided not to increase the cost of the service but put in a cap instead and they can do it. After all you do NOT pay for access to the Internet. You pay for access to THEIR Network. You LEASE the private network and they just give you access to the Internet. Read your agreement.
grazed
join:2006-10-15
Havertown, PA

grazed

Member

Re: Cable has to recoup costs of lost TV subscribers

said by hottboiinnc4:

How do you figure it doesn't? Who's working at the CO to make sure everything is running fine? Who is working at the Help Desk/Customer Service? Those cost $$$$$ and to off set those costs they increase something else; put in a cap or easily; increase the cost of the service. They decided not to increase the cost of the service but put in a cap instead and they can do it. After all you do NOT pay for access to the Internet. You pay for access to THEIR Network. You LEASE the private network and they just give you access to the Internet. Read your agreement.

So you're saying that their support staff are now magically costing more money than they used to? Oh please. Get informed.

Cable and telephone companies are among the most profitable businesses in this country. They make PLENTY.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch

Member

Re: Cable has to recoup costs of lost TV subscribers

said by grazed:

So you're saying that their support staff are now magically costing more money than they used to? Oh please. Get informed.

I'd venture to say that they cost less, considering how many companies are outsourcing to places like India and the Philippines. And we, as customers, are sure as hell getting less, since most of these folks are simply reading from a script and have likely never even touched the product or service they're supposedly supporting. These companies could save even more money by simply printing out copies of their support flow charts and sending them along with the first bill. We still won't get our problems resolved, but that isn't happening now, and at least we won't have to spend an eternity on hold before figuring out that "support" is a cruel joke.
prairiesky
join:2008-12-08
canada

prairiesky to grazed

Member

to grazed
the more people use, the more congested the system, the more people call in and complain, the more call staff they need. The more upgrades they then need to preform, the more truck rolls they then have to make.... as a customer, you pay for everything the company does as a whole.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: Cable has to recoup costs of lost TV subscribers

nobody factors that in here. They only factor in the price of the product and nothing else. That's why i said; lets leave the price low and let the customers start paying for EVERYTHING!; support, customer service, the ability to get a paper bill, truck rolls and everything else.

sk1939
Premium Member
join:2010-10-23
Frederick, MD
ARRIS SB8200
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Juniper SRX320

sk1939

Premium Member

Re: Cable has to recoup costs of lost TV subscribers

That argument is completely pointless.

Transport for this area costs $4000 a month for a Gig of transport. That came gig can host 667 DSL users at 1.5 mbps. At 21.95 or so for DSL, that's $14,640 a month - $4000 for transport = a monthly profit of $10,000. Support, billing, and customer service for 600 users can be quite comfortably paid for by that, and these numbers assume no over-subscription which DSL and more so cable, are notorious for.
prairiesky
join:2008-12-08
canada

prairiesky

Member

Re: Cable has to recoup costs of lost TV subscribers

right, now transport it to your customer and amortize your equipment and investment in infrastructure. how does that number look now.

a hardened 48 port dslam is 15,000. so for you 667 users, you need, 14 dslams.

that's a total of, 210,000. to pay that dslam off over say, 3 years, works out to 8.75c / customer per month. So, take that 21.95, - 8.75 = 13.2. Now take an install cost of about $850/ home passed. in a duoploly you can expect to get half of the houses, so $1700 / user connected. Pay that off over 20 years (again, assuming no interest), is $7.10.
13.2 - $7.10 = $6.1 net per month, not factoring in support, billing, etc...

still looking oh so profitable?

sk1939
Premium Member
join:2010-10-23
Frederick, MD
ARRIS SB8200
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Juniper SRX320

sk1939

Premium Member

Re: Cable has to recoup costs of lost TV subscribers

Your making it sound like AT&T didn't have aforementioned infrastructure in place.

There is no installation cost because the phone lines have been in place for normal phone service since initial install. That is $567,000 you can deduct right there.

There is no infrastructure cost other than maintaining lines that are already in place. You already did the math for that, so there is still a $13.20 profit NOT COUNTING the additional revenue from land-line phone service that comes over the SAME wires. Therefore MAINTENANCE COST is SHARED between DSL and phone service because the SAME lines have to be maintained, all the way to the CO.

So yes, it is still looking profitable.

houkouonchi
join:2002-07-22
Ontario, CA

houkouonchi to sk1939

Member

to sk1939
said by sk1939:

That argument is completely pointless.

