 |
 | |
| | 
Cjaiceman
Premium,MVM
join:2004-10-12
Parker, CO
 ·Comcast Workplace
·Comcast
| Re: Dark Ages said by Dogfather  :said by Someone2 : ISPs should just state their useage cap clearly and hold people to it.  That is what this billing model would bring except it adds the option to buy more usage rather than terminate accounts like, say, Comcast does. But Comcast does not state what their usage caps are. If they were to state that I think people would get off their backs, but I also have heard from an insider that I know that the caps differ from area to area based on how much bandwidth they have per node...
--
HOT JAMZ 94FM
Listen Live at »sc7.shoutcaststreaming.us:8206/listen.pls | |
|
| | | |
| | | |
Cjaiceman
Premium,MVM
join:2004-10-12
Parker, CO
·Comcast Workplace
·Comcast
| Re: Dark Ages said by Dogfather :Comcast should do what Cox does. Blanket caps that are SELECTIVELY enforced. Then in areas where Comcast is seeing a capacity crunch, they point to their AUP and the stated caps so subscribers know exactly what they need to do to avoid termination of their account. In areas where there isn't, they turn a blind eye and ignore people going over their caps. I like that idea cause I'm in an area that would be looked over *evil grin*, honestly though, I only do about 250-300GB TOTAL traffic (in+out). Comcast has not said a single word to me about it. My friend stated that in my area they really won't take notice till about the 500-600GB level because the average traffic in my area is 120-150GB a month. I live in a townhome complex where the average age is about 27, so lots of heavy users here. 
--
HOT JAMZ 94FM
Listen Live at »sc7.shoutcaststreaming.us:8206/listen.pls | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | 
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
3 edits | Re: Dark Ages There are new DOCSIS deployments on the horizon, SDV, ditching analog among other things will help free capacity to dedicate more channels to HSI (in addition to the more throughput per channel). But between now and then, you simply have a tiny minority of users hosing the network just 'cause they can.
The people I know who use BT in this fashion are grabbing stuff (usually illegal) off BT, then just let their machines seed it in violation of their TOS/AUP. They're doing it not because they're actually using it, they're doing it just 'cause they can. It's similar to the game image collectors of the Usenet. They download crap just 'cause it's there whether they really want it/use it or not.
By having some overage fees, people will only be doing this (high monthly usage) when they have to or at least REALLY want to. The charity of seeding "just because" will largely be curbed bringing network traffic back to a more manageable level while the deployment technology catches up.
Cox's caps are ludicrously low to US, but at the current time not to the majority of their users. Most people aren't using BT or throttling the usenet 24/7. Most people are buying the occasional movie, downloading songs or other stuff with most of that stuff being surfing and email, some streaming video (eg MySpace and Facebook type crap).
When the AVERAGE user starts using like that (40+GB a month) they will certainly have to increase capacity and likely raise prices to do it. OR the rate of speed increases will slow so that you will simply not see too many cheap tiers going over 6-8Mb. | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Dark Ages I agree. Cox will simply continue to not enforce their caps (at least I haven't gotten a nastygram since the @Home days), or will quietly revise their numbers upward. | |
|
| | | | | | | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Dark Ages The question is: Are they ahead of the curve on network upgrades, or will the average user reaching these caps means their nodes start to choke.
They'd better not.... | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
| said by KrK :Cox's caps are ludicrously low. If they try to enforce them on anybody, they should just exit the market. Being a "Broadband provider" that says U can't use 40GB a month is just retarded. Hate to tell these companies something, but bandwidth usage will only go up as more and more people start using streaming services like Netflix's movies over IP service etc. Billing by the byte or even the meg? Forget it. Just to be a devil's advocate, if Bandwidth is so cheap netflix can afford to stream to the home, why hasn't all radio and TV jumped on the model? Is it hype? Are the others foolish? Don't the others generally control what Netflix distributes via direct/indirect ownership of content?
It's an interesting tug-of-war.
The ISPs either charge more to their customers (us) for increased sustained bandwidth usage or they begin caching &/or charging companies like netflix for the downstream sustained usage that the ISPs aren't charging their customers.
Which company acting as an ISP has a model that can accommodate an unlimited broadcast model over wires (both loop and interconnect)? Not saying it can't happen, but I'm thinking as a business, we are resistant to upgrade for things "before their time". There is a reason our pricing is generally much less than fixed circuit prices.
