Slashdot Mirror
A Layman's Guide To Bandwidth Pricing
narramissic links to IT World's A Layman's Guide to Bandwidth Pricing, writing "Time Warner Cable has, for now, abandoned the tiered pricing trials that raised the ire of Congressman Eric Massa, among others. And, as some nice data points in a New York Times article reveal, it's good for us that they did. For instance, Comcast says it costs them $6.85 per home to double the internet capacity of a neighborhood. But the bit of the Times article that we should commit to memory is this: 'If all Time Warner customers decided one day not to check their e-mail or download a single movie, the company's costs would be no different than on a day when every customer was glued to the screen watching one YouTube video after another.'"
So the reverse is also true - if every customer decided to say, watch grass grow one day, the costs are also the same!
This is exactly why Tony Werner, Comcast chief technical officer said they engineer for the peak hour. Having said that, it would be nice to get 160mbps for $60/month (as in Japan) ... although
I always find it disappointing that almost all of these stories focus
on the download speeds and ignore the upload speeds which are
at least of interest to folks such as /. readers.
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
I prefer the government installs the fiber and leases it to companies that provide billing, maintenance, and tech support services. Let competition in those areas bring prices down. Internet access is a public good and greases the wheels of the commerce. It's not something to be taxed and exploited by large monopolistic corporations.
In the mean time, support Massa get his bill passed. If we wait, TWC will just come up with something else equally bad and US taxpayers paid for $200 billion in infrastructure so there should be limits on what Time Warner can do.
http://blog.wired.com/business/2009/04/congressman-to.html
Write your congressman to support this bill
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
Get it passed.
Disappointed in the "research" that went into the original article. Most definitely if everyone didn't use any bandwidth for a day or two, then a cable company would likely pay less that month for the their transit bandwidth. In Time Warner Cable's case, they get their transit bandwidth from Level 3.
I'd guess Time Warner Cable is paying about $10/mbps (or less) on the 95th percentile. So if the top 5% five-minute averages of traffic to Level is thrown out, then the top average left is what they pay for. I would bet there are a few samples each night that are in that top 5% of samples, if everyone did NOT use the Internet one night during peak, the sample that is left at the 95th percentile would likely be less and they'd pay less that month for transit charges.
TW announced that it was going to test market tiered broadband in Rochester and a few other cities, but just announced that they were shelving those plans. Most publications pointed to protests by TW customers as the reason. Was it? While it's true that there were protests, I think another "influence" caused them to take a second look at their plans. Here's what I think... TW right now works hard to bundle their Broadband service with their VoIP and TV services. Sure, they can hide the cost in the bundle, but they can't hide the bandwidth. Right now, they pump at 1.2MB/s, or about 10Mb/s. that sounds pretty good until you realize that some 3rd world nations provide 8 times that much for only the equivalent of $10/month! - but that's another story. So what could get TW's panties in a bunch? Let's see... Right now, my "old" iPhone is on the Edge network, which is, I think, around 750Kb/s. Not very fast, but slow & steady. The data plan for it is $20/month. No competition there for TW! How about the "newer" iPhone?... it uses 3G (HSPA) for it's data. Right now, 3G from AT&T goes at 3.6Mb/s and costs $30/month. Still no big competition, but for lots of users, it would suffice in place of TW if AT&T would allow "Tethering" - using the phone as the network connection. (Which they don't right now) What worries TW is what is coming next. AT&T and others are currently upgrading their HSPA networks to the next "bump" in speed, to 7.2Mb/s, and that's where they become direct competitors to TW's Broadband. What's even worse is that "NetBooks" from Dell, LG, and Acer are due to start shipping in the near future, and they have built-in HSPA & WiFi support. Who needs TW's cable when you can be connected almost anywhere, anytime - wirelessly. But it doesn't stop there. HSPA can be tweaked up to 14.4Kb/s, but the next phase - "HSPA+" is already proven. It requires more hardware changes though. AT&T's goal is to rollout HSPA+ by 2011, and that's 21Mb/s!! Yup, that's twice what TW is allowing right now over cable, and you'll be able to get that over the air. That's what's got TW scared shitless. The idea that you won't need a cable to get your phone, internet, or even TV shows. That makes their whole monopolistic infrastructure about worthless!! AT&T and Verizon will rollout plans for access not just for phones, but for loads of electronic goodies, from computers to cameras to game sets. The netbook idea has been tried before, but it always required a cable. What got this new paradigm started was the introduction of the iPhone - not just as another "phone", but as a "portable computer," or an extension of your office. More and more people are finding themselves using the mail, the browser, and other applications on a daily basis, and becoming dependent on a constant internet connection. Why do we need to sit at home in a room when we can be at the beach, or in a hammock, or even at a bar, and extend ourselves into the rest of the world?
