Fantasy Island, Time Warner Style: You WANT To Pay More For Broadband
from the da-plane-boss-da-plane dept
techflaws.org alerted us to an Ars Technica piece about the wonderful illusory world of Time Warner Cable's CEO, Glenn Britt, and his prediction about how we, the people, will eventually learn to want to pay more for our broadband. Now, Britt made the following statement at a conference last week, but I find it much more useful to picture him saying these words as he lies naked on a private beach, one woman feeding him grapes while another woman...well, let's just say she's not feeding him grapes:"I think you will naturally see evolve a world where people who use very little broadband expect to pay less and people who use a whole lot may complain, but in their hearts know they are going to pay more than somebody who reads e-mail once a week. I think there will always be an unlimited tier, but I think you'll see the element of consumption introduced over time."The medical community defines a stroke, or a cerebrovascular accident, as a rapid loss of brain function due to the disturbance in the blood supply to the brain. They list the causes of a stroke as ischemia (flow blockage) or a hemorrhage (blood leakage), leaving the disturbed area unable to function. I think we can add "smart people say idiotic things that force our brains to shut down" as a third cause. Here's what happens: Someone like Britt, ostensibly a smart person, puts together a string of words filled with odd assertions and conclusions (wait...we're basing tiers for internet usage on grandmothers checking email once a week? Even when internet usage continues to do nothing but rise?), and our brains come to a screeching halt, ordering us to address this intrusion on the world of logic and reason. Here's the problem. The brain begins going into a cataclysmic collapse, realizing that there are many things wrong with these words and attempting to send the limited blood supply in the brain in several different directions to simultaneously address these grievances.
And the person strokes (not the good way).
So what's the cure? Well, my sweet internet hog friends (why aren't you checking your goddamn email!!!???), I have your cure for you. Get that blood flowing with singular purpose! Thought experiment time. If people will gradually and reasonlessly come to accept tiered broadband because they secretly want it, what likewise things will we come to accept for similarly secret reasons? I came up with a few to get you started (and to get that blood flowing again), but I'm sure the community can do even better:
- People will eventually evolve to simply accept DRM in everything, because secretly we all know we're criminals and should be treated as such. Some people might complain, proclaiming themselves non-criminals, but what would you expect a secret criminal to say?
- I anticipate an evolution in which the silly little people of this country will finally realize that it's entirely appropriate for moderately paid TSA agents to gently twist their nibblits in the name of security. No real reason for that evolution. Just 'cause. Sure, some uppity people might complain, but deep down they'll realize that testicular tortion is a small price to pay for feeling a little safer.
- I think we'll naturally see a world evolve where immigrants will finally realize that American law is the law and will finally stop crossing our borders illegally simply because we can offer them a better life on our side of the imaginary lines. Why would they stop, you ask? Well...because we said so. And if our saying it doesn't work, maybe we can just get Glenn Britt to say it, for that will make it so.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadband, glenn britt, pay
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Take a thing, make a slight alteration and presto! New commentary. It's what, some, artists do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also of interest:
"The growth of the category has been very much affected by what is going on in the housing market," Britt said, adding that home ownership is down about 350 basis points from before the recession and household vacancy rates are at a 30-to-40 year high. "Until the housing market settles down, we're not going to see robust category growth."
So, while busy stroking off, Britt has decided that internet users will also assume the cost of the downwardly spiraling housing market.
I wonder if the new price tiers will be tied to foreclosure rates like some sort of bizarre telcom CDO. And if so, can we short it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i think you will find
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: i think you will find
Yay, random American acceptance!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well,
When I get rich (tee hee, *snort) I shall start an internet/cellular company whose prices and service will shame all providers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taxes
Oh wait...I think this already happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taxes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thinking idealist
I also aggregate a whole section to censors of any type where upon utterance of anything derogatory to make the person(s), sites(s) or alien an abjuratory person of interest. This system will be called Net 2.0 will send the DMCA notice, request or other international type awareness to said site and have it, its subsidiaries, its monetary accounts and subsequent banishment from its country automatic. We will not call this SkyNet but SkyWebz.
