What about plant maintenance? Bandwidth based billing isn't just about the pipe, it is total cost and its increasing daily. Downstream traffic isn't the problem. People checking their email isn't the problem. The problem is people uploading constantly and saturating the network. Ask a RF Network Engineer and see if bandwidth based billing wouldn't improve the overall network.
by Anonymous (not verified) on 4/21/09 at 9:12 pm |reply
Really?
So, you must be a cable company employee. If another country can give 160Mb service for the same exact price as I get 10Mb service, which typically runs like 2Mb service, then it is not the costs going crazy, it is the company being rediculously wasteful. What is the CEO doing with 14.4 million a year if the company is losing money?
Really, Poor management skills and the proliferation of useless employees is the problem, that and laze. What needs to be done is a vast network upgrade, so that it does not stress their system, and induce the need for arduous upkeep. Cables dont break anywear near as fast when not overloaded. Perhaps if they put money back into the system, instead of into their asshole ceo who only cares about his immediate paychecks so he can retire early.
Congratulations on the fail.
by Anonymous (not verified) on 4/21/09 at 11:06 pm |reply
Plant maintenance does
Plant maintenance does include cables, but it is RF amps and node congestion that is the $$. When you talk about costs over seas like you did, and in the story like in japan, it is really easy to do plant upgrades when your upgrade is a single building. Not several hundred miles of land. Your first argument is wrong. Next one you made was that there is wasteful spending. Agreed. Vast upgrades come from where?... you realize your internet service is the only profitable service they sell. It goes to cover the other services. And if they put all their money back into the system, how would you keep good employees to design these "advanced networks". I think you should honestly look at this from a side view. Bandwidth based billing will overall provide a better network
My last question is what scares you? the low cap or the idea of bandwidth based billing?. What if I offered you a gig sym. fiber connection with bandwidth based billing? I have vastly improved these so called "perfect" systems in other countries but charge a different model. Is that still bad? Cmon, a really? and a fail in one argument. But then again, I guess your opposed to the idea of paying for water based on usage or electricity. Silly me and my fail thoughts. usage based services....lol how do they exist.
by Anonymous (not verified) on 4/21/09 at 11:28 pm |reply
Uh, take a look at phone
Uh, take a look at phone service. Sure, there are plenty of pay-as-you-go plans that allow you to pay based on usage, but the amount of people that use those plans is so infinitesimally small compared to the amount of people that buy fixed-rate plans that give them a certain amount of minutes, texts, et cetera.
I'm not going to accuse the phone industry of being a perfect model, but the fact of the matter is that pay-as-you-go/usage-based service models are nowhere near as attractive as (and, realistically, give considerably less freedom than) fixed-price plans.
by Anonymous (not verified) on 4/22/09 at 12:02 am |reply
Phone vs Internet
I like unlimited. Particularly when unlimited comes at $x/mo where x doesn't change. I don't like "unlimited". I like "unlimited" almost as much as I don't like cancer or diabetis. The "unlimited" plans are "unlimited" not unlimited. There is no way you could possibly download more than a certain amount of information in a month, given that each month only has up to 31 days with only 24 hours in a day, and that the "unlimited" plan is really limited by the bandwidth that you are allowed to use. In terms of eateries, the pay as you go plans are "a la cart", buy what you want. An unlimited plan would be like an all you can eat buffet, with no restriction on the amount of time you could spend (24 hrs per day) or on the amount of food they would put on the buffet. The "unlimited" plan is like going to an all you can eat and being given the following restrictions: All food must fit on the plate, you can onlyt take this plate to the buffet every 30 minutes. We only restock the buffet every 3 hours, and if there is no food then too bad.
I seem to be off on a rant. Phone plans, for cellular anyway, guarantee the number of minutes you can use and against "their" equipment. If you have the insurance, and are in the area, you can talk to someone for all 1000 minutes per month, if you want. If you cannot(tower outages, faulty handset, etc) there are compensations available(call in get a discount on the bill). If you talk too fast, all you get is a request from your other party to slow down. With internet, they are selling the ma-bell local unlimited plan(1 price even if you never hang up the phone) and saying that "you will never be able to talk faster than x words per minute", then frequently, you can't talk even 1/4 of x, either because the other party asks you to keep repeating, or because the operator keeps breaking in to tell you that your speech rate is too fast and you must slow it down, then disconnecting the call. I would personally prefer a plan with a minimum speed to server X and X to elsewhere connectivity guaranteed, and I believe that is the only honest way to promise the "unlimited" plans. What I believe has been neither here nor there for a very long time.
