Broadcast = sent on the network to anyone that chooses to tune in the signal
Unicast = sent on the network to just one client.
Multicast = sent on the network to multiple clients (similar to Broadcast)
You bring up DSL. The diff between DSL and cable is not the unicast/multicast issue. It is star versus trunk line topology. That's unrelated to a unicast/broadcast issue.
What I wrote about was how TV content on your cable line is broadcast to anyone who wants to watch any given TV channel. The bandwidth used is amortized across anoyone on the trunk line. Many users watch a given channel, so it lowers the cost per use of that bandwidth.
When you use Internet on your cable line, you are consuming bandwidth in a unicast way. That is, the bits you request are only being used by you, so must by fully amortized by just one user. And you are using an incremental chunk of the finite capacity of that trunk line.
Yes, you share the last mile trunk cable's Internet capacity with your neighbors (unlike DSL's star topology). When you all use the net, you feel the slowdown, but you don't get to share in the use of their Internet bits, that's just for them, as yours are just for you (unicast).
The slowdown you mention supports the argument that capacity IS a scarce resource.
Which is why I always argue for more competition, local loop unbundling, UNE-P, wholesale markets, new entrants, and more.
I agree entirely. We need more competition, especially for fixed broadband. If we had it, some ISP would offer cap-free service (as Sprint does with their wireless).
But that's not an argument against caps, it's one in favor of more competition.
And part of that is fair, I mean, business isn't a charity. And part of that is unfair, using oligopolistic practices and lobbyists, etc.
But that doesn't invalidate the argument that capacity IS constrained in may bottlenecks at any given time. And relieving those bottlenecks and installing increased capacity does cost significant capital.
Freezing construction? Sounds like you're changing the topic. I might agree with you on your tangent. Verizon stopping FiOS deployment and partnering with the Cable cos is definitely not progress. But it's still changing the topic. There IS constrained capacity, that means scarcity, that means supply and demand are in effect, and supply should not be considered abundant or infinite.
I find a lot of bad knowledge around this issue, and occasionally take it upon myself to try to argue the facts. I have some squeezable time today. So call it public service.
If you don't like the facts, or what I say, feel free to skip my comments.
I'm not sure there is an incentive to deliberately make crappy metering tools. I think that is just what telcos initially produce.
I think they lose as a result, because ill-will is generated. If they handled caps better, there would be much less ill-will, and that's good for business.
That's why I think they are just clumsy about their meters, and not malicious.
So you are proposing a much more precise market, where bits are priced based on up-to-the-second real time value resulting from the supply and demand of the users in that sector or Central Office?
Yeah, that would be way simpler. Let's start an ISP that offers that to consumers.
And if users trickle their data for a few Central Offices such that bits are what you consider "free", we will get no revenue and pay our business expenses with lulz.
I think the notion of tiers, caps, meters are a simplification, but a better way to get subscribers to be aware that there is a cost to provide additional data.
The $19 B is for network, not buildings. I don't know how they fudge their accounting, so don't expect me to vouch for it. But the SEC signed off on it.
I think this graph will reveal a flatter usage pattern than most of you assume. If you've ever seen the classic cellular voice graph, you'll notice the peaks and valleys are VERY flattened in this modern data traffic map.
What's happening is that people's phones are consuming data in the background, and at set intervals. They are not just using them during their commute, like they used to. And people are using data on their phones all day long, at work because it is outside the company firewall, at home because it is in addition to their TV.
You, like a dozen or so others here, don't understand the difference between the cost of data in a static demand world, versus the cost of data in a world where the demand for data is ever-increasing.
In our world (the second of the two) ISPs must constantly upgrade and invest to provide new capacity to meet new demand. That costs money. Money is scarce.
So, you can choose: 1) cap people's usage to limit the amount of money; or 2) ask for more money to build out more capacity.
The ISPs have guessed that 1 would be 'less unpopular' than 2. Although, they also offer 2, by way of higher plans, overages, or enterprise-grade plans.
I'll say it again: if you are willing to consumer the same amount of data as you did in 2000, then your bits have near-zero marginal cost, and your argument is good.
And yes, I've worked in the field of telecom. Nothing but, in fact. That and my econ degree from a country that also calls electricity "hydro".
Scarce: new, faster, more capacity telecom networks.
If you are content connecting by dial-up to AOL, then I will accept your argument that your bits cost almost nothing to provide.
If, however, you want to stream a youtube video once or twice, then you will have to accept that the capacity to serve customers like you is scarce at some point in time, and must be built, at a cost, to meet your demand.