I'm favoriting this one for lulz because I"m pretty sure these are just off the top of my head.
Lets all take a trip on the Heart of Gold. I nominate DH as the subsequent end all in all command decisions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Economics
What is so tough about accepting that bandwidth has a cost - yes it does have a cost - it isn't infinite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Economics
My solar panel says differently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Economics
Ah, electricity - the comparison doesn't work. You see utilities are not an infinite good like bandwidth is. Electricity (all utilities in fact) have a finite supply, once someone stops making more electricity it is gone. People can accept paying for something like that. Bandwidth is more like a highway (an information highway?...), once the highway is built it is built, you can just keep on driving on it. Trying to classify bandwidth as a utility just doesn't work, they aren't the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Economics
Fiber has a fixed bandwidth (speed and capacity). Copper has a fixed bandwidth (speed and capacity). Microwave has a fixed bandwidth (speed and capacity). Switching technologies have fixed max number of switches per second. Faster technology costs more. Takes more expertise to setup (which has a cost associated with it). When they break (and they do) it costs more to replace. It all runs on electricity - electricity costs money. Add another pipe - it takes more electricity to make it work.
Those are all real costs that can be broken down by usage. You're not going to light up the "dark fiber" until your revenue can support it.
So.... How is bandwidth an infinite good?
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Economics
The difference is between layout costs and marginal costs.
It doesn't cost more between me reading email and me watching youtube. There is no marginal cost difference.
There is a layout cost and a maintenance cost but those costs don't go up according to usage. If overall usage goes up there may need to be a layout cost, but that is the providers choice (better service vs cheaper cost)
If we actually had competition in the broadband space we wouldn't even be talking about this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Economics
Anyone who knows networking knows that this tiered crap is just that; crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics
Go try to get peering to the internet and find out that moving from 100base to gigabit will cost you quite a bit more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Economics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Economics
Well, your clearly didn't read the financial reports from the ISP's did you? every single quarter is about a billion dollar in profits and gasp it is under the flat-rate scheme.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Economics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Economics
With broadband there is a high cost to build the network but once the network is built there is no cost per byte. The network costs are (roughly) the same regardless of if you are at 5% capacity or 90% capacity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Economics
It isn't free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Economics
To provide electricity coal is burned and the electricity is fed to my neighborhood for us to consume. If we consume more electricity more coal needs to be burned if we use less electricity less coal is burned. The amount of electricity I use correlates to the amount of coal that needs to be burned.**
To provide my neighborhood with broadband a network infrastructure is created. That network can provide so much bandwidth. If 1 person is on the network it costs the same to maintain as when there are 100 people on the network. If I use my connection 8 hours a day but at odd hours (11pm-7am) and everyone else in the neighborhood uses the internet 1 hour a day but everyone is on between 5pm and 6pm which do you think stresses the network more? But either way the cost is still the same to maintain the existing network.
Yes if a network reaches its limit where all the bandwidth is being used at all times they provider will have to expand the network. Should I pay more so that they now have a faster network and can sign up more subscribers? If the providers are not willing to increase the power of their network they can say sorry we are not taking anymore clients in your area and open the door for companies who are willing to provide new infrastructure at their own expense so they can have subscribers.
Saying you can only be on the internet so many hours a month or can only move so many bits a month does not help with over congestion at peak hours and its not a fair way to base ow much you owe. Again if I use the network more than you but use it when less people are on I am not costing the provider anything additional. If you barely use the internet but use it at the busiest hours your not costing the provider anything more but you are diminishing the quality of the neighborhoods connection (if the network is maxing out).
Closer to fair would be to offer packages that include different times. For example if i want 24hr a day access i pay X. If I want to pay less I dont get access during peak hours. If I only use the network during business hours I can by a connection that lasts from 8-6. Or i just use it an hour a day before bed I just buy that timeslot. Again though it shouldn't be the consumers job to alleviate the providers costs of doing business. If you network can handle 100 people on line at once don't sign up 101. If you want to upgrade and have 200 subscribers you pay to do that because you will reap the benefits of subscription costs.
