ssavoyPremium
join:2007-08-16
Dallas, PA Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Positive Change I wouldn't really call this nickel-and-diming. First of all, they're raising the limit +50GB for all users, and $10 for 50GB is very fair.
Even Amazon charges ~$0.12/GB for data transfer and they only have datacenters to manage - not thousands of nodes in neighborhoods around the country.
So I'd say this is a positive change. |
|
 whfsdudePremium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC
 ·T-Mobile US
| said by ssavoy  Even Amazon charges ~$0.12/GB for data transfer and they only have datacenters to manage - not thousands of nodes in neighborhoods around the country.
From what I hear, it's as cheap if not sometimes cheaper than Cogent. We're talking $2-3/mbit. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to ssavoy
said by ssavoy:I wouldn't really call this nickel-and-diming. First of all, they're raising the limit +50GB for all users, and $10 for 50GB is very fair.
Even Amazon charges ~$0.12/GB for data transfer and they only have datacenters to manage - not thousands of nodes in neighborhoods around the country.
So I'd say this is a positive change.
If you go over 1 GB you're basically paying $10 per GB. Not such a great deal. They should just charge $1 per 5 GB for overage |
|
ssavoyPremium
join:2007-08-16
Dallas, PA Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to whfsdude
Datacenter bandwidth is always going to be cheap - it's when you start building out a network to millions of people when those costs rise.
I'd rather a 300GB limit and then be throttled to ~5mbps after that or something. Similar to cell phone companies, but with less greed. |
|
whfsdudePremium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| said by ssavoy:Datacenter bandwidth is always going to be cheap - it's when you start building out a network to millions of people when those costs rise. I worked at a large statewide R&E network for a couple of years. I have to disagree.
There is a high initial buildout cost (in our case fiber for our non-leased circuits) but to maintain those circuits is not bad.
The biggest cost for the end-user isn't bandwidth or last mile circuits. It was always support.
This just seems like a profit grab. It would rather see a QoS based system that actually reflects network conditions rather than an artificial pricing model. |
|
rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
·Bright House
| reply to ssavoy
said by ssavoy:I wouldn't really call this nickel-and-diming. First of all, they're raising the limit +50GB for all users, and $10 for 50GB is very fair.
Even Amazon charges ~$0.12/GB for data transfer and they only have datacenters to manage - not thousands of nodes in neighborhoods around the country.
So I'd say this is a positive change.
Only incrementally positive.
I buy carrier transit at $DAYJOB so I am familiar with costs. Trust me, $10 for 50 GB is a staggering markup over cost.
Re. Amazon, it might be educational to read up on the infrastructure Amazon uses to provide cloud storage services. It's more than just some "datacenters". It's a LOT more sophisticated than you're giving it credit for.
And let's not lose focus that the cost to deliver a GB of data to the home continues to DECREASE. But that topic has been covered ad nauseum in these forums, so I won't waste bits re-hashing it.
It's the age-old marketing gimmick. Take something (unlimited transfer) away for a few years, enjoy increased cost savings to deliver the same, then gradually give it back in tiny quantities.... and your customers will THINK they are getting something new for free. |
|
| "Trust me, $10 for 50 GB is a staggering markup over cost."
Blows away $30 for 2GB with Verizon wireless |
|
| Going with the "screwed less, so it is better" argument, huh? |
|
| reply to Sofa King
Wireless is different since the network's bandwidth capacity is much lower. Comcast's motivations are 100% about profit-taking. |
|
|
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| reply to whfsdude
$4-$5 per Mbit...Cogent is around $1.50 at this point.
Also, that's for a single fiber pipe being delivered to a single location, with a high monthly cost (in absolute terms). When you're paying $5k per month you can get fiber to pretty much wherever. |
|
 NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | reply to whfsdude
2/mbit to 100mbps, gets cheaper for gigabit, and even cheaper for 10gigabit.
2/mbit is pretty much the standard between several providers out there now. It varies on gigabit port speeds, but generally under 1k for a dedicated 1g link.
