| reply to BoulderHill1
Re: Why a cap? I threw this together to help some people see things from a smaller ISPs view.... this is, of coarse, not as much the case with a carrier such as sprint or att&t
--------------------------------------------
Let us make this simple-
So the "customer" pays for 6Mb/s service, and with streaming movies and such, it is coming to where people are constantly using that 6Mb/s or close to it. The customer says “I’m paying for 6Mb I should always get 6Mb”. Unfortunately, Internet access is built on “over-subscription” to attain a profit. Let me explain easily-
An ISP can pay $3,500/month (sometimes higher) for a DS3 which gives 44Mb/s of room. $3,500/44 = That comes out to just over $79.00 per Mb/s! So, if a customer is to say “I should ALWAYS get my full 6Mb without any over-subscription, they would have to fairly pay $79.00 x 6 = $474.00/mo. This is not including the transport and personal to get them that bandwidth either. I’m thinking that isn’t going to happen. The solution has always been over-subscription as internet traffic fluctuated a lot in the past. Now days, as it still fluctuates, but it is doing so MUCH less with movies being streamed and site using flash etc. Also, don’t forget, a network-wide upgrade to support fiber and other technologies such as faster DSL or wireless can cost close to a $1million for a business of less than 4,000 subscribers.
With usage based billing, it’s simply closing the gap of the high user (that would fairly pay up to $400+/mo for their service) and the low user that doesn’t use that much at all. I do believe there should be plenty of bandwidth included in the service “package”. I have found that 250Gb/mo (Comcast's current limit) can give you multiple movies a day and tons of browsing and email and much more. I also believe or except that if I’m pulling 400Gb a month, given the math above, it only makes sense I have to pay more for the extra and it will be up to me (subscribers) to decide if that extra bandwidth is worth the money and to adjust usage based on my findings.
It should stay reasonable (which I do believe 200-250Gb/mo is), but come on people, the ISP (especially smaller ones) have to make some profit to stay in business. Hopefully the simple above math can put that into perspective as I don’t believe anyone is willing to pay the same amount/Mb that the ISP pays.... If that is so, you agree to the need of over-subscription…. and if THAT is so you recognize that if over-subscription is becoming less possible then the costs have to compensate for the margin loss. Usage based billing keeps service at a fair price with the "option" for crazy heavy users to opt in an buy extra bandwidth to accommodate their usage.
----------------------------------------------------
Like previously mentioned, it's VERY important that someone regulates this because as prices for bandwidth come down (which they do) who is to say they will adjust subscription prices accordingly? - that was a very good point! |
|
 gerglesGregPremium
join:2003-05-30
San Francisco, CA | Your argument completely ignores the realities of how ISPs are charged for bandwidth. If I use four terabytes of data at a time nobody else is using the connection, ISPs don't pay a penny more. It's only if my use increases the overall utilization of the line above the current 95th percentile rate.
If you're going to argue for low caps and high overages (which is what you're arguing -- usage based billing is something no ISP would ever implement, because, well, like they're so quick to trot out, 90% of users use hardly any bandwidth at all, and we can't do anything to LOWER anybody's prices..,) you need to explain realistically how billing works on the ISP level. No ISP actually pays by the gigabyte transferred for every single gigabyte. |
|
| my argument was based on most customers that say "I should always get 6 megs if I'm paying for that service". Along with that I attempted to explain why a 6 meg plan cannot guarentee 6Mb all the time (because over subscription is used). Even further, I tried to show that if you DO want ISPs to be able to "guarentee" your speed , for the most part, cause your HD streaming etc requires it then they will have to raise their backbone speed to compansate for heavy usage times where the "oversubscription policy" is less possible. These times are 7-9am and 6-10pm (of coarse). By using these new technologies you are, in effect, asking for full speed pretty much all of the time.
I was not suggesting they pay per GB- only that the backbone obviously will not support all subscribers getting full speed on their connection at once. Over subscription has been the case since even dial-up (only in those days you could have 300 users per t1 about!) cause text for simple websites were the dominant thing going across the internet. So, I think the idea is to attack this problem in a number of ways. To be honest, with a cap at around 200GB, this is really only going to cap out mostly torrent users IMO or possibly the few video from home streaming people watching security cams.... and hopefully they can choose a compression to lessen this effect or decide to pay extra for what they need.. I can watch netflix as much as my life will allow and be FAR from even 100GB.
Hopefully that explains my post better-
It's a double edged sword, and I have sight on both sides no doubt, I was just attempting to bring a part of info that some my not realize into the equation. |
|
|
|
 shollingPremium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
kudos:1 | reply to jconeohone
said by jconeohone :I threw this together to help some people see things from a smaller ISPs view.... this is, of coarse, not as much the case with a carrier such as sprint or att&t
--------------------------------------------
Let us make this simple-
So the "customer" pays for 6Mb/s service, and with streaming movies and such, it is coming to where people are constantly using that 6Mb/s or close to it. The customer says “I’m paying for 6Mb I should always get 6Mb”. Unfortunately, Internet access is built on “over-subscription” to attain a profit. Let me explain easily-
An ISP can pay $3,500/month (sometimes higher) for a DS3 which gives 44Mb/s of room. Now let's put down the pipe and look at reality. Top level ISPs like AT&T and Verizon pay bupkis for bandwidth because they own those big cheap long ago paid for pipes and the backbone. Even when they add capacity it costs them pennies per terabyte because again they own the pipes and the backbone. 2nd and 3rd tier ISPs pay those ridiculous prices because they piggy back on the 1st tier pipes and backbone and the 1st tiers bend them over.