I believe the easiest analogy is either to public transit/automated transit or a service like ferrying. With transit services as mentioned, there are 3 basic bills, employees(you can't get rid of people), fuel(electricity, gasoline, natural gas, diesel), and "infrastructure"(landings, boats, buses, rails, train cars, etc). With ISPs there are 3 major expenses, Employees, Infrastructure(the wiring, hardware, etc), and operating expenses(electricity). With a ferry service or public transit system, there is a large outlay for infrastructure(plan and build railroads/terminals/docks, buy vehicles) and a continuing upkeep cost(mechanics, replacement parts, etc). This set of costs will indicate the "capacity", how many people can move from point A to point B in a given time(need more capacity than you have now? buy another boat/bus/rail car). This compares favorably with internet infrastructure(routers, switches, cabling = more vehicles, changes in standards with same infrastructure = running more routes or running faster). There is also a minor continuing cost of operation, and because the buses, trains, or ferries are going to be moving on a schedule the fuel cost is essentially the same when the system is in use or not. With the internet, the cost of keeping the machines on and ready is similar, because there is minimal difference between 0 and current capacity. Now, if the operator of a ferry/bus/commuter rail system sold you "unlimited usage" tickets, would you expect to have your vehicle left behind? Perhaps your baggage? They only let you ride once per day, or require that you stand in a corner of the otherwise empty vehicle. There is not a difference in their cost if you sit in a chair or stand in a corner, and most of the time you are the only one on the ferry/bus/etc, and bought an unlimited usage ticket, so why can't you use the seats? well, I hope someone with more writing ability than me can turn this into something more coherent and less rant-like.
by Anonymous (not verified) on 4/22/09 at 2:04 am |reply
Utility
"But then again, I guess your opposed to the idea of paying for water based on usage or electricity."
Thats an interesting argument, you do however realise that these services are classified as a public utility and are heavily regulated to prevent monopolistic abuse and price gouging. I for one would welcome a scenario where telecoms are forced to separate their internet divisions from the other entities and they would be treated as a public utility, that would be a win for us consumers for sure.
by Anonymous (not verified) on 4/22/09 at 7:48 am |reply
distance a red herring
it is really easy to do plant upgrades when your upgrade is a single building. Not several hundred miles of land.
Funny thing, that. I live in New York City, a place as densely populated as anywhere in Japan save Tokyo. Yet my costs for water, electricity, gas, and phone/internet/cable, are comparable or higher than anywhere else in the USA, never mind Japan.
The notion that costs here are higher because we're more spread out is specious. Distance matters, but so does density, which you'd know if you watched a street being dug up to, say, build a new subway. The real reason we pay high telecom charges is lack of competition and lax regulation. Make the cables public property, like streets and sidewalks, then we'll talk.
by jkl (not verified) on 4/22/09 at 11:11 am |reply
Unauthorized traffic
One issue at stake that no one has mentioned is that the current internet is basically ad supported. When you start charging per bit that you download you are charging me to see things that I did not want. You can't charge me for ads. Not to mention that you would also be charging me for updates to my OS that protect you from problems on your network. What about people trying (and not succeeding) to hack my computer? That takes up my bandwidth. Am I going to get a list at the end of the month of all the bits that I downloaded and uploaded and have to call to say well this one isn't mine.
You could charge by the bit, but only if there was no unauthorized and unwanted traffic. As this is impossible, then charging by the bit is illogical and wrong.
Not to mention that you would be holding the web back from new technologies that I think you want.
by Wil Wade (not verified) on 4/22/09 at 7:29 am |reply
Well, if ISP's didn't charge
Well, if ISP's didn't charge for OS updates wouldn't that defeat net neutrality? All I am saying is there is not a good argument against bandwidth based billing other than it is something different than we have done in the past.
