S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
 ·Comcast
2 edits | Liars
If Att wanted to give "grandma" her fair shake, then they'd lower the prices for the measly 50MB of usage that "grandma" uses per month.
This is about setting the precedent of a low cap before even more Video is introduced to the Web. This is a money grab, plain and simple!
I think it's high time congress dragged these clowns to the hill and interogated them on where all of the money for upgrades through tax incentives has gone. They did it to AIG, and GM, they should now do it to TW, and the Death Star. Remember the 40 mbps to the home in 10 from the Clinton years.
If they don't like the idea of a PUC regulating them then hit them with this. They redefine a cap as cost since it has obvious pricing implications, with the regulating body being split with the FCC and IRS. Wouldn't that be a fun audit!
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09
49533 | We need caps to avoid the Internet Apocalypse! The sky is falling, the sky is falling! |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
 ·VOIPo
| reply to S_engineer
Yeah, lets take tw's or att's $40(or closest in price) package. If right now I were to pay $40 for no cap and so was 'grandma' and they put a 40GB cap and STILL kept it at $40 how does that make grandma pay less if she only uses 500MB? If that was what they really wanted they would make a real metered billing aka PAYG plan. For like 20/5 for $10 and if 1GB cost them $0.10 we would pay $0.20. I support this bill because it stops us from getting price gouged and skrewed. As far as I know it does not stop metered billing just makes them not be able to gouge us, and that is good. If it does make metering illegal then that part needs to go the Gov should not be able to say that, they should be able to say they cannot gouge/skrew us. And they can and I think they should. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| reply to digitalfreak
said by digitalfreak  :We need caps to avoid the Internet Apocalypse! The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Don't worry, AT&T and Time Warner et al will happily sell you their Apocalypse add-on package for the ultra low price of $9.99 a month. |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer :I think it's high time congress dragged these clowns to the hill and interogated them on where all of the money for upgrades through tax incentives has gone. They did it to AIG, and GM, they should now do it to TW, and the Death Star. I would hardly call this particular event you refer to as "dragging." More like rolling out the red carpet and throwing roses at their feet. These chumpstains from AIG et al. got the royal treatment. Never in a million years would I ever refer to it as an "interrogation." More like Congre$$ional lickspittles verbally fellating their constituency.
--
The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
|
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to Matt
said by Matt :said by digitalfreak :We need caps to avoid the Internet Apocalypse! The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Don't worry, AT&T and Time Warner et al will happily sell you their Apocalypse add-on package for the ultra low price of $9.99 a month. but also dont forget AT&T is the telephone company so they will have a 10.99 Apocalypse Processing fee and a 159.99 early termination fee with really small print stating(ETF may still be charged if Internet explodes causing unexpected end of service).
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
Dzot
Huh? What?
join:2001-01-21
Austin, TX | reply to Matt
I thought it was for each PC connected... |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer :If Att wanted to give "grandma" her fair shake, then they'd lower the prices for the measly 50MB of usage that "grandma" uses per month. As long as you realize that lowering the price paid by the low usage subscribers will dramatically increase the costs of moderate to high end subscribers. The MRC income of flat-rate billing keeps things evenly distributed today.
The low usage subscribers make up a much greater percentage of the customer base than most on this forum think. |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
1 edit | I disagree, i think that most users on this forum understand the mass populace is using only minimal amounts of bandwidth. This is the crux of the argument.
for years these companies have ignored forecasts about the exponential growth of the Internet. They were able to accomodate and oversell their userbase only because of the low usage subscribers. Few carriers decided to take the upgrade route. The rest are now taking the route of upgrading nothing at a time where bandwidth usage forecasts continue to climb. A Cap or an overage fee does not fix the technical issues that still loom. Their lack making the necessary upgrades the keep up what their own forecast were calling for are their own fault. This was clearly a case where quarterly reports became more important than the long term position that these companies needed to take.
And Major...you have a point...maybe Gitmo would be in order!
EDIT* And another thing, if there was such a bandwidth apocolyse looming, then why would these carriers line up to sign agreements with online video service ESPN360?
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | reply to Kearnstd
Yup - that $9.99 /month fee requires:
TV service/phone service and...
- $200 installation fee
- the modern day equivalent of a local loop charge
- requlatory surcharge fee (cost of doing business with government)
- regulatory revovery fee (cost of meeting government requirements)
- profit recovery fee (fee charged if company isn't making enough profit off of you, or in general)
- modem rental fee
- demark fee
- electrical usage fee (gotta power those VRAD/RT/fiber nodes)
- battery replacement fee (gotta replace those batteries in the exploding VRADS) |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer :I disagree, i think that most users on this forum understand the mass populace is using only minimal amounts of bandwidth. I don't know, people seem to get on board with Karl when he suggests a majority of people will be impacted by caps of even 100GB.
said by S_engineer :This is the crux of the argument. for years these companies have ignored forecasts about the exponential growth of the Internet. I don't think it's that black and white. Residential Internet options that people sign up for today were born out of opportunity to reuse existing infrastructure (twisted pair copper phone lines and coax cable), and were not necessarily designed to be the best / most scalable platform out there.
said by S_engineer :The rest are now taking the route of upgrading nothing at a time where bandwidth usage forecasts continue to climb. A Cap or an overage fee does not fix the technical issues that still loom. Caps do nothing but attempt to buy you time while planning the next network upgrade. They are imperfect, as they don't address peak congestion. In most cases caps are really only good as a published benchmark to use when dealing with "network abuse" -- a poor term which doesn't necessarily mean that you're doing anything illegal, just using more capacity than the system is really designed to handle.