Which is an argument I've had with a datacenter in town where I would have done business with but they want 55/mbit and keep trying to tell me how good their bandwidth is. I know who they're buying it from, and they offer me the 2/mbit pricing. Since they're such a ripoff I avoid them and deal with the 45 minute drive to Denver as needed to work on my servers.
--
Ski News - Ski Colorado Blog
Web Hosting - www.FrontRangeHosting.com |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| reply to BF69
...because there are tons of people who hit 301 GB in a month...
In order to make overages worthwhile, Comcast has to either charge a lot for them (a dollar or two per GB) or bundle them up so that the minimum overage is something that people actually care about.
Kind of like how Sprint used to do overages in blocks of $5 (first for 100 minutes, then 50, then 30 as time went on). Then they switched to the standard postpaid model, with 45 cents per minute. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| reply to Skippy25
In other news, Comcast operates 860MHz coaxial systems in most areas. Verizon uses 20MHz of 700MHz spectrum for LTE, plus a couple dozen MHz for CDMA. Since we're talking about wireless here, modulations can't be complex as they can (bits per Hz) for cable (256QAM can fit 38 Mbps into 6MHz, and do it reliably; you don't see that kind of capacity with LTE yet anywhere close to the edge of a cell). According to supply and demand, since demand is still pretty high and supply (available network capacity) is lower...boom, higher costs on cellular. |
|
| reply to ssavoy
Fair? Probably cheaper to move hard drives around by truck. Comcast is obviously doing a great job obscuring cost and value from its customers. |
|
| reply to Wilsdom
Don't forget about competition prevention. |
|
rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Bright House
| reply to iansltx
said by iansltx:$4-$5 per Mbit...Cogent is around $1.50 at this point. If your commit is large enough, you can get below $1 per megabit now at some of Cogent's larger exchange points. Level3 is also very aggressive.
Consider the commit levels Comcast buys and WHO they buy transit from, then do the math. And don't overlook their SFI (peering) agreements which cost even less than paid transit. Nor overlook the fact they run their own national backbone, and sell transit themselves.
Moving bits across the network is cheap, and the incremental costs of those extra GB monthly is measured in pennies, not dollars.
So $10 for 50 GB? I would LOVE to make that kind of margin on my traffic flows. |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to rebus9
said by rebus9:I buy carrier transit at $DAYJOB so I am familiar with costs. Trust me, $10 for 50 GB is a staggering markup over cost. What word would you use to call at&t's and Verizon's $10 per ONE GB overage fee then? |
|
rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Bright House
| said by BF69:What word would you use to call at&t's and Verizon's $10 per ONE GB overage fee then? I don't buy wireless services at $DAYJOB, so I don't have a frame of reference on costs. I can only guess, although it's reasonable to assume wireless costs more to deploy and operate than wired service, per Mbps.
My seat-of-the-pants guess is $10 per GB is a substantial markup "because we can", driven by the popularity of smartphones and 3G/4G tablets.
An awful lot of users would pay a king's ransom to keep their iPhones and Droids, even if the data plan was $50/month for a 1 GB cap, plus $25 per GB overage. I think the only reason this isn't already the case is because of disruptive pricing from carriers like T-Mobile. (which we all know is the real reason AT&T wanted to assimilate them)
For a sanity check, take a look at pricing in Asian markets. Why should wireless pricing in Tokyo or Hong Kong be so much cheaper than NYC, given population densities. Hmmmm. |
|
| reply to ssavoy
said by ssavoy:So I'd say this is a positive change.
No, just more snake oil. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| reply to rebus9
Do you operate hundreds of thousands of miles of HFC, netting you an "on-net" fotprint of, oh, a few million homes and apartments? 
Comcast has a monopoly on fast internet in most of their service areas (fast = 15+ Mbps), similar to many other cable companies. They also have a relatively limited amount of capacity on this network, such that if 30% of a node got online at the same time and maxed out their connections, you'd start to have issues reaching advertised speeds. Maybe even less than 30%. So they constrict supply slightly (by putting caps on their service) and charge overages (to offset the cost of adding capacity to the network). Seems reasonable enough for me, though they definitely wouldn't be in this situation if their network was PON instead of HFC (that won't happen for another 10-15 years). |
|
