Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The world you describe doesn't exist. If the ISP's were losing money on High-Bandwidth users, they wouldn't be providing the service.
The ISP's couldn't afford to lose the money from these users, therefore backed down.
IMO, the saber-rattling from Congress made them back down, not the online squawking of customers. The graph in the previous post shows that T-W broadband revenues and subscribers went up in the past year.
b.s. your lack of understanding that high bandwidth users aren't costing TWC much of any additional investment in their infrastructure shows... it's boils down to capitalistic greed, and a baked attempt at remonetizing a flat industry w/o any creativity input, investment, or new 'real' product put forth...
I understand it is the high bandwidth users that a driving the investment. Without them, there would be no need for a docsis 3.0 upgrade. MOst user very little bandwidth and small Fraction of the users use most of the bandwidth. SO yes, the small consumers do in fact subsidize the cost of the large consumers.
Quote:
Wasn't talking about FIOS. I'm well aware of how much its cost is bludgeoning Verizon to death... OP's statement was too broad. But if you'd like to split hairs, show me credible source which shows TWC spent more than 2 billion in any given year... might as well show ATT too, because I don't buy it simply on your word.
Just look at their investor site. It appears TW spends about 750M every quarter in capital investment. Supporting 15M is not cheap.
Check ATTs investor site as well. They both spend billions every year upgrading systems to support their users.
Quote:
You think?! They're still 1st out the gate in terms of backhandedly ripping off the consumer.
It's so obvious that TWC was and still very much is full of sh1t or that wouldn't have retracted their new price plans. I thank the tech journalists and people who saw through their lies for that...
TW is not my favorite company and I think they had the caps set too low, but they do have a point on consumption. If you do use more(and significantly more at that), you should pay more.
The world you describe doesn't exist. If the ISP's were losing money on High-Bandwidth users, they wouldn't be providing the service.
The ISP's couldn't afford to lose the money from these users, therefore backed down.
You actually have it wrong, these are really customers they dont want as they cost too much. If it were not for all the low bandwidth users(which are most of the customers), the consumption of high end users would not be possible at the price of the service. Dedicated bandwidth is far more expensive than oversold bandwidth.
IMO, the saber-rattling from Congress made them back down, not the online squawking of customers. The graph in the previous post shows that T-W broadband revenues and subscribers went up in the past year.
congress, particularly, one congressman (eric massa d-ny) 'rattled' due to his constituents 'squawking'... which brings us to the ancient debate, the chicken or the egg. I think the whole idea was to schmooze the consumers and make 'em think it's expected, and then ATT would follow suit in the fall and the short term memory effect would kick in, me thinks anyway... 'except ATT left 'em out to burn and jumped into the trenches for cover.
Last edited by tekka-maki; 07-14-2009 at 10:11 PM..
I understand it is the high bandwidth users that a driving the investment. Without them, there would be no need for a docsis 3.0 upgrade. MOst user very little bandwidth and small Fraction of the users use most of the bandwidth. SO yes, the small consumers do in fact subsidize the cost of the large consumers.
Wrong... It is the market and competitors that drive the relatively MINIMAL investment to 3.0. They need DOCSIS 3.0 if only to be relevant as a tier 1 service provider... faster is always better marketing/PR, even if people aren't using it or the bandwidth upgrade isn't even truly palpable... see 'turbo-boost'. Nevermind the plethora of VoD services, Internet Streaming, et. al. that weren't available when DOCSIS 2 was the new guy on the block. It is... exactly what I described, and their financial reports, and lack of innovation substantiate this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
Just look at their investor site. It appears TW spends about 750M every quarter in capital investment. Supporting 15M is not cheap.
Check ATTs investor site as well. They both spend billions every year upgrading systems to support their users.
Again, BS. TWC's revenue is going up while it's costs are going down. Did you not see the bar graph which represents TWC's own financial statement costs from 2007 and 2008? I see 164 mil and a 12% drop from that in 2008, while revenue is up 11% during the same time period. Are you suggesting that TWC's own financial reports are incorrect?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
TW is not my favorite company and I think they had the caps set too low, but they do have a point on consumption. If you do use more(and significantly more at that), you should pay more.
Again, their 'point' is unsubstantiated which is why they reneged on the cap. Their point on 'bandwidth hogs' just doesn't add up to justify the egregious caps proposed. You can't realistically deny this or there would already be a cap in place in both S.A. and Austin.