**Unfortunately this is not how power plants work. The system provides no feedback of how much power is being used in real time. They just use educated guesses. So if from 5-8pm on Mondays they know they have had brownouts for burning less then X amount of coal they make sure to burn more than X. If on a particular Monday only half of X is being consumed they have no idea and still burn more than X.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Economics
If half my clients a willing to pay a bit more, I can move them to a second faster/less congested router. (Hence dialup vs dsl vs cable vs T1 vs FiOS)
For a given speed/capacity - bandwidth is most definitely NOT an infinite resource. I can lower the data rate to allow more people, or up the data rate if I keep the number of connections down. Sure the cost to operate in either method is the same - but number of bytes/second that you can handle is fixed.
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Economics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Economics
Agreed. It is however generally a FIXED resource, meaning that the costs incurred by the provider aren't marginal, but sunk/fixed. I fail to see how a metered system makes sense with non-marginal expenses....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Economics
Or if we actually had honest providers they might say XmB/sec max speed, YmB/sec expected during peak times. They could even offer speed tiers, pay some more for more max speed and/or more speed at peak times (Businesses often pay for QOS).
The problem is they are limiting the number of bits when that has no bearing on the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics
I'm not about to defend them on that front!
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Economics
A network costs X to maintain and X is constant no matter if the network is at 99% capacity or 25% capacity. Obviously upgrading costs more. Should I pay more so they can have faster equipment though or to maintain there existing equipment? Lets look at a Burger King fryer which I think correlates well. The fryers are only so big and can only cook so many fries. Now if they get one order for large fries an hour the cost to maintain the fryer is lower than if they get 30 orders an hour. The oil browns faster cooking more product and the guy who cleans it has a bigger mess.(just as a busy network uses a more electricity and may require maintenance more often)Do the frys go up in cost? No because this increase in cost to them is offset by the increase in profit from additional orders. Now if 30 orders an hour is all the fryer can handle and they start taking 40 orders an hour they have to get a bigger fryer. Do the customers pay more for the new fryer, again no BK buys it because it increases the business they can do and they expect the fryer to pay for itself with the increased business. If BK doesn't want to buy a bigger fryer do they put less fries in an order and charge the same amount? No, a McDonalds opens across the street to handle the overflow.
This works for any other business if I make shirts and orders are too big for me to meet I increase capacity in hopes that more orders will cover the cost or I don't take the orders and allow people to go else were and buy their shirts.
We already have a tiered system that allows people to pay based on how fast of a connection they need/want. So why do we need another tier for how much they can use the connection they want.
Yes Bandwidth is not unlimited in the sense that a network can handle any traffic that comes in. But it is unlimited in that once a network is built its not going to someday run out of bandwidth like its a well. I pay to have access to that network at a speed I selected. If more people are entering the network and it has to be upgraded either do that or tell people they can't get on and allow others to set up a network. Except that would lead to competition which would definitely be worse for them. So instead they let as many people on as will sign up. Reap the benefits of a larger subscription base until people complain the network is to slow. Then they say oh well its not our fault you are using to much internet you should pay more and we will build an adequate network in your area.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics
There is really no difference in the two. Either you pay based on what you think you'll use on a system that will limit your max throughput or you pay by the bit. One is an estimate the other is closer to reality - in the end your bill will probably the same.
If this is what we are left with, then all we are really debating is marketing schemes. In which case I ask all my TD brothern: Why the hell do we care how a company markets their Internet Connection. (as long as they're being truthful)
From a Net Neutrality issue, we should only be concerned about how they (if they do) split up the data. Are they packet forming? Do they charge me for text at a different rate than video? Are they trying to double-charge Google or other sites I go to? Are they preventing VOIP? These are real concerns.