The ISP could certainly charge by the hour, byte, gig or connection...pricing models have a lot of room for change.
They only need to change the pricing model that would be palatable to the vast majority of their customers that profits the ISP and offloads the heavy users to their competitors. The problem is that most of us do not monitor our usage enough, if at all, to get excited of caps until we go over them. We just click on the "accept new agreement" button.
Off topic comment on your Sig:
You do realize your Kennard quote seems silly given he created the Sandwich Isles franchise and related egregious USF draw while later joining Carlyle and trying to petition the FCC that their decision (under his chairmanship) was incorrect! He does sound like Martin 
while taking a new position | |
|
| | | | | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Dark Ages said by xsiddalx :Just to be a devil's advocate, if Bandwidth is so cheap netflix can afford to stream to the home, why hasn't all radio and TV jumped on the model? Is it hype? Are the others foolish? I'm not sure about your market, but the stations here do stream their content. The TV stations less so, but they are catching on.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
| said by Someone2 : Remember when dial-up was per-minute billing? Per-byte billing with broadband is a bad idea. ISPs should just state their useage cap clearly and hold people to it. This "could" be a good thing.
The same price/cost model exists as in the dial up market.
Some people nailed up connections, some didn't.
AOL went flat rate and they are essentially a dead business model. The new business model seems to be the old business model, telco/wireless "flat rate or pay as you go". The cable folks, well...they could charge a premium for a loop that was already built out. Not sure they can sustain those "cadillac, or whatever Brian Robertson thinks himself" prices.
Then again, the days of "internet access" as it were in the dial up days are very much heading toward the model of the buggy whip in the US. Competition today is the telephone companies, cable companies, wireless (generally telephone companies) and satellite, with a few wisps thrown into the mix and some resellers of any of the above.
It's sorta competition, at a cost, certainly not walmart or your local quickie mart type.
I remember 20 bucks for 20 hours on the old sprintlink networks combined with delphi's online service over the old 2600 baud network. It was such a deal I signed on two accounts!! lol
If a company announced tomorrow they were heading back to the old model like AOL, I think I'd buy up some stock. Tons of people I talk to that would like a "safe" internet experience and that will only come from a walled garden for the average internet user with little kids. Give it time, it's coming.
| |
|
| 
tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI
| said by Someone2 : Remember when dial-up was per-minute billing? Per-byte billing with broadband is a bad idea. ISPs should just state their useage cap clearly and hold people to it. No better yet. State the cap limits. If your a bandwidth hog, when you reach your "limit", your speed is dropped to 512k till the next billing cycle and you get hit with a 10.00 service charge for the drop. | |
|
| whocares
Premium
join:2003-07-26
.. | THATS seems like its going to be more expensive to use R.R./TW and if no contract expect a lot of pple to say good by T.W.
--
IF YOU ONLY look for the worst
THATS ALL YOUR EVER GOING TO SEE. | |
|
|
| 
Corehhi
join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC | Re: Doesn't look like 'real' pay per byte billing But you know if they start with caps down the road you'll have service for $34.99 with a cap. Over time that cap will be so low that most users go over it. I'm afraid they'll just use it for a price hike across the board. | |
|
| | |
| | |
Corehhi
join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC | Re: Doesn't look like 'real' pay per byte billing In my case there are competitors and I can't be the only one. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | 
antdude
A Ninja Ant
Premium,VIP
join:2001-03-25
| Re: Doesn't look like 'real' pay per byte billing said by en102 :Really - I haven't seen much FiOS (or even Verizon) in the L.A. area. My inlaws are the only ones that I know that even have Verizon - and thats in North Hills. There's a ton of AT&T out here. Santa Clarita is all AT&T  I am in Verizon and I can't get DSL (20K ft. from the CO), FIOS (unavailable), etc. I can go back to dial-up but it only gives me about 3 KB/sec even on 56k modems (the phone lines SUCK). I am not rich enough to get a T1 or something fast. WISPs don't exist here. Forget satellite services (too slow esp. online gaming and expensive). So what else can I get? :P | |
|
| | | | | | | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