Transport for this area costs $4000 a month for a Gig of transport. That came gig can host 667 DSL users at 1.5 mbps. At 21.95 or so for DSL, that's $14,640 a month - $4000 for transport = a monthly profit of $10,000. Support, billing, and customer service for 600 users can be quite comfortably paid for by that, and these numbers assume no over-subscription which DSL and more so cable, are notorious for.

Actually it would host a lot more than 667 DSL users. Transit is over-subscribed by pretty much all ISPs. I would guess 1 gig of transport would be enough for more like 5000 or more 1.5 megabit DSL customers.
prairiesky
join:2008-12-08
canada

prairiesky

Member

Re: Cable has to recoup costs of lost TV subscribers

actually i think it's closer to 1 gig connection supports around 5000, 5 mbit customers. It's long been proven, over and over that transit isn't the issue. If you wanted you could go get a 1 gig connection for $1000 in some locations. The problem isn't transit, it's transport. It's getting that connection to where you want it, that's expensive.
grazed
join:2006-10-15
Havertown, PA

grazed to prairiesky

Member

to prairiesky
Except congestion does NOT exist. You're a shining example of what these ISPs want the rest of the population to believe. Where in the world are you coming up with the notion that there are congestion issues?

•••
Cobra11M
join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX

Cobra11M to prairiesky

Member

to prairiesky
said by prairiesky:

the more people use, the more congested the system, the more people call in and complain, the more call staff they need. The more upgrades they then need to preform, the more truck rolls they then have to make.... as a customer, you pay for everything the company does as a whole.

except they are not UPGRADEING, AT&T has never really upgraded, theyve waisted time and acted like they did but all they did was put more towers up and say (we upgraded our network......) true upgrades would be like verizon (which doesnt have congestion problems, no need for caps, and no dropped calls)

the whole FCC bill was made by AT&T and Comcast..., hmm, its true cable companies have the right to charge more with copper goin up and what not, but whats AT&T excuse????, there actual excuse is we are not gonna upgrade instead we are gonna cash in just like we've been for years

MA-Bell (AT&T) its the same as it was 30-40 years ago, same strategy

heck really in a way, i wish the goverment would come right in to this area, just like theyve done in everything else and say we run this now...

Cause whats gonna happen is slow broadband for everyone, small caps, and at this rate 10 years from now, all we can expect is small caps 31gb, and no higher, the internet evolves while we sit.

And we have AT&T, FCC, And Comcast to blame, cause they are not upgradeing, yes i do believe that the cable companys should be able to protect the tv areas.., but AT&T has no right, our goverment gives AT&T money every year, and AT&T wants to BUY T-mobile?? give me a break, also why cap AT&T U-verse?? that makes no scence its not congrestion, AT&T has a problem with the revunue and they have a nice little plan already set for the next ten years with T-mobile and caps
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

Kamus to hottboiinnc4

Member

to hottboiinnc4
So basically what hottboiinc is saying, DSLreports biggest troll.
Is that the past doesn't exist. Because if it did, it would have to mean that the internet of the past required UBB to function. Since of course the only thing that has changed is newer technology, the cost of maintenance hasn't changed dramatically, but the price of using it just has, dramatically.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
Major Cable Co's are not losing money. That's almost impossible in the Government created duopoly that most enjoy.

South Africa, Canada, and the United States get the distinction of having internet tech moving in the backwards direction.

••••••••••
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

1 recommendation

ISurfTooMuch to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

And people who argue that the businesses involved should just suck it up and accept lower profits don't understand business AT ALL.

When what you sell is overpriced, and demand drops, you had damn well better be willing to accept lower profits. See, that's the problem with cable TV in general. Cord cutting is the result of people not seeing the value in what they're paying for. Sure, you can get 500 channels, but when they're all broadcasting junk, then there's no value in having them.

IMHO, this exemplifies the problem with the entertainment industry's attitude in general. These companies think that everything they produce is gold, even the turds, and they can't get their collective heads around the fact that consumers don't agree. And piracy--their favorite bogeyman--has precious little to do with it. My wife and I haven't seen a movie in months, not because we've been downloading torrents but because we haven't seen anything out that interests us. Maybe a few seem mildly interesting but not enough to spend nearly $20 for us to see. Getting them on Netflix seems like a better deal. And no, making me wait an extra 28 days isn't going to make me buy the DVD. If I waited to rent the movie in the first place, I can wait a little longer.