With data demand constantly shifting to the right, supply must constantly build new capacity. There is scarcity right there, my friend.
For I am rubber, and you are glue. It is your comprehension that is analogous with a bridge to nowhere.
"The carriers think that everyone will just shell out more money for a higher cap"
No. They want him to change the way he uses it. And if he is unwilling, because video over LTE is the only thing he wants it for, then yes, cancel his subscription.
Some will quit, some will change. Lots of iPad users were just using the video for a whim, to try it out. When they learned that it ate up their allotment, they simply reduced their video consumption. That is the law of supply and demand working.
Here's some analyst on Bloomberg TV talking exactly about the issue of iPad users hitting the cap in the first week:
But you can do oversight. You can install a meter in your phone. Just look into the app store by apps by a company called Mobidia.
Anyway, you won't like what you find. Your count will almost always be lower than the telcos count, because they include some overhead that doesn't get captured by the in-phone meter.
"Bandwidth is not a resource that you use and then it is gone. It is always there whether it is currently in use or not."
That's almost true of any existing system capacity (which still requires some cost for maintenance, energy, staffing). Let's just agree that Marginal Costs are near zero for existing system capacity.
So, then, you can pay the same amount, so long as you only use the Internet for the same things you used it for in the year 2000 and nothing else.
If, however you want MORE capacity, and more bandwidth to do more things, then that is a long, long way from free my friend. That costs billions and billions of dollars in capital expenditures every year.
The "bits are free" argument shows a half-comprehension of the subject.
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nobody Needs To Know
http://www.att.com/gen/general?pid=22516#ar2011-numbers
With AT&T's annual statement. On that page, bottom left corner, the part that reads:
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nobody Needs To Know
What? That's the point I've been arguing uphill against you et al for two hours?
"consumers are ALREADY charged based on capacity."
Yes. Ever since caps were implemented. Before that, they were charged for an "unlimited" plan.
I must really not be getting it, because to me, it looks like you just made my argument for me.
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: Re: Re: Data caps harm economies & education
Broadcast = sent on the network to anyone that chooses to tune in the signal
Unicast = sent on the network to just one client.
Multicast = sent on the network to multiple clients (similar to Broadcast)
You bring up DSL. The diff between DSL and cable is not the unicast/multicast issue. It is star versus trunk line topology. That's unrelated to a unicast/broadcast issue.
What I wrote about was how TV content on your cable line is broadcast to anyone who wants to watch any given TV channel. The bandwidth used is amortized across anoyone on the trunk line. Many users watch a given channel, so it lowers the cost per use of that bandwidth.
When you use Internet on your cable line, you are consuming bandwidth in a unicast way. That is, the bits you request are only being used by you, so must by fully amortized by just one user. And you are using an incremental chunk of the finite capacity of that trunk line.
Yes, you share the last mile trunk cable's Internet capacity with your neighbors (unlike DSL's star topology). When you all use the net, you feel the slowdown, but you don't get to share in the use of their Internet bits, that's just for them, as yours are just for you (unicast).
The slowdown you mention supports the argument that capacity IS a scarce resource.
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: Re: Re: Data caps harm economies & education
I agree entirely. We need more competition, especially for fixed broadband. If we had it, some ISP would offer cap-free service (as Sprint does with their wireless).
But that's not an argument against caps, it's one in favor of more competition.
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nobody Needs To Know
And part of that is fair, I mean, business isn't a charity. And part of that is unfair, using oligopolistic practices and lobbyists, etc.
But that doesn't invalidate the argument that capacity IS constrained in may bottlenecks at any given time. And relieving those bottlenecks and installing increased capacity does cost significant capital.
Freezing construction? Sounds like you're changing the topic. I might agree with you on your tangent. Verizon stopping FiOS deployment and partnering with the Cable cos is definitely not progress. But it's still changing the topic. There IS constrained capacity, that means scarcity, that means supply and demand are in effect, and supply should not be considered abundant or infinite.
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nobody Needs To Know
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nobody Needs To Know
Thank you for finishing my point.
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nobody Needs To Know
I find a lot of bad knowledge around this issue, and occasionally take it upon myself to try to argue the facts. I have some squeezable time today. So call it public service.
If you don't like the facts, or what I say, feel free to skip my comments.
PS What value did your post add?
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nobody Needs To Know
I think they lose as a result, because ill-will is generated. If they handled caps better, there would be much less ill-will, and that's good for business.