| Re: Doesn't look like 'real' pay per byte billing said by antdude :said by en102 :Really - I haven't seen much FiOS (or even Verizon) in the L.A. area. My inlaws are the only ones that I know that even have Verizon - and thats in North Hills. There's a ton of AT&T out here. Santa Clarita is all AT&T I am in Verizon and I can't get DSL (20K ft. from the CO), FIOS (unavailable), etc. I can go back to dial-up but it only gives me about 3 KB/sec even on 56k modems (the phone lines SUCK). I am not rich enough to get a T1 or something fast. WISPs don't exist here. Forget satellite services (too slow esp. online gaming and expensive). So what else can I get? :P Is it possible to investigate creating a WISP? It sounds like a market opportunity, or at the least, free internet access for you! | |
|
| | | | | | | |
antdude
A Ninja Ant
Premium,VIP
join:2001-03-25
| Re: Doesn't look like 'real' pay per byte billing said by xsiddalx :said by antdude :said by en102 :Really - I haven't seen much FiOS (or even Verizon) in the L.A. area. My inlaws are the only ones that I know that even have Verizon - and thats in North Hills. There's a ton of AT&T out here. Santa Clarita is all AT&T I am in Verizon and I can't get DSL (20K ft. from the CO), FIOS (unavailable), etc. I can go back to dial-up but it only gives me about 3 KB/sec even on 56k modems (the phone lines SUCK). I am not rich enough to get a T1 or something fast. WISPs don't exist here. Forget satellite services (too slow esp. online gaming and expensive). So what else can I get? :P Is it possible to investigate creating a WISP? It sounds like a market opportunity, or at the least, free internet access for you! How? Wouldn't FCC say just use cable? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
| Re: Doesn't look like 'real' pay per byte billing said by antdude :How? Wouldn't FCC say just use cable? The FCC might.
I was just asking if you have thought of it. I've thought about it in the chicago market. We don't have competition here...it's either ATT (the old SBC) or Comcast (the old ATT)
or wireless ($$$$$ and restricted) or satellite ($$$$$$ and latent and restricted).
Screw what the FCC says...WISPs generally do not require licenses. It depends on the spectrum you are using in my recollection. | |
|
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| said by Dogfather :Then they'll lose customers to competitors. By then, cable operators will have DOCSIS 3 being deployed, increasing their per channel capacity, allowing them to raise the caps for the 95% of the user base who still won't be running their stuff wide open 24/7. Who DSL that is 1/3 to 1/2 the speed? | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
| said by patcat88 :said by Dogfather :Then they'll lose customers to competitors. By then, cable operators will have DOCSIS 3 being deployed, increasing their per channel capacity, allowing them to raise the caps for the 95% of the user base who still won't be running their stuff wide open 24/7. Who DSL that is 1/3 to 1/2 the speed? Don't you mean Bandwidth?
Other than BT, what does BW have to do with Latency (perceived speed)? From what I've seen using dial up with an ad blocker, it's sorta all the same as long as I'm not doing ftp or pic uploads.
Gpon, DOCSIS 3
lol .. who doesn't love throwing around acronyms! | |
|
| | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Assuming sufficient competition. Here, if you burn Cox, then all you have is at&t. Burn them, and you have nothing. | |
|
| 
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by Dogfather :Looks like they're looking to cap and then charge overage fees. Depending on what the pricing is, seems logical to me so long as the terms are VERY clear and provided up front. If it's too bad, they'll lose customers to competitors, especially in their larger markets like SoCal where they're competing head-to-head with Verizon's FiOS. The cusotmers they'll lose are the one costing them money so why would they care?
I think most people here that are getting upset really don't have a clue how much bandwidth they are using and probably use MUCH less than any potential caps.
This could actually lead to lower price for the majority since ISPs would not have to charge the bottom 95% extra for the bandwidth the top 5% use. 300-400 GB is plenty for most people for those that need more, well they can pay for it.
The main problem for ISPs is that they need to let customers know what the cap is and have reliable monitoring so the customer can tell how much he's using. Until an ISP can do that they need to hold off on the caps. | |
|
| | 
asdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| Re: Doesn't look like 'real' pay per byte billing "The cusotmers they'll lose are the one costing them money so why would they care?"
You mean the heavy consumers who will be their future growth? In a few years they'll be begging to get these people back once their growth stagnates. People with a short term view forget that todays problems are tomorrows economic generators. | |
|
| | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: Doesn't look like 'real' pay per byte billing said by asdfdfdfdfdf :
"The cusotmers they'll lose are the one costing them money so why would they care?"
