brianiscool

join:2000-08-16

Tampa, FL 1 recommendation brianiscool Member BOOO I wouldn't be happy to be appointed that job position. Can you imagine how much hate e-mail he will receive ? lol



nothing00

join:2001-06-10

Centereach, NY nothing00 Member Re: BOOO Last hope. The FTC.



DataRiker

Premium Member

join:2002-05-19

00000 1 recommendation DataRiker to brianiscool

Premium Member to brianiscool

I doubt he has time to read email with those corporate balls squarely on his chin.



AnonMan

@comcast.net AnonMan to brianiscool

Anon to brianiscool

He won't care too much. The big greedy companies will send him millions over time.



Our government is just another crappy run business.



If it wasn't they would allow me or you to just build our own internet and sell it. But nooo, too many regulations or laws or rules saying you can't go in this area because someone else is or you can't have this permit or that or you can't use these poles etc.. Thus we get no competition and get raped.



NormanS

I gave her time to steal my mind away

MVM

join:2001-02-14

San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616

Asus RT-AC66U B1

Netgear FR114P

1 edit NormanS MVM Re: BOOO said by AnonMan : ... too many regulations or laws or rules saying you can't go in this area because someone else is or you can't have this permit or that or you can't use these poles etc..





PG&E will happily rent space on their poles. All that keeps the poles from being overburdened is minimum road clearance regulations, and minimum clearance to the electric lines.



TTBMK, there are no exclusive laws in California preventing overbuilding; else how could Sonic.net, LLC deploy fiber in Sebastopol, California. AT&T Broadband Internet bought an HFC plant which overlaid TCI in the south S.F. Bay Area. The plant was deployed on the local utility poles.PG&E will happily rent space on their poles. All that keeps the poles from being overburdened is minimum road clearance regulations, and minimum clearance to the electric lines.TTBMK, there are no exclusive laws in California preventing overbuilding; else how could Sonic.net, LLC deploy fiber in Sebastopol, California.

okcaver54

join:2006-02-19

Sand Springs, OK okcaver54 to AnonMan

Member to AnonMan

I am afraid this comment seems to be right on.



quetwo

That VoIP Guy

Premium Member

join:2004-09-04

East Lansing, MI quetwo to brianiscool

Premium Member to brianiscool

Yeah... He's my boss right now (he is our department chair in the Telecommunications Department at MSU).



His paper was right -- usage based pricing DO make good economic sense -- for the industry (not for consumers).



Baud1200

join:2003-02-10 Baud1200 to brianiscool

Member to brianiscool

Well written article Karl, sadly most you read are either payed to suck up to the industry, fear it (or not receiving further review products from it), or are too ignorant to draw these conclusions.



Good work documenting this for what it is, pure corporate greed and chronie capitalism, where the big companies get away with next to anything as long as they buddy up to those that lobby the government.



Will be a great day indeed when people wake up to these shills, people like Wildman deserve to be dragged out and pissed on, and if there was any fair legal process initiated by the people themselves instead of the government mandated courts, the prior is the least of what would happen to them.

praetoralpha

join:2005-08-06

Pittsburgh, PA praetoralpha Member Investments? quote: "...The effects of well-designed [usage-based pricing] plans on consumers are likely to be beneficial, as are the effects of UBP on investments in the broadband infrastructure." What investments? Is this man high? What investments? Is this man high?

Kearnstd

Space Elf

Premium Member

join:2002-01-22

Mullica Hill, NJ Kearnstd Premium Member Re: Investments? investments in higher bonuses to the executive board of course.



FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ FFH5 to praetoralpha

Premium Member to praetoralpha

said by praetoralpha:

What investments? Is this man high?

Cable companies have invested billions per year on infrastructure upgrades in order to deliver higher speeds.



Bill Neilson

Premium Member

join:2009-07-08

Alexandria, VA Bill Neilson Premium Member Re: Investments? High Speeds per the companies much like how we the consumers "benefit" from ridiculous prices of packages and shady connections?