Whether AT&T charges me by the bit, nibble, byte, wordlength, packet, estimated usage, time-of-day, MB/week, GB/Month, TB/Month for a 10MB/sec 20MB/sec 100MB/sec connection..... who cares? Sure I care at a individual consumer level - but not from a general "there should be a law against this" policy level.
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Economics
The issue I would spin from your compromising attitude is are they being truthful? Is this about network congestion and fair pricing or is this about getting more money for the same service.
Also I don't think they want to change it from MB/sec to GB/month, which I agree is just another angle on the same thing, but now want to make it MB/sec up to a certain GB limit then you owe us $per additional GB.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Economics
Besides as you said we are already metered, we already have tiers, so why again they need to charge per gigabyte?
Because there is no competition and they simply can do it, it is not about costs is about increasing the bottom line by cutting service quality to customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Economics
As far as I know, no. They do have real time feedback.
If the use of electrical power increases, the line voltage sags. The generator, trying to maintain the line voltage and frequency, increases its power to compensate (by burning more coal in your example). If the use of electrical power decreases, the line voltage increases, and again the generator adjusts its power input to try to maintain the output voltage and frequency. And if the use of electrical power reduces too much (for instance, if the generator is suddenly cut from the grid), the generator shuts down automatically to prevent overspeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Economics
http://www.oe.e nergy.gov/smartgrid.htm
http://www.cio.com/article/492267/Why_We_Need_a_Smart_Power_Grid
I cant find the one I want but the cio.com is pretty good at explaining it but doesn't go into detail I just skimmed the other two links.
The system you talk about is the ideal but rare. The majority of power is consumed on a one way system that pushes power out and receives little or no feedback.
The first time this was brought to my attention was when i read about a coal plant near chicago that is run all day at full power. This is always enough for none peak hours. During peak hours the fire up another smaller plant and run it at full capacity till peak time is over. They know the average, high and low by reading peoples meters and do there best to stay above the highest demand at all times whether right now is that high or not, because they don't know. If consumption increases they cant just say "oh throw some more coal on", the process takes time so they have to constantly be generating what is needed without really knowing what is currently needed.
I was surprised when I learned about this too. To be frank it was something I researched heavily learned a bunch, then stuck it in the part of my brain i keep things I loathe but have no control over. So the information in my head is dated and maybe jumbled but I recommend checking it out on your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Economics
Both water and electricity are scarce resources. Here's the thing. Bandwidth really isn't a scarce resource. Find someplace with genuine competition and I think you'll see it isn't. However, even if it isn't a scarce resource, I have no problems with paying for *exactly* what I use.
So what's the price per megabyte? Does the price relate in anyway to the ISP's cost for each additional megabyte? Will it be the same price both for up and down traffic? Will I be charged for the various traffic that hits my IP address that I do not request (from worms and port scanners and file sharing networks).
Where's the independently verifiable meter? Sure, I could build a dual-NIC Linux box to function as one (as well as a better firewall than you'll find in a home router). But I doubt if TimeWarner will accept my readout if I dispute the bill. And I sure as heck don't trust some meter in the cloud to be accurate or auditable.
Bandwidth caps as they are currently being proposed are another way for ISPs to double charge customers, and kill off upstart companies that threaten another piece of their revenue (video services, mostly).
What I will not do is pay for an "unlimited" style price per month, and then get penalized with usurious rates that bear no relation to the actual cost for the additional bandwidth when I have no choice over who I get broadband from because the two companies that provide it are de facto monopolies who built their networks financed by local tax dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Economics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Torsion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um . . . wait . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
when i hear UBB, i'm thinking a cheap connection fee (with some sort of cap) with my (extra) usage on top. so that maybe grandma can get broadband for 10-15/month. i don't think anyone would have a problem with that- even the hogs.
but you know these assholes would just keep the "connection fee" at $50-60, have a low cap and then beat you to death on the UBB.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That said, the bit Tim quoted doesn't sound particularly bad to me. People's paid utilities - electricity, gas, and water - are metered, so metering bandwidth isn't that big of a stretch. Now the wholesale cost of bandwidth doesn't have quite as direct a relationship to usage as other utilities, but there is a relationship.