You mean the heavy consumers who will be their future growth? In a few years they'll be begging to get these people back once their growth stagnates. People with a short term view forget that todays problems are tomorrows economic generators.
Please. Someone stealing movies from some torrent site is NOT a customer. That's like saying wal-mart shouldn't try to get rid of shoplifters because they're their best customers. | |
|
| | | |
asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| Re: Doesn't look like 'real' pay per byte billing Shoplifters are stealing from wal-mart and don't pay wal-mart anything. Bit-torrent downloaders are not stealing from their internet service providers. Their providers aren't the owners of what bit torrent users are downloading. Downloaders are paying their service providers for their internet service so they most certainly are customers of the service provider.
I'll repeat again that heavy users of bandwidth are the future growth of internet service providers, not the people who browse and send e-mail. Alienating such people may provide short term advantage but it is likely to be a mistake in the long run. | |
|
| 
tad2020
join:2007-07-17
Orange, CA
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by Dogfather :If it's too bad, they'll lose customers to competitors, especially in their larger markets like SoCal where they're competing head-to-head with Verizon's FiOS. I live in SoCal, what competitors? I barely have TW.
FiOS is in an exremely limited foot print here. Last time I checked nearest availably to Orange is small area on the other side of Irvine.
AT&T (exPacBell) isn't going to service my side of town with DSL any time soon, let alone FTTN ever. The CO is too far away, these old neighborhoods are all low or fixed income SFUs.
TW is the only option for broadband and with only the 5/384 @ $44.95/m tier. I think that's the only tier they offer in the whole city too. There is no discount for having TV services too; basic cable is another $45/m.
Usually I would say "If they do, I'm outta here" to these threads, but there is absolutely no other service provider here.
I do like TimeWarner, when my cable modem dies (a twice a year thing), I just have to go to their office in downtown and exchange it in person. To do that over the phone takes 2 weeks minimum. I really hope they don't take that away when a state wide/national franchise bill eventually passes. | |
|
| |
antdude
A Ninja Ant
Premium,VIP
join:2001-03-25
| Re: Doesn't look like 'real' pay per byte billing said by tad2020 :said by Dogfather :If it's too bad, they'll lose customers to competitors, especially in their larger markets like SoCal where they're competing head-to-head with Verizon's FiOS. I live in SoCal, what competitors? I barely have TW. FiOS is in an exremely limited foot print here. Last time I checked nearest availably to Orange is small area on the other side of Irvine. AT&T (exPacBell) isn't going to service my side of town with DSL any time soon, let alone FTTN ever. The CO is too far away, these old neighborhoods are all low or fixed income SFUs. TW is the only option for broadband and with only the 5/384 @ $44.95/m tier. I think that's the only tier they offer in the whole city too. There is no discount for having TV services too; basic cable is another $45/m. Usually I would say "If they do, I'm outta here" to these threads, but there is absolutely no other service provider here. I do like TimeWarner, when my cable modem dies (a twice a year thing), I just have to go to their office in downtown and exchange it in person. To do that over the phone takes 2 weeks minimum. I really hope they don't take that away when a state wide/national franchise bill eventually passes. Exactly! I wished there were competitions and not darn monopolies! | |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| Back to their old tricks. Nah, ISPs should provide the bandwidth they advertise, without visible or invisible restrictions. Their job is to provide the plumbing and get the hell out of the way.
Fittingly, it was AOL/Time Warner who was one of the last online services to finally loosen their death grip on per-minute charges for dial-up.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
|
|
See 19 replies to this post |
|
|
|
See 20 replies to this post |
|
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| It's not THAT bad of an idea..... But then your base-fee should be something like $10, just like with a electricity, water, or gas subscription.
The biggest issue in implementing this properly is however...
Who pays for some Korean hacker that decides to bombard your IP address with data for a few days from a big University broadband connection in Seoul?
I just downloaded Fedora, Ubuntu and Debian DVD's within about 6 or 7 hours on my 10 Mbit/s connection, each being roughly 4 Gb in size. That's 12 Gb right there.
If some malicious person in a foreign country decides to bombard your IP address with a HEAPLOAD of data, which you may or may not discover until you wake up in the morning, or when you come back from your weekend trip..... who will be paying for that?