The companies invest what they can to stay as profitable as ever....and no, not everyone will screw over their consumers to make every last dime possible.



And please spare me the "That is Capitalism" talk when the companies spend millions in DC re-writing their laws to end any and all competition.



andyb

Premium Member

join:2003-05-29

SW Ontario andyb to FFH5

Premium Member to FFH5

If they have,then where did they deploy this stuff?They say they did it in Canada too but there were no upgrades unless you count wireless upgrades also but that does not benefit the cable subscriber,only the people who can afford the 100 a month for low lte speeds.Just a scam media release to "think" your getting more for the increase in prices as usual



DataRiker

Premium Member

join:2002-05-19

00000 DataRiker to FFH5

Premium Member to FFH5

said by FFH5: said by praetoralpha:

What investments? Is this man high?



Cable companies have invested billions per year on infrastructure upgrades in order to deliver higher speeds. Perhaps on paper.

crypt0

join:2012-12-22

Edmonton, AB crypt0 to FFH5

Member to FFH5

said by FFH5: said by praetoralpha:

What investments? Is this man high?



Cable companies have invested billions per year on infrastructure upgrades in order to deliver higher speeds.

They upgraded to slightly meet base user growth. BSThey upgraded to slightly meet base user growth.



nonamesleft

join:2011-11-07

Manitowoc, WI nonamesleft Member Conflict of interest... Isn't this kind of stuff illegal? We are gonna be boxed in, just like we were for 2012 election.

decifal

join:2007-03-10

Bon Aqua, TN decifal Member Re: Conflict of interest... said by nonamesleft: Isn't this kind of stuff illegal? We are gonna be boxed in, just like we were for 2012 election.

amen to that



Nightmare

@corpmailsvcs.com Nightmare Anon NOT True Usage-based pricing True usage based pricing is "hey grandma uses 1GB all month, its $1 for 1 gigabyte of data, her bill is $1 +tax." not "pay $30 for the connection for your 1 gigabyte of data and if you go over we charge you $30 more bucks".



We will NEVER run out of Bytes and bits, no one is "mining" for gigabytes. How can we be charged a "overage" if there is no limit and if it is a "resource" it should be regulated and have a NON ISP measure the bits and bytes usage. Water is limited, Coal is limited, petroleum is LIMITED,... can someone pour me a tall glass of/get me a bag of megabytes please?



monchis

Premium Member

join:2002-12-09

00000 monchis Premium Member Re: NOT True Usage-based pricing Great argument. But do you think they would just push back with "it's customer service oriented to push off heavy users who ruin it for the rest of us?"

elray

join:2000-12-16

Santa Monica, CA 1 recommendation elray to Nightmare

Member to Nightmare

said by Nightmare : True usage based pricing is "hey grandma uses 1GB all month, its $1 for 1 gigabyte of data, her bill is $1 +tax." not "pay $30 for the connection for your 1 gigabyte of data and if you go over we charge you $30 more bucks".



We will NEVER run out of Bytes and bits, no one is "mining" for gigabytes. How can we be charged a "overage" if there is no limit and if it is a "resource" it should be regulated and have a NON ISP measure the bits and bytes usage. Water is limited, Coal is limited, petroleum is LIMITED,... can someone pour me a tall glass of/get me a bag of megabytes please?





Caps aren't usage-based pricing. They're a crude tool to thwart abuse and influence behavior. To a limited extent, they're meant to discourage Netflix and other potential streaming competitors. And they're the natural response to calls for "network neutrality".



