This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Except Netflix pays for their added burden. They have just signed a peering agreement with Comcast and rumor is At&t and Verizon are both being worked on as well. Yet Comcast won't drop their price or not count Netflix content against the cap number.
No one in the world is offering anything close to 1GB/Sec, I think you mean Mbps.My biggest complaint is that Americans already pay some of the highest costs for internet access (land and cellular) in the world. These corporations are VERY healthy, churning out record profits, yet somehow they're lobbying the government like Netflix and little Jimmy gamer down the street are bankrupting them.
I am fine with tiered pricing but let's be more fair... this should be a two way street. Let's fix BOTH ends of the spectrum.
For Example (purely pulling numbers out of the hat):
If current offerings are :
Unlimited 25GB/sec data for $50/mo
Unlimited 50GB/sec data for $70/mo
Let's not just cap those and add more to it. If you're going to ask for more from the big users while still raking in record profits, let's ask for less from the casual users. It's only fair given the quasi-monopoly that these pipleline corps are forming...
I'd be all over something like:
50GB at 10GB/sec for $20/mo with $0.10/GB overage
100GB at 25GB/sec for $30/mo with $0.10/GB overage
300GB at 50GB/sec for $50/mo with $0.10/GB overage
1TB at 100GB/sec for $90/mo with $0.10/GB overage
Tier the speed/data caps and charge for overages. If you have a guy who streams Netflix 6 hours a day, it will cost him more. But pass along the benefits to people who don't need ultra-fast pipes, or don't clog up the pipes with tons of video streaming or torrents.
What's good for the goose...
Of course... this would provide ample motivation for Google Fiber to expand rapidly and gobble up market share at their Unlimited Gigabit $70/mo plan
I think he meant Gb (small b) which google fiber offersNo one in the world is offering anything close to 1GB/Sec, I think you mean Mbps.My biggest complaint is that Americans already pay some of the highest costs for internet access (land and cellular) in the world. These corporations are VERY healthy, churning out record profits, yet somehow they're lobbying the government like Netflix and little Jimmy gamer down the street are bankrupting them.
I am fine with tiered pricing but let's be more fair... this should be a two way street. Let's fix BOTH ends of the spectrum.
For Example (purely pulling numbers out of the hat):
If current offerings are :
Unlimited 25GB/sec data for $50/mo
Unlimited 50GB/sec data for $70/mo
Let's not just cap those and add more to it. If you're going to ask for more from the big users while still raking in record profits, let's ask for less from the casual users. It's only fair given the quasi-monopoly that these pipleline corps are forming...
I'd be all over something like:
50GB at 10GB/sec for $20/mo with $0.10/GB overage
100GB at 25GB/sec for $30/mo with $0.10/GB overage
300GB at 50GB/sec for $50/mo with $0.10/GB overage
1TB at 100GB/sec for $90/mo with $0.10/GB overage
Tier the speed/data caps and charge for overages. If you have a guy who streams Netflix 6 hours a day, it will cost him more. But pass along the benefits to people who don't need ultra-fast pipes, or don't clog up the pipes with tons of video streaming or torrents.
What's good for the goose...
Of course... this would provide ample motivation for Google Fiber to expand rapidly and gobble up market share at their Unlimited Gigabit $70/mo plan
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
Sorry those were meant to be in Mb/sec...but gigabit internet is indeed real, and offers up to 1000Mbps up and down.No one in the world is offering anything close to 1GB/Sec, I think you mean Mbps.My biggest complaint is that Americans already pay some of the highest costs for internet access (land and cellular) in the world. These corporations are VERY healthy, churning out record profits, yet somehow they're lobbying the government like Netflix and little Jimmy gamer down the street are bankrupting them.
I am fine with tiered pricing but let's be more fair... this should be a two way street. Let's fix BOTH ends of the spectrum.
For Example (purely pulling numbers out of the hat):
If current offerings are :
Unlimited 25GB/sec data for $50/mo
Unlimited 50GB/sec data for $70/mo
Let's not just cap those and add more to it. If you're going to ask for more from the big users while still raking in record profits, let's ask for less from the casual users. It's only fair given the quasi-monopoly that these pipleline corps are forming...
I'd be all over something like:
50GB at 10GB/sec for $20/mo with $0.10/GB overage
100GB at 25GB/sec for $30/mo with $0.10/GB overage
300GB at 50GB/sec for $50/mo with $0.10/GB overage
1TB at 100GB/sec for $90/mo with $0.10/GB overage
Tier the speed/data caps and charge for overages. If you have a guy who streams Netflix 6 hours a day, it will cost him more. But pass along the benefits to people who don't need ultra-fast pipes, or don't clog up the pipes with tons of video streaming or torrents.