That's why I think they are just clumsy about their meters, and not malicious.
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nobody Needs To Know
Yeah, that would be way simpler. Let's start an ISP that offers that to consumers.
And if users trickle their data for a few Central Offices such that bits are what you consider "free", we will get no revenue and pay our business expenses with lulz.
I think the notion of tiers, caps, meters are a simplification, but a better way to get subscribers to be aware that there is a cost to provide additional data.
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nobody Needs To Know
The $19 B is for network, not buildings. I don't know how they fudge their accounting, so don't expect me to vouch for it. But the SEC signed off on it.
Here, let me Google that for you:
http://www.fox19.com/story/17211139/att-invests-more-than-23-billion-in-dallas-fort-worth-fr om-2009-through-2011-to-improve-local-networks
http://philly.citybizlist.com/2/2011/3/18/ATT-Inve sts-19B-in-New-Jersey-Network.aspx
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nobody Needs To Know
People have different billing cycles, so, no.
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nobody Needs To Know
http://www.senzafiliconsulting.com/Blog/tabid/64/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/68/Man aging-data-traffic-in-real-time-down-at-the-cell-level.aspx
I think this graph will reveal a flatter usage pattern than most of you assume. If you've ever seen the classic cellular voice graph, you'll notice the peaks and valleys are VERY flattened in this modern data traffic map.
What's happening is that people's phones are consuming data in the background, and at set intervals. They are not just using them during their commute, like they used to. And people are using data on their phones all day long, at work because it is outside the company firewall, at home because it is in addition to their TV.
more:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/research-shows-excess-mobile-bandwidth-110000717.html
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nobody Needs To Know
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nobody Needs To Know
In our world (the second of the two) ISPs must constantly upgrade and invest to provide new capacity to meet new demand. That costs money. Money is scarce.
So, you can choose: 1) cap people's usage to limit the amount of money; or 2) ask for more money to build out more capacity.
The ISPs have guessed that 1 would be 'less unpopular' than 2. Although, they also offer 2, by way of higher plans, overages, or enterprise-grade plans.
I'll say it again: if you are willing to consumer the same amount of data as you did in 2000, then your bits have near-zero marginal cost, and your argument is good.
And yes, I've worked in the field of telecom. Nothing but, in fact. That and my econ degree from a country that also calls electricity "hydro".
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nobody Needs To Know
Scarce: new, faster, more capacity telecom networks.
If you are content connecting by dial-up to AOL, then I will accept your argument that your bits cost almost nothing to provide.
If, however, you want to stream a youtube video once or twice, then you will have to accept that the capacity to serve customers like you is scarce at some point in time, and must be built, at a cost, to meet your demand.
With data demand constantly shifting to the right, supply must constantly build new capacity. There is scarcity right there, my friend.
For I am rubber, and you are glue. It is your comprehension that is analogous with a bridge to nowhere.
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: Data caps harm economies & education
Most of your cable TV is broadcast on the wire, so that thousands of homes can use the signal.
Pay-per-view is different, which is why it is more limited, and often for a fee.
Your Internet is unicast, just to you. Bits you use cannot be shared by your neighbors. This costs more.
And yes, they are also money grubbers. But get your facts straight if you want to complain.
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: It won't stop until it costs them money...
No. They want him to change the way he uses it. And if he is unwilling, because video over LTE is the only thing he wants it for, then yes, cancel his subscription.
Some will quit, some will change. Lots of iPad users were just using the video for a whim, to try it out. When they learned that it ate up their allotment, they simply reduced their video consumption. That is the law of supply and demand working.
Here's some analyst on Bloomberg TV talking exactly about the issue of iPad users hitting the cap in the first week:
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/88755634/
He makes some interesting points, but you know analysts. They just make it up as they go.
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re:
But you can do oversight. You can install a meter in your phone. Just look into the app store by apps by a company called Mobidia.
Anyway, you won't like what you find. Your count will almost always be lower than the telcos count, because they include some overhead that doesn't get captured by the in-phone meter.
So, you're right.
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Re: Caps
That's almost true of any existing system capacity (which still requires some cost for maintenance, energy, staffing). Let's just agree that Marginal Costs are near zero for existing system capacity.
So, then, you can pay the same amount, so long as you only use the Internet for the same things you used it for in the year 2000 and nothing else.
If, however you want MORE capacity, and more bandwidth to do more things, then that is a long, long way from free my friend. That costs billions and billions of dollars in capital expenditures every year.
The "bits are free" argument shows a half-comprehension of the subject.
Next >>