You did not ask for the data for starters. How does it differentiate between data that you requested, and data that is delivered all the way to your firewall, and then dropped there because you rejected it?
--
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -
Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father. | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
BabyBear
Keep wise ...with Night-Owl
join:2007-01-11
|  Things that make you go Hmmmm.
| |
|
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY
| ugh Why dont the bigger companies follow cablevisions lead. create a docsis 2 or draft docsis 3 network and have that the highest bandwidth and unlimited. This way the high users can go to that and be on their own and not screw with the users who use less of their connections. | |
|
ztmike
Mark for moderation
Premium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN | Poor RR users I bet people on RR are shaking their heads right now.. | |
|
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Poor RR users Only the top 5%. "Most" users won't even notice it just like most Cox users don't notice that Cox has usage caps. | |
|
| | |
Sabre
Di relung hatiku bernyanyi bidadari
join:2005-05-17
·Comcast
| How much do I use? Without taking a position for or against this particular question, let me ask one of the network gurus here.
How can I monitor how much bandwidth I'm using on my connection at home, just for (at the moment at least) my own personal reference? It would be very useful to know this so I and others could argue this question from a more informed viewpoint. Are there any fairly simple network management tools I could play with to find out? (Linux or Windows)
--
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world.
Save American Soccer - Stop the MLS! | |
|
|
ztmike
Mark for moderation
Premium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN
·Comcast
| Re: How much do I use? said by Sabre :Without taking a position for or against this particular question, let me ask one of the network gurus here. How can I monitor how much bandwidth I'm using on my connection at home, just for (at the moment at least) my own personal reference? It would be very useful to know this so I and others could argue this question from a more informed viewpoint. Are there any fairly simple network management tools I could play with to find out? (Linux or Windows) I use this: »www.metal-machine.de/readerror/
It's free and works fine.
--
"I am the worst president in U.S history, I'm either stupid or dumb most of the time, but people still believe me." George W. Bush | |
|
| |
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: How much do I use? Problem with that kind of software is that it doesn't take in account that you may have multple computers connecting through 1 router. I have 4 machines myself.
The ISP should provide the customer with a meter on a secure site somewhere that tells you how much you downloaded and uploaded.
--
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -
Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father. | |
|
| 
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by Sabre :Without taking a position for or against this particular question, let me ask one of the network gurus here. How can I monitor how much bandwidth I'm using on my connection at home, just for (at the moment at least) my own personal reference? I use the free Netlimiter Monitor found here:
»www.netlimiter.com/download.php
I run the above on both of my computers and sum the totals once a month. My monthly combined in/out byte counts are usually 6 GB or less.
And depending on your router, some of those can monitor and provide byte counts as well.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| one word MESS. Maybe "Catastrophe" would be better...
I am so glad to have been left alone by Cox for all these years... Only ever heard of a couple people that got bugged by Cox for being "hogs" and they never actually got shut off.
Only one person I know has ever been shut off completely, but it was due to having their computer(s) sending massive amounts of spam traffic... Cleaned infection(s) and they were back on within a day.
Besides, with dynamic IP addresses, what happens if yours changes randomly and suddenly they think you just had a few weeks of massive usage??? How can you prove that it wasn't you? Worse still, what if you keep logs and they differ from their records???
Whatever.
My roommate and I will continue to download LEGAL recordings of live music, I grab the occasional Linux distro, and I'll watch as much Netflix as I want, stream Rhapsody as often as I like, and surf randomly.
Thank you for leaving me alone Cox. I try to do the same unless there's something really wrong
I feel sorry for those of you who will be bothered by this new RR policy... | |
|
| 
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Re: one word said by amungus :Besides, with dynamic IP addresses, what happens if yours changes randomly and suddenly they think you just had a few weeks of massive usage??? How can you prove that it wasn't you? Worse still, what if you keep logs and they differ from their records??? Have you noticed that your cable modem always downloads the correct service profile that matches your paid level of service. Weird, eh? Don't worry about the dynamic IPs, that's not how the cable company identifies you.