What's good for the goose...
Of course... this would provide ample motivation for Google Fiber to expand rapidly and gobble up market share at their Unlimited Gigabit $70/mo plan
This. The same signal goes to every house for TV, and the cost is identical whether or not an individual home is turned on. INternet is different as every home is recieving a unique signal based on what they're doing. They aren't even remotely comparable.I assume that the amount of bandwidth to transmit the television show is negligible compared to internet service, but that is just a guess.
This is exactly what I thought, but I couldn't find any data to back my theory up.This. The same signal goes to every house for TV, and the cost is identical whether or not an individual home is turned on. INternet is different as every home is recieving a unique signal based on what they're doing. They aren't even remotely comparable.I assume that the amount of bandwidth to transmit the television show is negligible compared to internet service, but that is just a guess.
Gbps is real in very few small markets, and they may expand nationally but no one really knows at this point. I certainly hope they do, but it will be a long while before they do and likely won't cover the largest US metro areas.Sorry Gb/sec...big difference I know, but gigabit internet is indeed real, and offers up to 1000Mbps up and down.No one in the world is offering anything close to 1GB/Sec, I think you mean Mbps.My biggest complaint is that Americans already pay some of the highest costs for internet access (land and cellular) in the world. These corporations are VERY healthy, churning out record profits, yet somehow they're lobbying the government like Netflix and little Jimmy gamer down the street are bankrupting them.
I am fine with tiered pricing but let's be more fair... this should be a two way street. Let's fix BOTH ends of the spectrum.
For Example (purely pulling numbers out of the hat):
If current offerings are :
Unlimited 25GB/sec data for $50/mo
Unlimited 50GB/sec data for $70/mo
Let's not just cap those and add more to it. If you're going to ask for more from the big users while still raking in record profits, let's ask for less from the casual users. It's only fair given the quasi-monopoly that these pipleline corps are forming...
I'd be all over something like:
50GB at 10GB/sec for $20/mo with $0.10/GB overage
100GB at 25GB/sec for $30/mo with $0.10/GB overage
300GB at 50GB/sec for $50/mo with $0.10/GB overage
1TB at 100GB/sec for $90/mo with $0.10/GB overage
Tier the speed/data caps and charge for overages. If you have a guy who streams Netflix 6 hours a day, it will cost him more. But pass along the benefits to people who don't need ultra-fast pipes, or don't clog up the pipes with tons of video streaming or torrents.
What's good for the goose...
Of course... this would provide ample motivation for Google Fiber to expand rapidly and gobble up market share at their Unlimited Gigabit $70/mo plan
And google is doing so in KC ($70/mo) and is expanding into other markets as we speak.
That was my understanding as well. Its a push vs pull model. For tv, you're getting it whether you watch it or not.This. The same signal goes to every house for TV, and the cost is identical whether or not an individual home is turned on. INternet is different as every home is recieving a unique signal based on what they're doing. They aren't even remotely comparable.I assume that the amount of bandwidth to transmit the television show is negligible compared to internet service, but that is just a guess.
I see. Seems pretty cumbersome to put into place. However, this would just be another step towards ISPs policing content.
It's not speed, it's volume.
I, on the other hand, would probably never stream anything again if this were the case. If the price is the same, I'll take the copy I can rewatch.
How does the volume of data used impact the capacity that VZN has? How is it currently being utilized? Data isn't a thing like water. Using it during non-peak times shouldn't strain a network built to handle peak traffic.It's not speed, it's volume.
Think like a water meter. If two people are pumping water. One at 25 gal/min and the other at 10 gal/min. If the first does 100 gallons and the other does 1000, the water company is going to charge the second guy more.
Verizon wants to be able to charge you more if you are pulling larger amounts of data, regardless of the speed.
Water and electricity are poor comparisons to bandwidth. If a customer pays for a month's access to bandwidth and it isn't used, the company doesn't really make any more money. The company paid for the infrastructure to support it, whether it was used or not. On the other hand, if the water/electricity company were paying for an all-you-can-eat sort of arrangement and you didn't use any, you'd be more profitable than your neighbor who used a reasonable amount.It's not speed, it's volume.
Think like a water meter. If two people are pumping water. One at 25 gal/min and the other at 10 gal/min. If the first does 100 gallons and the other does 1000, the water company is going to charge the second guy more.
Verizon wants to be able to charge you more if you are pulling larger amounts of data, regardless of the speed.
I think Verizon is more in the business of selling a pipe than water. The speed that you can get the "data" through the pipe is what they've already priced.It's not speed, it's volume.