If we charge by the bit at the modem level counters on the cmts, its not up to the ISP to monitor your network. That modem is your responsibility and such make sure you can keep it clean.
by Anonymous (not verified) on 4/22/09 at 11:01 am |reply
tiered billing
I don't really think that people are against the tiered billing. I think the issue comes that the proposed tiers are too low. More than likely I'd blow through the 50gb tier with no problem. Just by reading mail, playing games online, watching some video's on youtube. Doesn't seem like much but it racks of the bytes.
Maybe if TW were to set better tiers ie a basic bones rate 10gb for $15, 250gb for $50, and anything above that at business class rates. By doing that, they at least set a comfortable buffer for normal users, a basic rate for those that use it sparingly, and address those services(netflix, hulu) etc that just eat up the bandwidth.
In the end its really about fairness for both sides. TW or any other broadband company needs to be fair to their customers and not just try and pick our pockets. We're not opposed to a tier method, just the method that was proposed.
by Anonymous (not verified) on 4/22/09 at 12:28 pm |reply
What about all the crap on web pages?
Sorry, but having a pay per gb isn't an answer. Greed as overrun America and will do so for some time...capitalism at it's finest.
The problem is content. For example I go to weather.com to check my weather forecast. I look at 6x8in section of the site and a move on...what is on the rest of my 22inch widescreen? AD's. Lots of them. I don't want those, but I'll still be paying for them since I am charged for my bandwidth and those ad's sure will add up.
Gaming isn't that bad, at least on the PC. Being in a dorm students usually have a 5GB a week limit. so... 20GB a month on average, and they don't hit that cap.
by Anonymous (not verified) on 4/22/09 at 2:45 pm |reply
Sidekick: The Good News & the Bad News Either way you look at it Microsoft Data Center management did not follow standards or best practices in this failure. In which case it makes me wonder more about the outsourcing of corporate data much less personal data.
- mburton325
Surviving Windows is easier than you think… MKS offers the power of an integrated all-in-one environment and provides you with the Power of UNIX on Windows Learn More
Brought to you by:
Free books
We have 5 copies of these two new books to give to some lucky readers. The deadline for entries is November 30, 2009.
AISO founders envisioned a Web hosting company that was environmentally friendly. While the company employed energy-efficient innovations like solar panels, its infrastructure produced unacceptable power and cooling requirements. Find out how AISO leveraged AMD technology to overcome their challenge in this case study white paper.
In this whitepaper, Scalar explores the opportunity to change the landscape with respect to mission critical databases
built around Oracle. Leveraging technologies such as Linux, high-end commodity processing power and Oracle RAC
technology to architect, design, build and maintain database infrastructure that delivers maximum availability, reliability
and performance at a fraction of traditional cost.
On a typical day, weather.com, the Web site for The Weather Channel in Atlanta, serves up between 15 million and 20 million page views. But in September 2004, when back-to-back hurricanes ransacked Florida, the peak traffic on one day more than tripled: over 70 million page views by more than 7 million unique visitors. Read the full success story now.
jfruh
pasmith
Esther Schindler
mikelgan
David Strom
sjvn
Sandra Henry-Stocker
Quick, practical advice for IT pros. Made fresh daily.
Cable Plant Maintenence
What about plant maintenance? Bandwidth based billing isn't just about the pipe, it is total cost and its increasing daily. Downstream traffic isn't the problem. People checking their email isn't the problem. The problem is people uploading constantly and saturating the network. Ask a RF Network Engineer and see if bandwidth based billing wouldn't improve the overall network.Really?
So, you must be a cable company employee. If another country can give 160Mb service for the same exact price as I get 10Mb service, which typically runs like 2Mb service, then it is not the costs going crazy, it is the company being rediculously wasteful. What is the CEO doing with 14.4 million a year if the company is losing money?Really, Poor management skills and the proliferation of useless employees is the problem, that and laze. What needs to be done is a vast network upgrade, so that it does not stress their system, and induce the need for arduous upkeep. Cables dont break anywear near as fast when not overloaded. Perhaps if they put money back into the system, instead of into their asshole ceo who only cares about his immediate paychecks so he can retire early.