said by amungus :My roommate and I will continue to download LEGAL recordings of live music, I grab the occasional Linux distro, and I'll watch as much Netflix as I want, stream Rhapsody as often as I like, and surf randomly. Great -- and people with RR will be able to do all those same things without any fear of being cutoff or having to deal with abuse (unless there are DMCA complaints). When you reach a certain level of bandwidth consumption would you rather be cut off and treated like a criminal, or be allowed to continue as much as you like as long as you're willing to pay for it? | |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Already Capped Anyone who is on the RR side of the business with any Operator is already under a cap. Nobody around here looks at anyone but Comcast when this comes up. RR has had this in their TOS / AUP for some time now. It affects ALL RoadRunner customers not just ones on the Time Warner side of the business. RR customers have 2 TOS and AUPs. One from the cable operator and the other set from RR. Read your TOS from the ISP not the cable operator. | |
|
|
See 11 replies to this post |
|
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
| De ja vu Karl,
Can you copy this entire thread and just post it to the bottom of your weekly pay-per-byte news thread? Same arguments, same FUD, getting boring.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik | |
|
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: De ja vu said by telcolackey :Karl, Can you copy this entire thread and just post it to the bottom of your weekly pay-per-byte news thread? Same arguments, same FUD, getting boring. The frequency of these news items just indicate that some form of billing/byte(whether overages or some other system) is coming. The P2P users and Bittorrent and ever increasing movie downloads has guaranteed it.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
| Stupid Stupid Stupid Do they realize that the users that eat all the bandwidth are doing it because they are stealing movies, music, and computer programs. Probably 1/10 of 1% of them could actually afford the junk they steal.
This will screw things up for the rest of us who are using legal music and movie download services.
--
Mac Chatter
»www.macchatter.net | |
|
| xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
| Re: Stupid Stupid Stupid said by NOCMan :Do they realize that the users that eat all the bandwidth are doing it because they are stealing movies, music, and computer programs. Probably 1/10 of 1% of them could actually afford the junk they steal. This will screw things up for the rest of us who are using legal music and movie download services. To be fair, the only way they were able to "upgrade" dial up providers was to sell broadband. The only thing than made broadband "sensible" was free crap, or people that had money to burn on faster email downloads. Broadband sales were based on Napster (and equivelents), Usenet (never been an equivalent) and lastly Bittorent (not really the broadband driver napster was imo).
Legal music and movie download services haven't driven broadband, it has been a result. My suspicion, is that they are still not driving broadband. Those businesses are evolving "around" the current connectivity. The service providers are pricing at what they think they can pull in based on highest prices charged vs market share desires. We haven't quite met a competitive market where price drives customers choice. Once we are at the bottom barrel price competition, "legal or non-legal" downloads will finally meet the same demise...pay per byte.
On the other hand, you produce an argument that value has a price and legality has a role. To that I say, should your phone call cost more if two ceos are cutting a deal vs two peons talking about american idol or real houswewives of some town ?
Bits are bits....it ain't about content or perceived value yet, the telcos are hoping so, the cablecos are hoping the telcos do so.
If it gets to be about perceived value, it will get interesting, maybe bittorrent type stuff will be more value than the pay per view stuff, but then the telcos and cablecos will struggle with the idea that they are giving away content that they can sell on their cable/telco tv networks. Does the internet start looking more like a television station on cable or a station on the sat radio?
Does YouTube become another junky channel on Tv? Ot do the Big Telcos/Cablecos cache the internet and provide a searchable YouTube using "Google technology" so that we only look at what we currently look at, but via a closed/walled garden internet that is safe to the masses.
Very interesting times.
Funny that you think because you pay to receive something you are are getting screwed...back in the day, usenet subscribers were seen as the pain the ass..especially the binaries groups.
Are you paying for all the web sites you visit? e-mail you download? Youtube/myspace/facebook crap you watch/visit? ebay sites/auctions you visit? Oh but maybe some of us do pay for some of those places you visit but don't pay for.
Some of us pay for some web sites.
Some of use pay for email.
Some of use pay for "social networking sites".
It sounds like you think because you pay for something you stand the moral high ground. On the other hand, if that small a percentage could afford the stuff they "steal", chances are they wouldn't be a customer in the first place.
Imagine all those people in the 70's and 80's buying the stuff they taped off the radio...buncha thieves!