Cable has demonstrated, unlike telco, year after year, a willingness to invest in broadband plant, while rates have declined. To suggest that their infrastructure is limitless ignores the peak-hours congestion that occurs on many a cable modem. Sure, they could re-wire for the 3rd or 4th time in just over a decade, but customers don't want to pay for that expense. "True usage-based pricing" would still incur a connection and meter charge, much like many electric bills.Caps aren't usage-based pricing. They're a crude tool to thwart abuse and influence behavior. To a limited extent, they're meant to discourage Netflix and other potential streaming competitors. And they're the natural response to calls for "network neutrality".Cable has demonstrated, unlike telco, year after year, a willingness to invest in broadband plant, while rates have declined. To suggest that their infrastructure is limitless ignores the peak-hours congestion that occurs on many a cable modem. Sure, they could re-wire for the 3rd or 4th time in just over a decade, but customers don't want to pay for that expense.



workablob

join:2004-06-09

Houston, TX workablob Member Re: NOT True Usage-based pricing said by elray: said by Nightmare : True usage based pricing is "hey grandma uses 1GB all month, its $1 for 1 gigabyte of data, her bill is $1 +tax." not "pay $30 for the connection for your 1 gigabyte of data and if you go over we charge you $30 more bucks".



We will NEVER run out of Bytes and bits, no one is "mining" for gigabytes. How can we be charged a "overage" if there is no limit and if it is a "resource" it should be regulated and have a NON ISP measure the bits and bytes usage. Water is limited, Coal is limited, petroleum is LIMITED,... can someone pour me a tall glass of/get me a bag of megabytes please?





Caps aren't usage-based pricing. They're a crude tool to thwart abuse and influence behavior. To a limited extent, they're meant to discourage Netflix and other potential streaming competitors. And they're the natural response to calls for "network neutrality".



Cable has demonstrated, unlike telco, year after year, a willingness to invest in broadband plant, while rates have declined. To suggest that their infrastructure is limitless ignores the peak-hours congestion that occurs on many a cable modem. Sure, they could re-wire for the 3rd or 4th time in just over a decade, but customers don't want to pay for that expense.

"True usage-based pricing" would still incur a connection and meter charge, much like many electric bills.Caps aren't usage-based pricing. They're a crude tool to thwart abuse and influence behavior. To a limited extent, they're meant to discourage Netflix and other potential streaming competitors. And they're the natural response to calls for "network neutrality".Cable has demonstrated, unlike telco, year after year, a willingness to invest in broadband plant, while rates have declined. To suggest that their infrastructure is limitless ignores the peak-hours congestion that occurs on many a cable modem. Sure, they could re-wire for the 3rd or 4th time in just over a decade, but customers don't want to pay for that expense.



Dave Damn, I was gonna type just that.Dave

AlfredNewman6

join:2010-03-25

Columbus, OH AlfredNewman6 to elray

Member to elray

Actaully we did pay for that expense, that is what our monthly bills are supposed to include. Ongoing maintainence and future expansions.

elray

join:2000-12-16

Santa Monica, CA elray Member Re: NOT True Usage-based pricing said by AlfredNewman6: Actaully we did pay for that expense, that is what our monthly bills are supposed to include. Ongoing maintainence and future expansions.





To convince CableCo to once again, rewire the last mile, just so a few dweebs can have "unlimited" use at 100M+ speeds, would require that CableCo believes it would make additional profits. That won't happen unless consumers are willing to pay significantly higher rates for access, i.e., for 4K viewing; that isn't going to happen with today's content contracts, it isn't going to happen under "neutrality", and the vast majority of customers won't pay the premium.



Likewise for telco. You simply aren't going to get anywhere claiming that you "already paid for" FTTH that doesn't exist and costs $4K+ / address to deploy in the real world. Telco has to see customers willing to pay the premium for such a service. Verizon has proven that they aren't. Nope. You're paying today for the plant investment that was installed over the last 3-5 years, and financed over ten or more - with the cable company and shareholders assuming the risk, not you.To convince CableCo to once again, rewire the last mile, just so a few dweebs can have "unlimited" use at 100M+ speeds, would require that CableCo believes it would make additional profits. That won't happen unless consumers are willing to pay significantly higher rates for access, i.e., for 4K viewing; that isn't going to happen with today's content contracts, it isn't going to happen under "neutrality", and the vast majority of customers won't pay the premium.Likewise for telco. You simply aren't going to get anywhere claiming that you "already paid for" FTTH that doesn't exist and costs $4K+ / address to deploy in the real world. Telco has to see customers willing to pay the premium for such a service. Verizon has proven that they aren't.