It's a bit funny that it hasn't been that long since people were clamoring for a la carte cable channels, which is a mostly silly concept. "Why do I pay for all these channels I don't use?" Because somehow blocking those channels just for you would cost more than you think you'd be saving.
I think bandwidth throttling make a helluva lot more sense. That's what we have now. But maybe I'm wrong:
In the future, as max internet speeds increase, the divide between the bandwidth of heavy users and light users increase. Maybe the light users should pay less. My suggestion is to simply use speed throttling, but that may not be reasonable. For example, a "light user" may be someone who watches 4 hours of streaming video a month. A heavy user may be someone who watches 4 hours of streaming video a day (in lieu of TV, maybe even separate rooms, concurrently). You can't throttle the "light user" to the point where he can't stream high-quality video, or he won't get that 4 hours a month he's paying for. So, you need a better way to differentiate the light user from the heavy user if you want to make his 4 hours cheaper than the other guy's connection. Metering may be the way to go. As long as it's fairly implemented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Isn't this how the system is already set up? The pricing is already tiered by speed. If I want to stream highspeed video or do large downloads I pay more for a faster connection. If I just use normal browsing I can get the cheaper and slower connection. If I am somebodys grandma that checks emails once a week I can pay 9$ a month of dial up or magic jack. If I want to upload I have to get a business class connection.
So its seems they already have a system to allow different prices for heavy and light users. Now they want to say that in addition to paying more for a real fast connection if I take advantage of that speed on a regular basis I have to pay more because I am using what I got for what I got it for?
"""Why do I pay for all these channels I don't use?" Because somehow blocking those channels just for you would cost more than you think you'd be saving."
Highly debatable but off topic so Ill leave it alone unless you wanna discuss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My assertion was that in the future, "light users" will require more speed (i.e. enough speed for streaming HD video), but less overall bandwidth (because they only use it a few hours a month), so tiers based on speed may not work anymore.
I don't wanna get too deep into the TV thing, but I think my point is pretty well solid for analog cable and satellite where one-way communication is it. Digital cable may be different. But turning on and off individual channels per user is costly and harder to maintain. Yeah, it's off topic, but I was just making the comparison to the situation here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Others have offered explanations as to why Broadband and utilities like electricity are different: consumption by the end user causing rise in consumption at the power company, the existence of marginal costs for the power companies vs. mostly sunk costs for the broadband provider, etc. But here's a couple other things to think about when considering broadband as a utility:
1. If AT&T wants the benefits of providing a utility, they have to accept the responsibilities of that as well. Chiefly, this means virtually ZERO outtages that aren't a result of "Acts of God", disaster, terrorism, etc. Are they living up to their end on that?
2. Broadband would have to be neutral. ComEd doesn't care if they're supplying their power to my TV, my wireless router, my phone, or my DVR. It's just power. Does Time Warner behave that way?
3. True national access. No more of this rural area bias nonsense if you're a utility. You have to make yourself available to everyone (speaking of broadband in general). Does AT&T and Time Warner do that?
4. Abundance of bandwidth. When's the last time you butted up against the limits of water in your home? Or power? Other than due to a reaction to natural occurrences (like a heatwave, for instance), when was the last time your power company "throttled back" your electricity or water? Does AT&T or Time Warner behave this way?
The problem is that this talk is crap. With point number 4 above, even if they meter as a utility, they STILL have to vastly upgrade their infrastructure. But that isn't what they're talking about, is it? They're saying they have to meter to work within the EXISTING infrastructure.
That isn't how utilities work....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
DH - you clearly don't live in the North East (US) do you?
Your caveat "due natural occurrences" is misleading. In a heatwave there is not less electricity. There is more demand. There may be so much demand that the power station has rolling brown-outs - aka throttled access. Peak demand is peak demand. In the ISP world its by time of day. In electric/gas world it's by the time of year (and then by the time of day).