At the consumer level power is generally sold by the Kilowatt. Phone converstaions used to be by the minute, still are for cell. Water is sold in cubic feet.
I think we have finally reached a point where bandwith should be sold by the Gigabyte.
Ultimately I think cable companies and straight ISPs should sell the fastest cable connection possible. Maybe charge a flat fee at first if the new
speed requires a new modem and that sort of thing. We are fast approaching speeds of 50mpbs which if we actually could obtain from
servers out there would be pretty close. Once we hit 100mbps we are good with speeds above only needed for special circumastance. Most content
won't be streamed live, but rather pre-cached almost as DVRs do it now.
Just like the other type of resources we can give breaks for per unit the more you purchase. So 1-20 gig is 50 cents a gig. 20-40 is 30 cents and so on.
Users who want to stream HD movies can instead of buying the HD channel package on their cable bill.
I wish it was possible to distinguish between the guy downloading a linux .iso and someone downloading a pirated movie, but we can't.
Either way both are using more than the grandma checking her email, but somehow pay the same amount.
This might not be popular, but I think deep down most of us know it's the compromise we need. If you want to drop you cable bill and
go with Hulu...fine. Just realize you have to pay. This idea that we can get everything we always had for 20-40 dollars a month just
because the magic internet came along is bs.
What really irks me about cable companies is they want to put caps, but provide absolutlely no way to contest it. My bill
does not have a usage number on it, but if I go over it they'll let me know. You can go look at your power meter, call your phone company, or look at
your water meter. Put in usage monitoring first then we can talk. You could even put out a bill with IP, number of packets, and amount of data.
'If all Time Warner customers decided one day not to check their e-mail or download a single movie, the company's costs would be no different than on a day when every customer was glued to the screen watching one YouTube video after another.'
Wait! Are you trying to say that the cost of transmitting a bunch of zeros is no different than transmitting a mix of zeros and ones?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
If all Time Warner customers decided one day not to check their e-mail or download a single movie, the company's costs would be no different than on a day when every customer was glued to the screen watching one YouTube video after another.
And if no tweenies show up to tonight's Miley Cyrus concert, the cost of putting it on will be pretty much the same. Does that mean that Miley should go to a flat rate, come-as-often-as-like model?
All retail businesses are based on assumptions about normal behavior. Hypotheticals that posit unlikely behavior aren't arguments. If they were, then we could suppose that every TW customer might decide to visit YouTube at precisely the same moment, and that TW should build out its network to support that and charge accordingly. Are you ready for $1,000 a month for DSL?
Let me anticipate the same lame point that gets made every time we have this discussion: Even if TW ripped off the government by pocketing the money they were supposed to use for expanding their infrastructure, we still have a "no free lunch" scenario. Even thieves need a sustainable business model.
If you believe that you can get 3.6Mb/sec on a 3G phone continuously, you are in for a rude surprise. You can get this in short bursts but you can't get anywhere near that for longer period of time. How many phones are competing for the same bandwidth? 100? More like 500. Do you really believe any cell site has a 1.5Tb/sec connection?
No, you get your 3.6Mb/sec for about a second and they you wait for everyone else's phone. Fortunately, you get most things done in under a second and you aren't looking for a continuous high bandwidth connection. Because if you were, you'd be disappointed.
If all Time Warner customers decided one day not to check their e-mail or download a single movie, the company's costs would be no different than on a day when every customer was glued to the screen watching one YouTube video after another.'"
Of course, those customers would be glued to blank screens since TWC lacks the capacity to have every customer watching youtube at once. Their network would grind to a halt. And the network expansion necessary to handle all of them watching youtube all day would have a considerable additional cost.
Comcast says it costs them $6.85 per home to double the internet capacity of a neighborhood.
Comcast also says that their users like their service and don't leave it the instant Verizon installs FiOS in the neighborhood. You shouldn't put much faith in what Comcast says.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.