said by S_engineer :Their lack making the necessary upgrades the keep up what their own forecast were calling for are their own fault. This was clearly a case where quarterly reports became more important than the long term position that these companies needed to take. I don't think it's quite that simple. I find it interesting that nobody every questions why carrier bandwidth is so inexpensive, especially considering these are also "greedy corporations" building out those networks. The difference is carrier bandwidth has always been sold in full dedicated capacity, or burstable capacity with metered billing. The link is set where more bandwidth means more revenue which means (hopefully) more profit. The residential ISPs with flat rate billing have very little incentive to upgrade bandwidth, except when scarcity would cause subscribers to leave.
said by S_engineer :EDIT* And another thing, if there was such a bandwidth apocolyse looming, then why would these carriers line up to sign agreements with online video service ESPN360? The cost of signing up for ESPN360 is minimal for large ISPs (in the grand scheme of things), and if it prevents users from leaving it's a win. |
|
uncleFester
@rr.com
| reply to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd :said by Matt : but also dont forget AT&T is the telephone company so they will have a 10.99 Apocalypse Processing fee and a 159.99 early termination fee with really small print stating(ETF may still be charged if Internet explodes causing unexpected end of service). .. i'm really curious how 'early termination fee' and 'apocalypse' kinda jive with application of said fees (or just HOW would one get a refund?)
 |
|
ytr22
@suddenlink.net
| reply to espaeth
"The low usage subscribers make up a much greater percentage of the customer base than most on this forum think."
And at the end of the day it doesn't matter, because both high bandwidth users and low bandwidth users are already being RAPED on the cost per byte. |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
1 edit | reply to espaeth
said by espaeth :The low usage subscribers make up a much greater percentage of the customer base than most on this forum think. Until more and more people start getting more services over the internet. Like TV and movies. Sure right now grandma might only use 50mb, but in 20-30 years that isn't going to be true. Hell it might not even be true in 10 years. Cable companies are most likely predicting much more heavy use of the internet.
If you give them what seems like an inch today. In 20 years that inch will be a million miles. They will have created a system where they get to make heavy profit for delivering services that compete with their tv service. |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2 | reply to uncleFester
They'll just take it as a deposit  |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to insomniac84
said by insomniac84 :If you give them what seems like an inch today. In 20 years that inch will be a million miles. They will have created a system where they get to make heavy profit for delivering services that compete with their tv service. You're assuming that only broadcast video services are able to deliver Internet access with that statement.
Public access to the Internet has grown on non-dedicated access media from its earliest days. The primary method started out as modems using the public switched telephone network, and eventually grew to technologies that "piggyback" existing deployed infrastructure to reduce the cost of deployment. There is only so much the current broadband providers can raise their rates. The networks are currently below market equilibrium because they are leveraging existing deployed cable plant. The current pricing is such that competitors can't afford to build out new infrastructure to establish new Internet service and make a profit. The current broadband companies can only raise prices by a certain amount before it will become cost effective for other companies to build out their own purpose-built Internet networks to residential markets. |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| said by espaeth :The current pricing is such that competitors can't afford to build out new infrastructure to establish new Internet service and make a profit. Not true. Municipalities seem to have no problem building it up and making profit. Granted it's easier for them to get start up loans, but still. Even verizon is replacing their existing network with fiber. So it's incorrect to claim they can't afford it.
said by espaeth :The current broadband companies can only raise prices by a certain amount before it will become cost effective for other companies to build out their own purpose-built Internet networks to residential markets. So basically they are leveraging their size to prevent competition with artificially low rates and now they want to be able to continue to advertise a low base price while still getting an increase via the under-advertised metered part of the price?
I think not. They should have to advertise a flat price, that is the only way to keep everything fair. It's bad enough that they don't include fees and taxes in the advertised price. You want them to advertise a service for 19.95 a month and put some fine print about a 40b cap and 2 dollar a GB charges at the bottom? It would send the internet back to 1995. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| said by insomniac84 :said by espaeth :The current pricing is such that competitors can't afford to build out new infrastructure to establish new Internet service and make a profit. Not true. Municipalities seem to have no problem building it up and making profit. Really?
»Earthlink Closing Philly Wi-Fi Network June 12
»MetroFi Pulls Out of Municipal Wireless Game
»Utah's Utopia Tries To Stay Afloat
said by insomniac84 : Even verizon is replacing their existing network with fiber. So it's incorrect to claim they can't afford it. Verizon's rollout of FiOS is about one thing: triple play. Both ATT and Verizon realized early on that the TV / Phone / Internet packages are where the real money was to be made and the cable companies had the upper hand. That's been the driving force behind U-Verse and FiOS deployments - keeping the companies viable.
said by insomniac84 :They should have to advertise a flat price, that is the only way to keep everything fair. It's bad enough that they don't include fees and taxes in the advertised price. You want them to advertise a service for 19.95 a month and put some fine print about a 40b cap and 2 dollar a GB charges at the bottom? It would send the internet back to 1995. It's the fastest way to get capacity expansion. That's why there is so much backbone capacity at the moment: bandwidth at the backbone level is billed based on consumption. You want them to build more capacity? Use more bandwidth.
Right now with the flat pricing structure all you do by consuming more bandwidth is eat away at the profit structure; growing demand only provides motivation for companies to upgrade if the service will degrade to the point that customers will quit.
The simple reality is prices are going to go up one way or another. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC | Muni WiFi != Muni Fiber. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| said by Matt :Muni WiFi != Muni Fiber. You'll note Utopia is on that list of links. That's muni fiber, my friend. |
|