In terms of water, Rusty and lead infiltrated water is the norm due to old infrastructure. Rust occurs when there is heavy flooding - or heavy usage. That's a QOS issue. Old infrastructure is old infrastructure. In the water world you can get away with 75 year-old pipes. In the ISP world 10 year-old pipes would be pushing it.
It may not be an exact match - but it's pretty damn close.
Having said that, I would think that the large ISP would want to stay away from a utility model, if nothing else because it become too easy a target for the municipalities to take control.
The large ISPs DON'T want municipality run Internet. But if you look like a utility and smell like a utility - all of the sudden you're a quasi-governmental agency.
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If I go away on vacation for three weeks, my utility bills are a small fraction of the usual amount; but my phone, cable and internet bills remain the same as every other month. This results in much greater profit for them. I don't see these companies offering to discount my bill for the reduced usage. The "service" (quotes used to differentiate them from utilities, not meant as a slight) providers want the best of both worlds. They want to rake in the cash without having their feet held to the fire when it comes to quality of service or universal accessibility. In most other industries competition largely substitutes for government oversight, but in many areas there are usually just a few (sometimes only one) "service" providers for consumers to choose from. So far as I can tell, the only reason that these types of providers are not regulated as utilities is due to the huge political contributions they make with the money they get from us. The "service" providers may claim that, unlike utilities, they provide "non-essential" services, and should therefore be exempt from regulation, but this is rapidly changing in our fast-paced modern world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not defending ISP behavior either. I'm just trying to step back and look at the situation in an 'ideal' scenario.
I'm just giving an argument why speed-based tiers are good to the consumer NOW, but not necessarily good for the consumer later. Change the quote above from "guy who checks his email twice a month" to "guy who watches a couple HD movies a month".
Now, you make a good point about infrastructure. The infrastructure required to meter EVERY user's bandwidth may not be in place. At the least it would probably require replacing your modem.
The guy did say he thought there would always be an 'unlimited' tier.
But regarding electricity, I much prefer living in a house where I can have all the Watts I want, and just try to stay below a certain number of kWh, as opposed to living in a house where I can only use 3kW at a time since I'm paying for the lower tier. Hypothetically, I get the same price either way, but my way, I get to turn all my lights on and watch TV sometimes as long as I stay on the meter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They tried that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They tried that...
DSL then Cable eclipsed the technology. It had nothing to do with pricing schemes.
I mean once you're able to get backbone speeds (at the time) direct to your house at a not much higher price, why would you even consider a 56k dialup?
It got to be considered so slow (due to the alternatives being so fast) that it couldn't even be given away ('NetZero anyone?)
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They tried that...
If you weren't offering flat you weren't in the game, now that some people are comfortable in their positions they want to try and bring back that old model, which is harmful to consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They tried that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They tried that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm... I missed it...
I don't see where he's saying subscribers "want" to pay more. I see where he says subscribers will "expect" to pay less when they use less and pay more when they use more - but "expecting" has nothing to do with "wanting".
I expect to get a ticket when I fly by a highway patrol car doing 30 over. I certainly don't want that ticket.
Maybe I need to drink more TD cool-aid. I'm just not seeing the issue here.
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm... I missed it...
This is not about network problems is about the bottom line, if it was about network operations they wouldn't be posting billions in profits every year.
I used metered and I didn't like it, I remember very clear how horrible it was and when flatrates came along everybody jumped on them and if you wans't offering flat you weren't in the game.
The costs of networks have come down significantly lattelly due to advances in technologies that not only offer faster speeds they consume less energy, explain to us all why do we need to pay for bandwidth when we have a perfect model that it is working right now? it wasn't a problem when the equipment was pre-historic why it is a problem now? it gets cheaper to transfer loads of data every year not more expensive so why is this BS about we need to control the quantity of data flowing? Because the ISP want to put more and more people on the same pipe and then it claims it is having a problem with congestion?