Congratulations on the fail.
Plant maintenance does
Plant maintenance does include cables, but it is RF amps and node congestion that is the $$. When you talk about costs over seas like you did, and in the story like in japan, it is really easy to do plant upgrades when your upgrade is a single building. Not several hundred miles of land. Your first argument is wrong. Next one you made was that there is wasteful spending. Agreed. Vast upgrades come from where?... you realize your internet service is the only profitable service they sell. It goes to cover the other services. And if they put all their money back into the system, how would you keep good employees to design these "advanced networks". I think you should honestly look at this from a side view. Bandwidth based billing will overall provide a better networkMy last question is what scares you? the low cap or the idea of bandwidth based billing?. What if I offered you a gig sym. fiber connection with bandwidth based billing? I have vastly improved these so called "perfect" systems in other countries but charge a different model. Is that still bad? Cmon, a really? and a fail in one argument. But then again, I guess your opposed to the idea of paying for water based on usage or electricity. Silly me and my fail thoughts. usage based services....lol how do they exist.
Uh, take a look at phone
Uh, take a look at phone service. Sure, there are plenty of pay-as-you-go plans that allow you to pay based on usage, but the amount of people that use those plans is so infinitesimally small compared to the amount of people that buy fixed-rate plans that give them a certain amount of minutes, texts, et cetera.I'm not going to accuse the phone industry of being a perfect model, but the fact of the matter is that pay-as-you-go/usage-based service models are nowhere near as attractive as (and, realistically, give considerably less freedom than) fixed-price plans.
Phone vs Internet
I like unlimited. Particularly when unlimited comes at $x/mo where x doesn't change. I don't like "unlimited". I like "unlimited" almost as much as I don't like cancer or diabetis. The "unlimited" plans are "unlimited" not unlimited. There is no way you could possibly download more than a certain amount of information in a month, given that each month only has up to 31 days with only 24 hours in a day, and that the "unlimited" plan is really limited by the bandwidth that you are allowed to use. In terms of eateries, the pay as you go plans are "a la cart", buy what you want. An unlimited plan would be like an all you can eat buffet, with no restriction on the amount of time you could spend (24 hrs per day) or on the amount of food they would put on the buffet. The "unlimited" plan is like going to an all you can eat and being given the following restrictions: All food must fit on the plate, you can onlyt take this plate to the buffet every 30 minutes. We only restock the buffet every 3 hours, and if there is no food then too bad.I seem to be off on a rant. Phone plans, for cellular anyway, guarantee the number of minutes you can use and against "their" equipment. If you have the insurance, and are in the area, you can talk to someone for all 1000 minutes per month, if you want. If you cannot(tower outages, faulty handset, etc) there are compensations available(call in get a discount on the bill). If you talk too fast, all you get is a request from your other party to slow down. With internet, they are selling the ma-bell local unlimited plan(1 price even if you never hang up the phone) and saying that "you will never be able to talk faster than x words per minute", then frequently, you can't talk even 1/4 of x, either because the other party asks you to keep repeating, or because the operator keeps breaking in to tell you that your speech rate is too fast and you must slow it down, then disconnecting the call. I would personally prefer a plan with a minimum speed to server X and X to elsewhere connectivity guaranteed, and I believe that is the only honest way to promise the "unlimited" plans. What I believe has been neither here nor there for a very long time.