So, as much as companies want to maintain their current profit levels, they have no God-given right to do so. They may not realize that yet, but if this economy doesn't have a roaring turnaround soon, they will learn that lesson soon enough.

••••••••
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

Kamus to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
Oh hey Uncle Sam, missed you.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT

BiggA to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
Then just jack up the price of cable internet, and not per byte. Comcast is OK, since they have unlimted through Business class, but other providers that are charging per GB aren't.

Duramax08
To The Moon
Premium Member
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX

1 recommendation

Duramax08

Premium Member

Craig Moffett

Just another douchebag lining his pockets with cash while giving consumers a less bang for their buck. Way to go dumbf***.

guppy_fish
Premium Member
join:2003-12-09
Palm Harbor, FL

guppy_fish

Premium Member

Why is this news?

These are corporations, their only reason for existence is to make the owners money, that's what corporations do.

The US, is not a socialistic country and all this foot stomping is silly. For better or worse, we live in the corporation of America, nothings new here and its been this way since the founding of the country

If one study's history, you will find that corporations and the reasons for them go back to the Renaissance era, it was a way for the wealthy to make their money work for them and the government was the ones with there army's that enforced that the corporations of the crown would be given monopoly's ... not much has changed in 600+ years. And you know why?, the people were really good at not paying taxes on goods and services, what the governments found is give a corporation exclusivity and they got more tax revenue ... do you now see the link and why it will never change?

The company don't have to explain why the need more money, they can extort as much as the customers are willing to pay, that's business. Anyone that wants to dissect the messages is just wasting their time, they want your money, simple as that, yes they will candy coat the reasons why, that go public relations, hey think of all the high paying jobs that creates and helps us out of our economic funk

You all have a choice to buy or not to buy the service.

covertdrizzt
@sbcglobal.net

covertdrizzt

Anon

Re: Why is this news?

"You all have a choice to buy or not to buy the service."
yeah I bet thats what the oil co. say.. when you only have one choice its not much of a choice
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL

Mr Matt

Member

Moffett's pig party due to lack of competition.

More B.S. from meter mouth Moffett. During the era of dial up internet ISP's they tried to introduced metered pricing based on connected time like AOL did. With the number of dial up ISP's opening up, competition forced ISP's to abandon attempts to introduce connect time caps and eventually even AOL gave up metered pricing. Without competition or regulation the broadband duopoly will be able to gouge customers. It appears that our regulators are not smart enough to review the history of the internet development.

••••
kash1
join:2005-08-13
Houston, TX

kash1

Member

what a special guy this is

I think anonymous should get on this guy!

••••••••••••••••••••

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC

IPPlanMan

Member

Unfazed...

Because of the Crap AT&T pulled with the iPad dataplan bait and switch, I remain unfazed in my mission to cost AT&T as much money as possible with my unlimited dataplan on my iPhone 4.

Netflix? Yes.
HBO Go? Hell yes.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

1 edit

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

I think you're misreading what he says.

The 2nd paragraph in the linked article says:
quote:
With usage based pricing, broadband providers, and Cable operators in particular, can create an “iso-profit” curve, where the amount they make from a physical connection is about the same whether someone uses that connection for linear video or, alternatively, web video. The goal is not to stifle competition, but instead to create indifference not just to the end state of video by-pass, but indeed for all points along the way. The adoption of usage based pricing would be transformational to the debate for Cable operators, inasmuch as it would essentially indemnify them against all potential outcomes.

I think this is quite good analysis. I've been talking about tiered pricing as a way for Internet providers to move the curve. Moffett takes that one step further and points out that this actually allows the cable and telco companies to be, as he says, indifferent to the outcome. In other words, whether cloud streaming is adopted fast or slow, they remain neutral.

This is not bad news, IMO, because it will allow the broadband operators to treat data as data in their network planning, rather than separating out video and other heavy bandwidth consumers as a different thing. I think the end result will be less warring between the cloud streaming providers (CSPs I think we should call them) and the ISPs.

Think of it as a small tax imposed on heavy video consumers / cord cutters, so that the ISPs can keep building out the network. I figure at AT&T's current rates it's about a buck a movie, once you get beyond the initial allocation of 30 or so movies per month. And I'm being conservative in my math... the real "tax" is probably lower than that.
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

Kamus

Member

ISP's: The Enron of this decade?