What the heck, let's throw in netflix....they've been around
what several years? netflix is well known as the place to get video on demand via dvd-r....their business model is/was based on queing vids and digitally recording and sending back as soon as possible to get the next vid. I've never used em myself, but the business model made sense to me if I were a video junkie. In retrospect, I was a fool, the cable companies want to commit me to a 3 hour time slot for what used to be a 2 hour movie which was sort of 1.5 hours.
Netflix charges me a mere fraction of the cost of cable/satellite and the few ads that unfortunately come with most DVDs.
And people on BBR bitch about 10% DSL overhead!
How will they screw up your downloads NOC? | |
|
|
|
See 15 replies to this post |
|
wruckman
Ruckman.net
join:2007-10-25
Northwood, OH | I will cancel I have Time-Warner, and fortunately I have alternatives. If they try this crap with me I will cancel their service on the spot! | |
|
kd6cae
P2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
join:2001-08-27
Lancaster, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| My fear if this goes national Some of us do such things as download linux CD's or DVD's, or stream internet radio and no doubt in the future, stream and/or download HD video. I would hope usage caps will increase to acomidate the new uses of high speed lines, otherwise it'll be a disaster. I wonder how our ISP's provider builds the ISP for their connection to the backbone? In other words, how for example, is RR build by Level3 for whatever connection RR has to level3's network? Is it in fact a metered line, hence all the talk of caps and all this, or does Level3 bill RR a flat rate for whatever OC class connections they have in to the network? Just curious. | |
|
| 
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | Re: My fear if this goes national i share this fear. i think it is justified as once ISPs get a taste of the money they won't go back without a big fight. | |
|
| |
| | grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY
| Re: My fear if this goes national Another problem with this... what is the cost per byte has more depth to it than simply transit cost. There is also the speed at which those bytes enter your system and what the users perceived value of those bytes becomes. At this point ISPs should have SLAs on their connections if they want this donkey crap to fly. I shouldn't be paying 5 cents for a byte that got to me at half the rated speed of my connection. I understand that to them it is volume, but when we start talking about the value of a byte on the consumer's side then things change. Since, you are now paying for every byte you expect it to be delivered on previously agreed terms. You don't make a deal with the meat delivery people and then expect them to haul you a year's supply of meat at the end of your billing year when it was supposed to be delivered weekly. Same volume, but different time and breach of terms promised to distribute. | |
|
roc5955
Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| RE:Time Warner Cable Eyeing Overage Charges? It doesn't matter that they don't properly maintain their equipment,(ie: replacing batteries on upses on repeaters) or oversell their bandwidth with too many people on their network, for a given location. Noooo, they just keep giving the execs higher pay, and expect us to keep their crappy service. Yeah, for some of us, they are the only game in town, so as they have the monopoly, they should be required by law to maintain their network, just as the phone company has to, or open themselves up to competition.
I know that I don't have a choice in the matter, it's either cable, or dialup. So like drug dealers, they are going to give us the good bandwidth for a while, for a decent price, then once we get hooked, raise the rates so that we can no longer afford what we had. There are already QOS issues in my area in the Hudson Valley. I had a phone call with their tech support, who insisted that I had to be there to have their tech replace a thirty year old cable that was not replaced when they changed me over. You should have seen the old thing.
I say that if they want to charge people for going over their 'limit,' they should be required to pro rate their service, and any fraction of bandwidth that is not being delivered to their customers, should be refunded. If I get 80% of their advertised 10 MB service, I should pay 80% of their charges. It's only fair, and should be pro rated for each twelve hour period that there is any degradation in service. Sorry, I will not buy the "bad weather," or "you did have SOME service" excuses. There should be new laws written in this age, so that the cable companies do not go and rip people off, with advertising promises that cannot be delivered.
--
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." | |
|
| 
scrummie02
Bentley
Premium
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA
| Re: RE:Time Warner Cable Eyeing Overage Charges? I think this will be the first time and might be the only time I will ever agree with you.
While I don't agree with the government mandating laws, having them open up competition would help. Also if I use 80% of my bandwidth I should only pay 80%. I have QOS issues as well, I see it when I'm gaming on-line and my ping times go up.
I pay a lot of money for my service, if I have downtime I should be compensated however with no competition (FIOS will be here soon though) the cable company is in no position to provide good customer service.
--
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. " - Thomas Jefferson | |
|
benc
Premium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL
·Charter Pipeline
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Callcentric
·AT&T Midwest
| Caps Are Bad Firstly, there's the argument about hackers.
