[BrettStah]

Well, I don't keep track of my bandwidth usage, but do download large files at times... looks like the probable future will have people who use more bandwidth to pay more per month...


I figure you guys doing a lot of show sharing may fall into the "hog" category too..

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/business/3319731.htm

 

[toots]

Ya know, if the cable companies are busy looking for new sources of revenue, which seems to imply that they don't have enough revenue, I can't see how increasing their debt load (as a result of the acquisition) would help the bottom line any.


'cept that I keep forgetting: Mergers like this aren't done for the health of the company. They're done so that some of the people doing it can find new ways to siphon money out of the company. Once it's saddled with debt, who cares what happens to the resulting firm?

 

[Paulb]

That's so ridiculous.


Bigger and bigger bandwidth requirements are simple the way it is and the way it will be for some time to come. Instead of trying to scam more money from customers these companies need to devote resources to expanding bandwidth. I hope AT&T are planning to do better than C. Michael Armstrong in the near future. They never really recovered from their forced fragmentation, did they.

 

[Babbster]

Forgive me, but who do you think pays for the bandwidth you use? Anybody running a full-time server from home and using huge amounts of bandwidth is costing their ISP a lot more money than they make from the monthly fees. Comcast (or AT&T or MSN or anyone else) has to pay THEIR providers (backbones) for the bandwidth their subscribers use and they have to make money to stay in business...little/no profit, no broadband.


I think the solution of selectively making people who transfer more than a specified amount pay more money for their Internet access is indeed the way to go, especially if the alternative is to charge *everyone* more money. Why should someone transferring less than a gigabyte of data per month pay a premium because their next-door neighbor is serving up (or downloading) tons of audio and/or video?


-Aaron

 

[Serra]

I agree with Babbster, somewhat. I agree that bandwidth hogs are really costing us all more. They should either charge more or put a cap on people who are hogs. That is the way it is, people who use more cost the company more in bandwidth charges. Anyone paying for bandwith on a website knows that, the more you use, the more you pay.


However, the cable companies have already placed caps on us to prevent us from using more bandwith than we really can use. They mostly outlaw servers on broadband connections. So, it appears that all they have to do is enforce that and the trouble would be over.


Either way, I don't want to pay more because someone down the street is running a gig a day of backbone usage.

 

[Paulb]

"Forgive me, but who do you think pays for the bandwidth you use?"


You're forgiven. Last time I looked my signature was on the checks made out to my DSL provider.


A gig of information a day going back and forth on a home computer is nothing. I think some of you are a tad brainwashed.

 

[Foxtrot-Yankee]

Seems to me that the best way to fix this "problem" is to offer different levels of service with bandwidth caps. Verizon already does this with their DSL.


You pick a plan and it gives you certain benefits like:


-- Ability to host a server

-- Some (or no) bandwidth cap

-- Web space

-- Tech support level/priority


Obviously, the people who want a megabit and a half to leech everything off of Kaaza would have to pay a higher (flat) rate.


As long as they keep the rates flat (so there are no surprises) I don't mind paying a higher cost for premium service...


--Fox

 

[NJChris]

I thought bandwidth costs were going down.


Why do they need to do this? Simple.. they want money and will make up any excuse to do so.


Most ISP's do NOT allow servers. So those that are using them should be taken care of by the ISP, not by charging more.


Do the ISPs provide bandwidth usage for it's users? I don't think many (if any) do this. How do we really know what we are using?


I think it's all deceptive and a ploy for more $$$.

 

[majortom]

Quote:

Originally posted by Babbster Forgive me, but who do you think pays for the bandwidth you use? Anybody running a full-time server from home and using huge amounts of bandwidth is costing their ISP a lot more money than they make from the monthly fees. Comcast (or AT&T or MSN or anyone else) has to pay THEIR providers (backbones) for the bandwidth their subscribers use and they have to make money to stay in business...little/no profit, no broadband.

Why do you think that people get on the net in the first place other than to access content? It is these very services that encourage people to sign up for cable modems in the first place. If they did not exist, there would be no incentive for most people to use the net.


It is also totally disingenuous to say that it is people hosting servers at home that are causing the problems. That is just a way to make it seem like it is someone else that is doing it, so we should not worry about this rate change/increase. Anyone running a server with a capped upstream at 128Kb/s as AT&T currently provides, is able to use much less bandwidth than someone downloading video, software, music, pictures or any other high volume content.


What these guys are actually saying is that we make huge profits on most of you (as you pay more than twice what a dial-up user pays and cost us much less to serve), and now we want to make huge profit on the rest of you.

Quote:

I think the solution of selectively making people who transfer more than a specified amount pay more money for their Internet access is indeed the way to go, especially if the alternative is to charge *everyone* more money. Why should someone transferring less than a gigabyte of data per month pay a premium because their next-door neighbor is serving up (or downloading) tons of audio and/or video? -Aaron

If you want to go to a pay as you go system for everyone, that is fine. Drop the monthly rate and charge me per byte transfered. Bet you end up with many fewer customers.


/carmi

 

[Guy Online]

Yeah, you would think that with telecoms going bust right & left because of too much capacity it might occur to at least one or two of them that maybe they could sell more if they lowered consumer prices.


I guess they didn't notice what happened for the car manufacturers when they "got it" after 9/11.


Gee, can you imagine, shoppers actually willing to buy if the price is good!


And come on folks, a gig, even if your talking bytes rather than bits, just isn't very much any more.

 

[hroeder]

You are taking away THEIR business if you download movies or TV shows or whatever, that they didn't sell you.


The big market place is going to be video on demand. It is already there. Start a film any time you want. And who is fighting over this: The PHone Companies, the cable networks and some new startups. They want you to pay $4 to see that movie you're downloading from someone else's site. That's why you're seeing "Pay for Bandwidth" propoganda.