Why would we allow that to happen? it will impact negatively future uses of the internet and possibly job creation as people are starting to do telecommuting, telemedicine that needs a fat pipe at low prices to operate,
Laws need to be changed to allow, communities to build their own networks and IXP(Internet Exchange Points), the internet started public it was owned by the government I see no problems going back to government control or having a secondary network controlled by someone else but there needs to be a second network to counter this BS from ISP's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm... I missed it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reality check
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The author provides no rebuttal to the actual quote other than to say "I almost died reading it it's so bad, hahaha, here are some other outlandish ideas".
Really, you don't even offer a real rebuttal.
Internet service is another utility. I pay for water, electricity,natural gas, gas for my car, food - in fact just about everything - based on how much I consume. If TechDirt authors want to make a point against bandwidth capped services maybe they need to consider this point and make a smart rebuttal against it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good. Now, this wasn't the typical Techdirt post. It was an attempt at humor and fun. There was a bit of a message (oh, something along the lines of how things don't just happen because we want them to) but perhaps it was too subtle for some (w/o a sense of humor) who I won't mention (you).
That said, some people gave their rebuttals in the comments, as is often the case at Techdirt. One of them in particular was good at explaining why broadband isn't being treated like a utility by the providers either (the guy who wrote it is the most handsome man on the planet). Perhaps you missed all that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good. Now, this wasn't the typical Techdirt post. It was an attempt at humor and fun. There was a bit of a message (oh, something along the lines of how things don't just happen because we want them to) but perhaps it was too subtle for some (w/o a sense of humor) who I won't mention (you).
That said, some people gave their rebuttals in the comments, as is often the case at Techdirt. One of them in particular was good at explaining why broadband isn't being treated like a utility by the providers either (the guy who wrote it is the most handsome man on the planet). Perhaps you missed all that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So 'insiders' do work for techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So 'insiders' do work for techdirt
I also own you, coincidentally enough. I've actually been trying to sell you for some time, but unfortunately there's little market for the kind of stupidity that'd make Charlie Sheen look like Albert Einstein.
Don't worry though, I won't give up. We'll get you sold, my uncreative little commenting cock-gobbler....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So 'insiders' do work for techdirt
Nothing left of AC but a pile of steaming...clothes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So 'insiders' do work for techdirt
His clothes are only steaming because I pooped on them.
I shit fire, yo....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So 'insiders' do work for techdirt
You are the definition of shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So 'insiders' do work for techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So 'insiders' do work for techdirt
What's your deal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So 'insiders' do work for techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So 'insiders' do work for techdirt
Seriously dude, it's Wikipedia and the first result on Google. How does the person writing an article on Techdirt manage to do so whilst pretending to have no association with Techdirt? You're making no sense!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So 'insiders' do work for techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If nobody knew one of the members of the CCIA is Microsoft, I know I was shocked when I read that too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mmmhmmm
The bottom line is this, there is a finite amount of data that can be modulated over a a piece of coax, in the air using RF, or on a fiber using light.
Period!
No amount of back end upgrades can change this.
Until technology evolves (higher modulation of data), or everyone in the US has fiber literally ran from their house to the data carriers head end, this issue is not going away.
The real problem is in the way broadband is marketed and sold. The whole ISP industry, much like the telcos, is based upon over subscription (not everyone uses at the same time).
You want a guaranteed speed, all the time, no matter what?
Guess what, they have those, and they are in the THOUSANDS of dollars a month price range.
You want fast speed for $50 a month? Well you are going to have to deal with the reality that it is going to be shared to a much larger degree.
The bottom line is the marketing of broadband in the US has created its own problem, it never was unlimited, and never will be, regardless of how hard they advertised it as such.
As more and more people use services like Netflix to deliver their TV content, the more this problem rears its ugly head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: mmmhmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: mmmhmmm
I'd be willing to guess that 95% of the cable backbone in this country was laid as coax back in the late 70's and early 80's and has never been upgraded to Fiber. I know cable companies have their own basket of troubles with the way broadcast viewing is sold so it's anyone's guess as to whether the fact that they're crying "no money" for improvements is true or not.