All this is is AT&T's attempt to get back to the "good old days" of toll calls and per minute charges and extend that to the Internet. Look for those caps to drop so low that nearly everyone has overages every month - just like the "good old days" when you paid out the wazoo for calling across town. It's obviously time to break AT&T up again but this time not by territory but across all territories and make them compete with themselves.
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT-- |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to jconeohone
Valid if you're paying $3500 for a DS3. I can get a 100M pipe for that cost, and gigabit for maybe 4x that... |
|
WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | reply to sholling
You are correct they don't pay much for the biggest pipes but the fiber to the neighborhoods cost big bucks. The demand is doubling all the time but the revenue barely budges. If you and your neighbors double their usage which means your ISP at some point may need to buy new equipment but the have not made any more money. If the ISPs quit making money then the internet will die because the pipes will be so clogged none of the new technology will work. If you drive all the low users away then the hogs will be paying most of the cost. Rates may not go down for the average user but they may not go up as fast if the ISP cost do not increase as much.
If you are not using 150 or 250 what does it matter. If you are using more then you need to pay for the demand you are putting on the last mile. |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Vitelity VOIP
| reply to iansltx
said by iansltx:Valid if you're paying $3500 for a DS3. I can get a 100M pipe for that cost, and gigabit for maybe 4x that... I'd love to see you try to get that pricing in the average outer-ring suburb. |
|
shollingPremium
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA
kudos:1
1 edit | reply to WhatNow
said by WhatNow:You are correct they don't pay much for the biggest pipes but the fiber to the neighborhoods cost big bucks. The demand is doubling all the time but the revenue barely budges. If you and your neighbors double their usage which means your ISP at some point may need to buy new equipment but the have not made any more money. If the ISPs quit making money then the internet will die because the pipes will be so clogged none of the new technology will work. If you drive all the low users away then the hogs will be paying most of the cost. Rates may not go down for the average user but they may not go up as fast if the ISP cost do not increase as much.
If you are not using 150 or 250 what does it matter. If you are using more then you need to pay for the demand you are putting on the last mile.
Did AT&T tell you that nonsense? Once the fiber is in it's in. You don't have to spend a lot more to boost bandwidth. You can pump 10Gb/s across a single fiber if you want and 1Gb/s is child's play and even if you wanted to add another fiber or two once the subduct is in it's flipping cheap.
Second if the goal were traffic management then how many Gb/month wouldn't matter, instead you'd throttle bandwidth during peak hours. All AT&T is doing is milking their customers for extra profits. Fine if their were real competition and if the change their advertising to say "6Mb/s DSL for $29.99 plus $10 in BS fees plus usage charges - yes we charge extra if you actually use what you're already us paying for". Truth in advertising. But hey if you like the AT&T plan then I have a bridge to sell you for $10,000 (plus $10,000/mo in hidden fees).
Gotta love the 1000% markup. The joy of having a monopoly and owning of a bunch of congress critters.
--
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
--FREDERIC BASTIAT-- |
|
| reply to jconeohone
nobody needs to regulate how a private business charges their end-users. The fact is; it's THEIR NETWORK the customer only pays to LEASE that network. The Owner can tell you what you can and can NOT do with said network. If the Customer is not happy; then the customer has the right to leave. Nobody is telling the customer they MUST sign up. They fully know up front what the limits are and thus choose on their own to take it or not. The same goes with any service including leasing any property which does so in the terms of this. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | You are forgetting a few things.
Att is using public access ways.
Att used the money from the 96 telcom act to build a lot of their system(backbone instead of local like they were supposed to).
They still answer to the FCC.
So yes, when a private company uses public resources, we CAN tell a private business how to deal with their customers. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc:nobody needs to regulate how a private business charges their end-users. The fact is; it's THEIR NETWORK the customer only pays to LEASE that network. The Owner can tell you what you can and can NOT do with said network. If the Customer is not happy; then the customer has the right to leave. Nobody is telling the customer they MUST sign up. They fully know up front what the limits are and thus choose on their own to take it or not. The same goes with any service including leasing any property which does so in the terms of this.
Good then at&t can repay the BILLIONS is USF funds it has recived over the years. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Lazlow
said by Lazlow:You are forgetting a few things.
Att is using public access ways.
Att used the money from the 96 telcom act to build a lot of their system(backbone instead of local like they were supposed to).
They still answer to the FCC.
So yes, when a private company uses public resources, we CAN tell a private business how to deal with their customers.
You're simply making this up. There is no law or regulation linking the things you say are linked. Maybe it's how you WISH it to be, but it isn't this way in reality. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to espaeth
Define "outer ring". Also, Ethernet is very inexpensive compared to DSx/OCn services... |
|
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
quote:
said by MyDogHsFleas:
You are forgetting a few things.
Att is using public access ways.
Att used the money from the 96 telcom act to build a lot of their system(backbone instead of local like they were supposed to).
They still answer to the FCC.
So yes, when a private company uses public resources, we CAN tell a private business how to deal with their customers.
Nope, Lazlow speaks the truth. We got royally screwed.
»www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007···683.html |
|
| reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc:nobody needs to regulate how a private business charges their end-users. The fact is; it's THEIR NETWORK the customer only pays to LEASE that network. The Owner can tell you what you can and can NOT do with said network. If the Customer is not happy; then the customer has the right to leave. Nobody is telling the customer they MUST sign up. They fully know up front what the limits are and thus choose on their own to take it or not. The same goes with any service including leasing any property which does so in the terms of this.
Well, this argument is stone-walled. Most see it from one side or the other. As I mentioned, ATT, verison, sprint, comcast... are all less effected by costs but for smaller ISPs this is a real needed solution to deal with constant streamers. Overall this answer here is the best- you lease it.... don't like the rules, get it elsewhere or wright your favorite politician .... echem....(or start your own ISP and find yourself altering at least some beliefs on this topic) |
|