Think like a water meter. If two people are pumping water. One at 25 gal/min and the other at 10 gal/min. If the first does 100 gallons and the other does 1000, the water company is going to charge the second guy more.
Verizon wants to be able to charge you more if you are pulling larger amounts of data, regardless of the speed.
Water and electricity are poor comparisons to bandwidth. If a customer pays for a month's access to bandwidth and it isn't used, the company doesn't really make any more money. The company paid for the infrastructure to support it, whether it was used or not. On the other hand, if the water/electricity company were paying for an all-you-can-eat sort of arrangement and you didn't use any, you'd be more profitable than your neighbor who used a reasonable amount.It's not speed, it's volume.
Think like a water meter. If two people are pumping water. One at 25 gal/min and the other at 10 gal/min. If the first does 100 gallons and the other does 1000, the water company is going to charge the second guy more.
Verizon wants to be able to charge you more if you are pulling larger amounts of data, regardless of the speed.
The companies already paid for the infrastructure. If no one uses them they don't lose money per-se. Also if everyone jumps on at once it just slows everything down as the traffic is routed FiFo style (barring any other traffic shaping or QoS in place). It's not like Verizon has to tap into its internet reserves and spin up more packet pumps to keep up with the demand.
Can't get to my area soon enough.
I don't have data, but when I had Comcast video, they only broadcast 1 HD channel of every movie package (all others SD), and only broadcast SD for the MLB, NBA, NHL packages. Unscientifically, since I too don't have actual statistics to back my assertion up, that would seem to me like they're pretty constrained bandwidth wise. Not sure if that has changed or not. Also using Comcast as an example, but would assume this is the case for other cable non-IPTV providers as well.This is exactly what I thought, but I couldn't find any data to back my theory up.This. The same signal goes to every house for TV, and the cost is identical whether or not an individual home is turned on. INternet is different as every home is recieving a unique signal based on what they're doing. They aren't even remotely comparable.I assume that the amount of bandwidth to transmit the television show is negligible compared to internet service, but that is just a guess.
Whether or not it is how they can or are already doing it, that seemed the best analogy for how they want to do it.Water and electricity are poor comparisons to bandwidth. If a customer pays for a month's access to bandwidth and it isn't used, the company doesn't really make any more money. The company paid for the infrastructure to support it, whether it was used or not. On the other hand, if the water/electricity company were paying for an all-you-can-eat sort of arrangement and you didn't use any, you'd be more profitable than your neighbor who used a reasonable amount.It's not speed, it's volume.
Think like a water meter. If two people are pumping water. One at 25 gal/min and the other at 10 gal/min. If the first does 100 gallons and the other does 1000, the water company is going to charge the second guy more.
Verizon wants to be able to charge you more if you are pulling larger amounts of data, regardless of the speed.
Schlzm
Phoenix was one of the 9 expansion cities, finger and toes are crossed that it comes here and soon. This clown want to charge more for a service that doles out 20mbps when the future is fiber optics giving the same price for speeds literally a 1000 times faster
That makes sense. Trying to treat internet access/bandwidth as a tangible thing that magically burdens them in some way. SchlzmWhether or not it is how they can or are already doing it, that seemed the best analogy for how they want to do it.Water and electricity are poor comparisons to bandwidth. If a customer pays for a month's access to bandwidth and it isn't used, the company doesn't really make any more money. The company paid for the infrastructure to support it, whether it was used or not. On the other hand, if the water/electricity company were paying for an all-you-can-eat sort of arrangement and you didn't use any, you'd be more profitable than your neighbor who used a reasonable amount.It's not speed, it's volume.
Think like a water meter. If two people are pumping water. One at 25 gal/min and the other at 10 gal/min. If the first does 100 gallons and the other does 1000, the water company is going to charge the second guy more.
Verizon wants to be able to charge you more if you are pulling larger amounts of data, regardless of the speed.
Schlzm
Verizon offers broadband and FiOS, which is a fiber optic based service that carries internet and TV.