Where we went wrong is that "woullda shoullda coullda" Uncle Sam should have laid the backbone (as what happened in every other civilized country on the entire planet) and the cable providers leased the network and competed via their ability to built a better mousetrap via their delivery systems.
Now, everybody and their brother and cousin is streaming YouTube, Netflix, Amazon, Crackle, your personal radio, not to mention file sharing, and some pesky bandwidth pig Flash application that every idiot web designer seems determined to run on every web site in the known universe.
So yes, oversold bandwith on what amounts to a vast peer-to-peer neighborhood network is groaning under the strain.
The glitch is that all the cable provides, in their greedy quest to urge people to dump DSL by promising "unlimited bandwith" (cable at the time being much faster than a split voice/data line any day) not only oversold their product but also never saw the explosion in bandwith gobbling applications and content coming Neither did the cable providers see the sea change in the way the internet has come to be used.
Now we have, in the words of the bard, the engineer, hoist with his on petard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
one more thing
"Bandwidth" itself is pretty much unlimited, but the medium that "it" uses to get to you and from you is very limited.
Usable radio frequency (wireless) is very limited.
Cables ran under your town are in fact a VERY limited resource.
Lets not even talk about fiber actually ran to homes.
If you want to pay the half million dollars (VERY conservative number) it takes to bury a line from your local ISP's head end, direct to your house and only your house, I am pretty sure they would be glad to accommodate you, and probably even charge you a similar rate as to what they pay to have the data delivered to their head end location, which is certainly more then $50 /mo for 50 MB/s.
Wireless spectrum is EXTREMELY limited, anyone who thinks that everyone should be able to get unlimited insane speeds all the time over wireless needs to do some serious reading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bandwidth had been likened here as a data "pipe" or "conduit", and like any "pipe" or "conduit" it does have a limit on the maximum amount of throughput that it can handle when considered in conjunction with the other components that service the "pipe" or "conduit".
Should this naturally gravitate to a tiered system? Frankly, I do not know the answer. However, I do not believe it is accurate at this point in time to view current systems as representing infite resources.
I do not know if it is an apt comparison, but perhaps the ability for persons to engage in DoS attacks illustrates the physical constraints inherent in current systems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rate not quantity
Bandwidth is fundamentally a matter of rate not quantity - if a network has a maximum throughput of, say, 1TB/sec and a thousand subscribers then each subscriber can have a 1GB/sec link. If it has ten thousand subscribers then each can have a 100MB/sec link and so on.
Tiers make perfect sense on the basis of connection speed - your ISP might offer a basic offering of 100MB/sec but if you want 1GB/sec you can have it for ten times as much - so you're paying for 10 subscribers worth of connection speed.
Now, I'm oversimplifying here since all networks oversubscribe to some extent as not all their subscribers will be constantly downloading at the maximum rate all at the same time. Oversubscription means you're sharing your connection speed with other people and causes you to experience a variable rate. If you have a 1GB/sec connection on a 1:50 ratio you have a maximum rate of 1GB/sec when you're the only one online out the 50 and a minimum rate of 20MB/sec (ouch!) when everyone is downloading at the same time. (In practice however, there is usually flexibility to spread the high-usage subscribers around the network so that no-one gets really slow connections for long, except where the network is under a lot a strain overall).
Tiers also make sense for contention ratios - pay more if you want a 1:20 ratio instead of 1:50. Perfectly reasonable.
Notice that download quantity has yet to make an appearance here. Quantities indirectly affect the average connection speed - if you're on a 1:50 ratio but everybody in your group only downloads email once a week then you can expect to nearly always get the maximum connection speed. As more people in your group do more online then your connection speed is more variable and is therefore lower on average.
Here's the clincher - when you're sold a connection it will always be on the basis of the maximum connection speed. It is not usually easy to even find out the contention ratio, much less the average rate you can expect. This means that you are already paying for a connection speed that you are almost certainly not getting most of the time. If your ISP is also charging for the amount you download, then they are effectively charging you twice for the same bytes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]