Even if traffic/data transfer reaches your firewall, and is denied, it still counts as data transfer used, though it's useless for the user. One has no control over this.
Another argument is this: Do you really know the size of the various websites you visit? Even if you know today, you won't know tomorrow. The home page of this website is undoubtedly different every time I visit it. I use YouTube, and I have no idea how large the videos are.
There's yet another argument: The heaviest users are probably power users. Power users are the people others consult with regards to technical type stuff. They're the people that others ask for referrals ("Which ISP is better?").
So, if one power user refers five "normal" or "low-usage" users to the same ISP, that ISP still wins.
I know I would be mad if there was a cap. Given the price I pay and the lack of an SLA, I know that a cap would absolutely enrage me. | |
|
| grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY
| Re: Caps Are Bad They would need a Usenet type system where each site sends you a header (a mini contract) where you would agree to pay for the amount of data it is about to send you. Headers would be free transit. As you can imagine this would be ridiculous to the average user. | |
|
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
1 edit | said by benc :Firstly, there's the argument about hackers. Even if traffic/data transfer reaches your firewall, and is denied, it still counts as data transfer used, though it's useless for the user. One has no control over this. No one ever gets "hacked" to the tune of 300 GB a month. Show PROOF before posting falsehoods.
Another argument is this: Do you really know the size of the various websites you visit? Even if you know today, you won't know tomorrow. The home page of this website is undoubtedly different every time I visit it. I use YouTube, and I have no idea how large the videos are. Home pages aren't that large. Anything over a few MB and most people would leave because it takes too long to load. 50% of broadband subscribers have 2 Mbps or less conection.
Go the buccanners.com it's pretty large homepage that uses lots of flash. Even so it come to a total of 3.5 MB. Going to it every day for a year would only use up 1.5 GB of bandwidth.
Try using DU meter. It has a 30 day free trial and come back and post your useage. Unless you're doing something against your ISPs TOS you won't be anywhere near a cap.
There's yet another argument: The heaviest users are probably power users. Power users are the people others consult with regards to technical type stuff. They're the people that others ask for referrals ("Which ISP is better?").
So, if one power user refers five "normal" or "low-usage" users to the same ISP, that ISP still wins. Redo your math. If 5% are using 50% and the other 95% are using the other 50% then those 5% are using 19 times the badnwidth per person on averge. So Mr heavy user going to have to refer more than 5 people.
I know I would be mad if there was a cap. Given the price I pay and the lack of an SLA, I know that a cap would absolutely enrage me.
Too fricken bad then leave that ISP. It's as simple as that. | |
|
| | grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY
| Re: Caps Are Bad I don't think it's so much an issue that most people who are posting would be affected. The problem lies in the fact that if you give the ISPs an inch they will take a mile. Also the policy is one sided and aimed at giving ISPs more power and the consumer gets nothing out of this deal. Not lower prices, nothing. | |
|
travelguy
join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM
| Speed Bandwidth The problem is that cablecos and telcos are using speed as a proxy for bandwidth. It wouldn't be that hard to come up with a business model that combined a monthly byte count with an hourly/daily peak limit.
Speed then becomes a secondary factor... | |
|
neufuse
join:2006-12-06
Indiana, PA
·Comcast
| If you want this to work... first off you need a set number... that way people KNOW they wont be charged for something they didn't want to be... I wouldn't want to be told "Oh this month you own us $40 more because we said you are at the top 5% oh and by the way we wont tell you how you got there or how we determined you where there... so just pay up"...
after you have a set number! then say ok each 100 GB over that will be $20 more... or something like that... none of this $5 per gig over crap that has floated around before... give a larger number... 100GB for $20 seems like a good deal for me if say you get 200GB per month to start with... | |
|
| xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
| Re: If you want this to work... said by neufuse
after you have a set number! then say ok each 100 GB over that will be $20 more... or something like that... none of this $5 per gig over crap that has floated around before... give a larger number... 100GB for $20 seems like a good deal for me if say you get 200GB per month to start with...
[/BQUOTE :Why is 100gb for 20 gb sensible to you? What is the grandmother argument? (I'd like to explain the price hike to my grandma) (seriously...) | |
|
|
|
|
from:
bad idea