NormanS

I gave her time to steal my mind away

MVM

join:2001-02-14

San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616

Asus RT-AC66U B1

Netgear FR114P

NormanS MVM Re: NOT True Usage-based pricing said by elray: Telco has to see customers willing to pay the premium for such a service. Verizon has proven that they aren't.

It seems that somebody failed to inform Paxio, Sonic.net, and Surewest about that proof.

elray

join:2000-12-16

Santa Monica, CA elray Member Re: NOT True Usage-based pricing said by NormanS: said by elray: Telco has to see customers willing to pay the premium for such a service. Verizon has proven that they aren't.



It seems that somebody failed to inform Paxio, Sonic.net, and Surewest about that proof. Google, Sonic, Surewest, and others, will learn Verizon's lesson the hard way.



DataRiker

Premium Member

join:2002-05-19

00000 DataRiker Premium Member Re: NOT True Usage-based pricing Yea sure. Surewest is wildly popular here, as is Google. We are lucky to have both.

elray

join:2000-12-16

Santa Monica, CA elray Member Re: NOT True Usage-based pricing Any company willing to undertake the risk for FTTH is going to be "popular" with the locals. But that doesn't mean they're profitable.



To date, you can't show evidence that Google, Sonic, Surewest, or anyone else has found a way to lower the real cost of FTTH deployment, and their $70/month price-points for fiber speeds reflects it.



When you can show me data suggesting that the aforementioned ISPs achieve greater penetration levels for their $70+ product than Verizon has, while wiring more than a zip code or two, I'll be the first to congratulate them.



NormanS

I gave her time to steal my mind away

MVM

join:2001-02-14

San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616

Asus RT-AC66U B1

Netgear FR114P

NormanS MVM Re: NOT True Usage-based pricing said by elray: To date, you can't show evidence that Google, Sonic, Surewest, or anyone else has found a way to lower the real cost of FTTH deployment, and their $70/month price-points for fiber speeds reflects it.





»arstechnica.com/tech-pol ··· onicnet/



In any case, I doubt that a DOCSIS HFC plant would be more profitable for them to deploy; they would be starting from scratch with that. That would be $70 for 1Gb Internet. Seems most in Sebastopol, California are choosing the $39.95 100Mb service:In any case, I doubt that a DOCSIS HFC plant would be more profitable for them to deploy; they would be starting from scratch with that.

elray

join:2000-12-16

Santa Monica, CA elray Member Re: NOT True Usage-based pricing said by NormanS: said by elray: To date, you can't show evidence that Google, Sonic, Surewest, or anyone else has found a way to lower the real cost of FTTH deployment, and their $70/month price-points for fiber speeds reflects it.



That would be $70 for 1Gb Internet. Seems most in Sebastopol, California are choosing the $39.95 100Mb service:



In which case, other firms should be quick to follow suit, and we should all soon enjoy FTTH cheap.



Good find. Don't know how I missed that, amid all the "$70 Gigabit" headlines.

Google should take note and offer similar in KC. If its available in more than a few zipcodes, then my hat's off to Dane, as it would appear that he has, indeed, found a way to install and deliver FTTH profitably, at a lower price point, apparently, without requiring Google-style special-treatment from the local municipalities.In which case, other firms should be quick to follow suit, and we should all soon enjoy FTTH cheap.Good find. Don't know how I missed that, amid all the "$70 Gigabit" headlines.Google should take note and offer similar in KC.

tanzam75

join:2012-07-19 tanzam75 Member Re: NOT True Usage-based pricing Sonic has a different cash flow calculation from the ILECs. Because they did not own the copper, they were essentially sharing part of their DSL profit with the ILEC, in the form of the rental fee. Under fiber, this amount goes to Sonic.



They're also cherry-picking by starting with Sevastopol. Overhead lines, overhead drops, houses with narrow lots. Remember that the cost of fiber deployment scales approximately linearly with length -- what matters is not so much the population density per square mile, but the density per linear mile.