Well, we should keep them intellectually honest at least. The real problem here boils down to this, internet access has been oversold since the days of dial up. They'd sell a connection to 200,000 people but only pay for the infrastructure required to support, say, 100,000 because not everyone used the connection at once. That overselling contributed directly to their profit. Now, though, people are using it more and to deliver on what they promised they're going to have to have the infrastructure to support, say, 125,000 instead of 100,000 to deliver on what they promised and they got oh so used to those fat margins. Now they're looking at a 25% cost increase and they don't want it to come out of excessive (Yes, we pay a premium for our internet compared to the rest of the world) margins, so how do they react? They want to "tier" pricing, because the masses are pretty much already at their limits for internet pricing. The people who use the internet the most, they're getting a ton of "value" (in terms of the maximum they'd pay, if forced and what they pay) from the internet. That value, though, is created by companies like Netflix and YouTube (who are already paying a mountain of cash to send their data) and the carriers want to extract as much of the value as possible, even though they didn't help create any of it, so now they want those people to pay more for them to deliver what they claim they sold to them in the first place. That's why everyone, even those that don't use it, should be bothered by this. You'd expect the margins on internet access to go down as it becomes more ubiquitous, this is the thrashing of an industry that's being marginalized (not only is the internet access industry being marginalized into dumb pipes, it's threatening their other bread and butter business of delivering paid television content via their "pipes") and the thrashing only hurts here because of the near-monopoly they have on what they sell.Whether or not it is how they can or are already doing it, that seemed the best analogy for how they want to do it.Water and electricity are poor comparisons to bandwidth. If a customer pays for a month's access to bandwidth and it isn't used, the company doesn't really make any more money. The company paid for the infrastructure to support it, whether it was used or not. On the other hand, if the water/electricity company were paying for an all-you-can-eat sort of arrangement and you didn't use any, you'd be more profitable than your neighbor who used a reasonable amount.It's not speed, it's volume.
Think like a water meter. If two people are pumping water. One at 25 gal/min and the other at 10 gal/min. If the first does 100 gallons and the other does 1000, the water company is going to charge the second guy more.
Verizon wants to be able to charge you more if you are pulling larger amounts of data, regardless of the speed.
Schlzm
Dude... Verizon was formed in a merger of GTE and Bell Atlantic and was worth like $50B 7 years before the iPhone. They rolled out 3G and 4G better and faster than any other carrier in the world. If Verizon didn't exist we'd be 3 years behind where we are in high-bandwidth wireless.
We can scream monopoly about Verizon anyways. And
at the bolded, that is just silly.
3G allows people to do email, maybe some Facebook, but very little streaming or other network intensive apps.We can scream monopoly about Verizon anyways. And
Yet the first LTE networks were built in Scandinavia and were introduced in many countries before the US, where MetroPCS was actually the first mover. The technology was developed by many multinational tech firms, not just or even primarily by Verizon.3G allows people to do email, maybe some Facebook, but very little streaming or other network intensive apps.We can scream monopoly about Verizon anyways. And
4G is real mobile internet for the over the top services we're talking about. How did we get to 4G?
Verizon was way ahead on 4G by making an early gamble with LTE in 2009-2010 and pushed the other carriers in the US to improve their bandwidth. They went from announcing to launching it on a large scale in about a year.
Nobody else was ready for LTE so T-Mobile and AT&T upgraded to HSPA+ and T-Mo even called it 4G to try to compete
Sprint fumbled with WiMAX to try to have something faster than EVDO and it failed
The other 3 finally went LTE on a large scale, almost 3 years after Verizon had 100 million covered
And therein lies the fundamental issue with Verizon's arguments. They will never lower prices for low bandwidth users or pass any savings along to the consumer. They will always want to have it both ways. The reality is that it's not about heavy bandwidth users paying more, it's about all users paying more and more and more to them.
Also the major component of this whole debate is wired services anyways. I don't give a crap about Verizon's lte coverage or even what it thinks is reasonable when it comes to third party services running over "their air". Also if they were only concerned about their wireless data offerings they wouldn't offer unlimited data plans, especially knowing that anyone can purchase any supported device unlocked direct from an OEM approved reseller and affectively have carte blanch with the data service via attached/slaved devices.SchlzmYet the first LTE networks were built in Scandinavia and were introduced in many countries before the US, where MetroPCS was actually the first mover. The technology was developed by many multinational tech firms, not just or even primarily by Verizon.3G allows people to do email, maybe some Facebook, but very little streaming or other network intensive apps.We can scream monopoly about Verizon anyways. And
4G is real mobile internet for the over the top services we're talking about. How did we get to 4G?
Verizon was way ahead on 4G by making an early gamble with LTE in 2009-2010 and pushed the other carriers in the US to improve their bandwidth. They went from announcing to launching it on a large scale in about a year.
Nobody else was ready for LTE so T-Mobile and AT&T upgraded to HSPA+ and T-Mo even called it 4G to try to compete
Sprint fumbled with WiMAX to try to have something faster than EVDO and it failed
The other 3 finally went LTE on a large scale, almost 3 years after Verizon had 100 million covered
Despite all that, my point was that lessening competition in an industry does not spur innovation. It hinders it.