We have DSL lines both at work and home. I dare say little bandwidth is used in either situation.

 

[Reden]

All this is solved with competition. If a Internet provider wants to charge more for a specific level of service that's fine, so long as any changes are announced in advance in case I want to go somewhere else.


The biggest problem will be when they put you behind a NAT router and provide "Web access" instead of "Internet Access" (like AOL).


Robert

 

[Paulb]

"Verizon already does this with their DSL."



Yeah I have Verizon DSL. I'm unaware of bandwidth (as in volume) on any of their plans. I have the cheapest--regular user one. The difference, as far as I know is in terms of speed.


My neighbor has one of their professional level DLS's and he uploads and downloads huge Audio and Video files that he produces. For him he can't afford the time a regular DSL takes. For both of us the actual amount of bandwidth used is NOT a concern--and that's how it should be.


I think some folks here are taking what they consider the "high road" on this issues because all they can conceive is people using their online access to copy movies n stuff. It's more of a moral thing with them but it doesn't speak well for their current awayness. A lot of us use the interment for a vast array of things that have nothing to do with stealing stuff or even hosting some lame-ass server.

 

[markus98]

I own an ISP. This is the second one I've built from the ground up, and it too is profitable. (the first was sold to a Dot Com three years ago.)


DSL subscribers and cable subscribers don't pay for the bandwidth they use. They pay enough so as an aggregate they cover the costs of providing all of them service. If ever we reach a point where more than rougly 12% of them start using the full bandwidth, the whole service becomes a loss-leader.


I'm sorry Paul B, and your signature on your DSL checks in mind, but your $40 does not entitle you to what you're probably using EXCEPT that your current DSL provider is willing to give it to you and take a loss.


Bandwidth at the OC-3 (155Mbps) level is currently $180-$200/Mbps/mo. That means your $40 would buy you 200Kbps and no more.


Bandwidth at the DS-3 (45Mbps) level is currently $220-$250/Mbps/mo. That means your $40 would buy you 160Kbps and no more.


Bandwidth at the DS-1 (1.5Mbps) level is $650-$850, or $433-$566/Mbps/mo. That means your $40 would buy you 100Kbps and no more.


Those are the real numbers your ISP of choice uses to buy bandwidth. They sell it to you at $40/whateverMbps because they figure you won't use it, and they can oversell it, and they'll make their bigger numbers.


If you (all) use it, they can't oversell it, their network becomes oversubscribed, they have to buy more bandwidth, and they lose money.


I suspect Comcast didn't enjoy this story -- it suggests they are looking to get Fresh New Revenue, not "get paid for what people are actually using." The latter would probably have been a fair way to put it that would not strike a discordant note with readers.


Back to the grind.


Mman

for kl

 

[toots]

A lot of people I know who got cable got it mainly for online gaming. Let's face it: Half-Life DM is just a lot nicer with the shorter latency of cablemodem than on a 56K link.


I have it because I'm just an impatient sort. If I were to check, my Replays probably do more traffic in one day than I do, but when I am online, I like to see them web sites come up "toot sweet."

 

[Paulb]

I'm sorry Paul B, and your signature on your DSL checks in mind, but your $40 does not entitle you to what you're probably using EXCEPT that your current DSL provider is willing to give it to you and take a loss.



"What I'm probably using?" I have no idea where you're even coming from on that.



Anyway your whole argument is kind of like the phone companies saying that consumers don't really pay full price for their telephone usage because if everyone was on the horn 24/7 the systems couldn't handle it.


In fact, and true of both telephone and Internet usage, consumers across the board are paying high for their access. Most people pay too much and if any of the "providers" can't figure out how to stay in business with the vast scam-money they're skimming off the top they damn well SHOULD be doing something else.

 

[markus98]

Paul, I'm sorry we're not communicating.


I shared the real numbers with you.


Then you go off on a rant starting with "In fact," and ending with your opinion about phone companies. That really has nothing to do with billing for usage internet wise.


Thanks for letting me know about my "whole argument." I wasn't arguing -- I was sharing with you and the other reads of this forum the hard data about the cost of goods that you are getting for far below market value, and why the oversell method is the only way you can get it, and why they (your providers) want to eliminate those who sqew the model.


Look, this wasn't an argument, and it's not an argument, and it's not even a hypothesis or a syllogism. I gave you the hard numbers and I explained the economics behind them. If you don't like it (and I guess you don't) that's entirely your right... but it doesn't change the numbers!


IN FACT, insert opinion here and hope nobody notices, SO THERE


Mman

 

[Paulb]

"I shared the real numbers with you. "


I think it all revolves around the concept of "real" in the above. A good topic for discussion but maybe another time and another place.

 

[Serra]

Quote:

Originally posted by Paulb Anyway your whole argument is kind of like the phone companies saying that consumers don't really pay full price for their telephone usage because if everyone was on the horn 24/7 the systems couldn't handle it.

No, it isn't like that at all. With the Internet, each time you send or recieve information, someone is paying the bill for that bandwidth.


With a phone and a local call, you are simply using a circuit. It doesn't cost the phone company anything, provided the volume doesn't expand beyond the maximum number of connections. When that happens they have to upgrade the system, but on a per connection basis, it is free.



The Internet on the other hand costs money each time you send data that goes on the backbone. That costs real money and is expensive. If you don't believe it, try to find a web service that will host your web page and allow you to have a 30 gig a month bandwidth allowance. It will be VERY expensive.

 

[Paulb]

Serra,

I guess you and I live on different worlds. In my world it's all just data going from point a to point b.


Try installing a multi-line pbx phone system. You'll find it's also pretty pricey.