In my postwar suburb, the lots are about twice as wide as those in Sebastopol. Doubles the cost of stringing fiber.



dvd536

as Mr. Pink as they come

Premium Member

join:2001-04-27

Phoenix, AZ dvd536 to elray

Premium Member to elray

said by elray: "True usage-based pricing" would still incur a connection and meter charge, much like many electric bills.

however they want the service charge and the FULL NORMAL BILL + OVERAGES. THAT IS IN NO way like the electric company. its purely a CASH GRAB!!1

NoHereNoMo

join:2012-12-06 1 recommendation NoHereNoMo Member On the bright side, isn't it good to know right from the start that someone who [supposedly] works for you is both a liar and a fool?

Secyurityet

Premium Member

join:2012-01-07

untied state Secyurityet Premium Member Trained Economist Absolutely. What's good for AT&T is good for the country, right? By extension, the ISP's consumers...



jfleni

@bhn.net jfleni Anon Re: Trained Economist Trained Economist??

Equals posterior-kissing buffoon who will put a stop to those rude, crude people who object when their good buddy plutocrats steal and plunder from regular poor folks.



Bill Neilson

Premium Member

join:2009-07-08

Alexandria, VA Bill Neilson Premium Member Pro-Fake-Capitalism people should be cheering The major corporations get their buddies in....the corporations choke off any and all competition through inside money, political wrangling, and them writing the laws......they start campaigns with little to no evidence of how raising prices, lowering the product, etc...will benefit the customers.....and we are left with a product that is so overly-priced and under-whelmed that we are left in shock at how we got to this place.

Beans5

join:2005-07-16

united state Beans5 Member Caps I'm all for caps, and would prefer a cap on my plan where I get to eat all I want up to that cap, and am not throttled what so ever. It's better to me than the unlimited all you can eat plan, where you have to worry about others on the line, then your throttled, and dare I say, get kicked off the service for eating to much and you don't know how much is too much.



But come on, 5 gigs for $50 dollars is just to much with 10 dollar overages. Honestly I rather have 200 gigs for $50 dollars per month and $1 or $2 per 10 gigs after that; and that's wireless.



IowaCowboy

Supermarket Hero

Premium Member

join:2010-10-16

Springfield, MA ARRIS SB6183

Netgear R8000

IowaCowboy Premium Member Avoiding caps One way to avoid caps is to subscribe to a cable/satellite service. I tried Netflix but I found that I used my Comcast subscription more than Netflix so I cancelled Netflix.



I use 50 GB at most among the three computers and the three iOS devices (connected to Wi-Fi) on my Comcast connection.

rootzoned

join:2011-11-12

Ashburn, VA rootzoned Member Re: Avoiding caps I just downloaded 60GB+ of games from Steam today (woohoo, holiday sale!) ... isn't the first time this month either.



Luckily I'm on FiOS (no cap, no limit, etc.. for now at least) so they (Verizon) get to make their fixed amount of money out of me every month and because I can, I also spend money elsewhere on-line (places like Steam, Netflix, etc.), so everyone benefits. If I had a low cap I'd probably not be buying tons of games or watching movies on impulse and the economy, as a whole, loses out.



NormanS

I gave her time to steal my mind away

MVM

join:2001-02-14

San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616

Asus RT-AC66U B1

Netgear FR114P

1 recommendation NormanS to IowaCowboy

MVM to IowaCowboy

said by IowaCowboy: One way to avoid caps is to subscribe to a cable/satellite service. I tried Netflix but I found that I used my Comcast subscription more than Netflix so I cancelled Netflix.

Eh? Why should I pay $80 a month for 600 channels, of which I'd only tune in six shows a week on four of them?



meeeeeeeeee

join:2003-07-13

Newburgh, NY meeeeeeeeee Member If this was anything but a money grab Then the top possible price would be the current "unlimited" price. Once this billing system is implemented, those using less data would pay a lesser price. This is just another scheme to charge us MORE than the exorbitant prices we are already paying.