I believe the easiest analogy is either to public transit/automated transit or a service like ferrying. With transit services as mentioned, there are 3 basic bills, employees(you can't get rid of people), fuel(electricity, gasoline, natural gas, diesel), and "infrastructure"(landings, boats, buses, rails, train cars, etc). With ISPs there are 3 major expenses, Employees, Infrastructure(the wiring, hardware, etc), and operating expenses(electricity). With a ferry service or public transit system, there is a large outlay for infrastructure(plan and build railroads/terminals/docks, buy vehicles) and a continuing upkeep cost(mechanics, replacement parts, etc). This set of costs will indicate the "capacity", how many people can move from point A to point B in a given time(need more capacity than you have now? buy another boat/bus/rail car). This compares favorably with internet infrastructure(routers, switches, cabling = more vehicles, changes in standards with same infrastructure = running more routes or running faster). There is also a minor continuing cost of operation, and because the buses, trains, or ferries are going to be moving on a schedule the fuel cost is essentially the same when the system is in use or not. With the internet, the cost of keeping the machines on and ready is similar, because there is minimal difference between 0 and current capacity. Now, if the operator of a ferry/bus/commuter rail system sold you "unlimited usage" tickets, would you expect to have your vehicle left behind? Perhaps your baggage? They only let you ride once per day, or require that you stand in a corner of the otherwise empty vehicle. There is not a difference in their cost if you sit in a chair or stand in a corner, and most of the time you are the only one on the ferry/bus/etc, and bought an unlimited usage ticket, so why can't you use the seats? well, I hope someone with more writing ability than me can turn this into something more coherent and less rant-like.
Utility
"But then again, I guess your opposed to the idea of paying for water based on usage or electricity."Thats an interesting argument, you do however realise that these services are classified as a public utility and are heavily regulated to prevent monopolistic abuse and price gouging. I for one would welcome a scenario where telecoms are forced to separate their internet divisions from the other entities and they would be treated as a public utility, that would be a win for us consumers for sure.
distance a red herring
it is really easy to do plant upgrades when your upgrade is a single building. Not several hundred miles of land.Funny thing, that. I live in New York City, a place as densely populated as anywhere in Japan save Tokyo. Yet my costs for water, electricity, gas, and phone/internet/cable, are comparable or higher than anywhere else in the USA, never mind Japan.
The notion that costs here are higher because we're more spread out is specious. Distance matters, but so does density, which you'd know if you watched a street being dug up to, say, build a new subway. The real reason we pay high telecom charges is lack of competition and lax regulation. Make the cables public property, like streets and sidewalks, then we'll talk.
Unauthorized traffic
One issue at stake that no one has mentioned is that the current internet is basically ad supported. When you start charging per bit that you download you are charging me to see things that I did not want. You can't charge me for ads. Not to mention that you would also be charging me for updates to my OS that protect you from problems on your network. What about people trying (and not succeeding) to hack my computer? That takes up my bandwidth. Am I going to get a list at the end of the month of all the bits that I downloaded and uploaded and have to call to say well this one isn't mine.You could charge by the bit, but only if there was no unauthorized and unwanted traffic. As this is impossible, then charging by the bit is illogical and wrong.
Not to mention that you would be holding the web back from new technologies that I think you want.
Well, if ISP's didn't charge
Well, if ISP's didn't charge for OS updates wouldn't that defeat net neutrality? All I am saying is there is not a good argument against bandwidth based billing other than it is something different than we have done in the past.If we charge by the bit at the modem level counters on the cmts, its not up to the ISP to monitor your network. That modem is your responsibility and such make sure you can keep it clean.
tiered billing
I don't really think that people are against the tiered billing. I think the issue comes that the proposed tiers are too low. More than likely I'd blow through the 50gb tier with no problem. Just by reading mail, playing games online, watching some video's on youtube. Doesn't seem like much but it racks of the bytes.Maybe if TW were to set better tiers ie a basic bones rate 10gb for $15, 250gb for $50, and anything above that at business class rates. By doing that, they at least set a comfortable buffer for normal users, a basic rate for those that use it sparingly, and address those services(netflix, hulu) etc that just eat up the bandwidth.
In the end its really about fairness for both sides. TW or any other broadband company needs to be fair to their customers and not just try and pick our pockets. We're not opposed to a tier method, just the method that was proposed.
What about all the crap on web pages?
Sorry, but having a pay per gb isn't an answer. Greed as overrun America and will do so for some time...capitalism at it's finest.The problem is content. For example I go to weather.com to check my weather forecast. I look at 6x8in section of the site and a move on...what is on the rest of my 22inch widescreen? AD's. Lots of them. I don't want those, but I'll still be paying for them since I am charged for my bandwidth and those ad's sure will add up.
Gaming isn't that bad, at least on the PC. Being in a dorm students usually have a 5GB a week limit. so... 20GB a month on average, and they don't hit that cap.