We've seen this before. Mind you, this we've seen from an actual consumable:
Energy.
Anyone remember the L.A. Blackouts?
Most of them weren't real, they were also artificial, and people believed them for the longest time.

Now they wan't to do the same thing for something that isn't a consumable, and isn't getting scarce, but is instead surging at 2x the speed of Moore's law:
Bandwidth.

I wonder what the excuse for caps will be when the world moves to 100g Ethernet.
This day is coming a lot faster than the ISP's would want, and i couldn't be happier about that.

MerinX
Crunching for Cures
Premium Member
join:2011-02-03

MerinX

Premium Member

Congestion or misdirection?

Honestly is having not having slower speeds during peak hours worth being charged for using what we are already overpaying for?

As someone from Canada where UBB has dominated 50% of the market due to bell/rogers collusion we have seen caps consistently lowered well being expected to pay rate hikes on services that we are paying 70-100 dollars to use 75-100gigs a month and to then have to pay 1 dollar per gig with no correlation to the costs is just insulting. This is why teksavvy has had huge growth and now the major telecoms are using the CRTC to impose these insane prices(on costumers who are not even theirs) per gig prices saying a 15% discount off a 10000% markup is more then fair. Hopefully the FCC does a better job then the CRTC does here, honestly it can not do much worse...

Peak hour congestion is not worth preventing if it means costing an arm and a leg to use the internet to its full potential. Why enjoy free internet services(or almost free compared to one VOD viewing here) like justin.tv, magic jack, skype or anything that can compete with the major telecoms bread and butter.

Here in Canada we all our media is now pretty much owned by the telecoms(like comcast and nbc but instead every channel) so you can see that these caps are put in place to control what we can watch, when we can watch it, how many times we can watch it, and always get a cut even if we choose better services then their own like netflix.

Considering gigs downloaded does not equal congestion in any way using it as an excuse is like blaming netflix for the exaflood. If it was really about congestion you would be given an allotment(4gigs from 6-10pm) for peak hour usage per day before being throttled down until the network load is reduced.

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC

IPPlanMan

Member

Congestion Management...

Comcast has a 250GB cap and has a congestion management system...

So if the congestion mangement system addresses congestion, what's the cap for? Comcast says it's to address "excessive use".

It then goes on to define "excessive use" in terms of plain text emails, but doesn't say what the issue is or why using a hair above the measly mere fraction of what your pipe is capable of is excessive.

Since the cap is the same across all speed tiers, it's clear that it's to prevent users from cord cutting by using Netflix and iTunes.

Not fooling me Comcast...
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

every thread

time to break up at&t... ahgain...
the company is ripping off it's customers, and they are trying to push the broadband industry to a place where it doesn't need to go... as a metered utility-- though be careful what they wish for.. they might get it.. with their greed will come REGULATION!!!

anon6
@comcast.net

anon6

Anon

comcast cap

maybe its so they can push people to the business class and make them pay almost double what they pay now?

MerinX
Crunching for Cures
Premium Member
join:2011-02-03

MerinX

Premium Member

Moffet article on stopthecap

»stopthecap.com/2011/05/1 ··· hes-not/

"Nowhere in Dignan’s column does he disclose Moffett is a paid Wall Street analyst working for the interests of investor clients of Sanford Bernstein who want to maximize the value of their telecommunications stocks. Moffett’s long history of statements about industry pricing reflect those interests, which are often very different from those of most consumers. Moffett’s world view: anything that brings in more revenue is good for shareholders (rate hikes, metered billing), anything that drives down shareholder value is not (infrastructure upgrades, pricing cuts, customer defections).

On that basis, Moffett has been called a “cable stock fluffer” by our friends at Broadband Reports for his relentlessly pro-cable industry commentary, even while ridiculing transformational projects like Verizon’s FiOS fiber to the home network for being “too expensive” and not delivering enough return on shareholder investment. Consumer Reports delivers the opposite view: high marks for Verizon FiOS, mediocre to lousy marks for most of the nation’s cable operators.

While there is nothing inherently wrong with Moffett doing his job on behalf of his paying clients, using his views outside of that context — particularly when those interests go undisclosed — is journalistic malpractice.

Oh, and Time Warner Cable abandoned their usage-based pricing pilots in 2009 after customers declared war on the cable company. Those darn customers, ruining the industry’s plans!

The rest of Moffett’s research note doesn’t get much better in the “true facts”-department:"