KrK

Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy

Premium Member

join:2000-01-17

Tulsa, OK 1 edit KrK Premium Member Another Fox hired to guard the Henhouse Lobbyist $$$ at work



What a load of crap.



He probably agrees that Content providers should have to pay ISP's for "access" to the customers!

SuperWISP

join:2007-04-17

Laramie, WY SuperWISP Member Caps are good. ISPs are not charities. Caps are a perfectly reasonable way to make sure that everyone pays his or her fair share of the (very high) cost of providing broadband service. Would you rather see ISPs meter by the byte?



PacNWE97

@qwest.net PacNWE97 Anon Innovation applies to business models too The Internet used to have a per minute fee when it used dialup. As innovation occurred users were able to have a constant connection and a flat fee for the product they purchased (the connection).



Vonage, Skype, et., already proved that the current Telco/Cableco business models are outdated. Using the same infrastructure they can provide a "dial tone" for communications. They took the Telco business model of charging per minute, per locality and innovated making a flat fee of what was a per byte/minute.



Now the Telco/Cableco lobbies want to bring back the 1980s and reintroduce usage fees. The issue here is that innovation already killed off that business model.



Add to all of this Internet2 (i2). It's already rolling out via Google in some localities. How would usage caps apply to a 1gb connection, will AT&T, TWC, Verizon, Comcast refuse to roll out i2 and let competition leave them using outdated infrastructure and business models or will they continue their regulatory lobbying to have rules written to prevent innovation. Remember innovation isn't just technology, it's also a way of doing business. This is the issue with Steven Wildman, he's perceived to already be on the communications lobby payroll... will he prevent innovation in technology and business models to keep his lobby's happy or will he do what's right for consumers? I this era, I doubt his loyalty is for subscribers.... / huge sigh as I watch another piece of this once great nation going by the wayside...



famu720

join:2008-03-24

Greenville, SC famu720 Member ISP cap guy Just tax the public because you are too cheap to update your network. Caps do not stop congestion or piracy.



cork1958

Cork

Premium Member

join:2000-02-26 cork1958 Premium Member The guys from Michigan



One of the poorest states with the highest unemployment, in the union and DEFINITELY one of the dumbest run states in it also.



After 8 years of Jenny running this state and now this dink weed Snyder, nothing good is going to come out of Michigan for a while, even if the auto industry is doing good! The guy is from Michigan, which should just about say it all!!One of the poorest states with the highest unemployment, in the union and DEFINITELY one of the dumbest run states in it also.After 8 years of Jenny running this state and now this dink weed Snyder, nothing good is going to come out of Michigan for a while, even if the auto industry is doing good!

Rekrul

join:2007-04-21

Milford, CT Rekrul Member Why is this story "new"? It's amazing how people managed to comment on this story a full three days before it was supposedly posted...



Is there some reason that the dates on stories are being changed to make them seem as if they were just posted, or is this some weird glitch?

Paxio

Premium Member

join:2011-02-23

Santa Clara, CA 1 recommendation Paxio Premium Member Caps are used to create scarcity The assertion that caps are necessary to drive investment in data networks is ridiculous. Anyone who has access to a data center knows that we live in a land of plenty, data is not "rare" or "scarce" in the least. Prices per meg (burstable billing) have never been lower. There have never been more carriers competing for business.



Caps are only used to create scarcity where none exists.

old_wiz_60

join:2005-06-03

Bedford, MA old_wiz_60 Member And how much did the cable companies pay the FCC to hire this guy? Did they pay in cash? Swiss bank accounts? Hirings like this merely show to one and all that the FCC, like the other Federal "regulatory" agencies, are really controlled by the very industries they are supposed to regulate. Money is what controls the government agencies (including the DOJ). Corruption is so endemic in our government it is disgusting.

reliablefr

join:2013-01-04 1 edit reliablefr Member Re: And how much Is there some reason that the dates on stories are being changed to make them seem as if they were just posted, or is this some weird glitch?