Fact: Internet backbone bandwidth is cheap or free (and plummeting in cost annually to the tune of 50 percent a year), DOCSIS upgrades are a bargain ($20-100 per customer; the higher end only for customers that require a new modem), and competitors in the same business can offer multiple times higher than TWC's maximum proposed caps.
Also, even as traffic increases, traffic costs on major Internet backbones have been decreasing by 50 percent a year—an obvious market signal that capacity is plentiful at the core and in no danger of "browning out", despite the 'doomsday' prediction (Internet "exaflood" theories) that TWC initially supported in their argument for the caps.
I wish they would implement those paltry caps. I think there would be a mass exodus. Personally, I'd leave and go to the next ISP w/o caps (oh wait, I did: see Earthlink, the irony is they use TWC infrastructure). And once they all turn to the dark side... well, that'll be when I use 3G tether exclusively and more closely monitor my usage, because if I"m gonna have some egregious cap at the end of the day, I might as well be able to utilize my connection on the go. Either way, TWC will get burned, and this puts a smile on my face at the end of the day.
Wrong... It is the market and competitors that drive the relatively MINIMAL investment to 3.0. They need DOCSIS 3.0 if only to be relevant as a tier 1 service provider... faster is always better marketing/PR, even if people aren't using it or the bandwidth upgrade isn't even truly palpable... see 'turbo-boost'. Nevermind the plethora of VoD services, Internet Streaming, et. al. that weren't available when DOCSIS 2 was the new guy on the block. It is... exactly what I described, and their financial reports, and lack of innovation substantiate this...
I generally agree fast is better from a marketing standpoint, however current docsis standards serve most users well. Those that want more bandwidth should be willing to pay for it.
Docsis 3.0 is minimal investment, around $150 per household pass. But remember TW serves more than 15M households. It may be minimal compared to FTTH, but it is still a significant investment to upgrade their entire network to support it.
Quote:
Again, BS. TWC's revenue is going up while it's costs are going down. Did you not see the bar graph which represents TWC's own financial statement costs from 2007 and 2008? I see 164 mil and a 12% drop from that in 2008, while revenue is up 11% during the same time period. Are you suggesting that TWC's own financial reports are incorrect?
Yes I understand all this. And this has nothing to do with billions the telco and cablescos spend annually in capital investments.
Quote:
Again, their 'point' is unsubstantiated which is why they reneged on the cap. Their point on 'bandwidth hogs' just doesn't add up to justify the egregious caps proposed. You can't realistically deny this or there would already be a cap in place in both S.A. and Austin.
I completely agree on this and have said so several times, it is like you are not reading a thing I wrote. I agree the proposed caps were too low, but at the same time would not affect nearly as many people as you think.
Quote:
Fact: Internet backbone bandwidth is cheap or free (and plummeting in cost annually to the tune of 50 percent a year), DOCSIS upgrades are a bargain ($20-100 per customer; the higher end only for customers that require a new modem), and competitors in the same business can offer multiple times higher than TWC's maximum proposed caps.
Bandwidth is cheap at the backbone, but it is not free. Bandwidth is more expensive at the node where it actually get delivered. If you want dedicated and not oversold bandwidth it is even more expensive. Bandwidth maybe falling in cost, but consumption is also rising just as quickly. Not only do you need new modems, the nodes also have to be upgraded as well to support docsis 3.0.
Quote:
Also, even as traffic increases, traffic costs on major Internet backbones have been decreasing by 50 percent a year—an obvious market signal that capacity is plentiful at the core and in no danger of "browning out", despite the 'doomsday' prediction (Internet "exaflood" theories) that TWC initially supported in their argument for the caps.
It is in no danger of browning out because there is constant investment in capacity. ATT and verizon are currently building out 100G backbones.
Quote:
I wish they would implement those paltry caps. I think there would be a mass exodus. Personally, I'd leave and go to the next ISP w/o caps (oh wait, I did: see Earthlink, the irony is they use TWC infrastructure). And once they all turn to the dark side... well, that'll be when I use 3G tether exclusively and more closely monitor my usage, because if I"m gonna have some egregious cap at the end of the day, I might as well be able to utilize my connection on the go. Either way, TWC will get burned, and this puts a smile on my face at the end of the day.
For most people, believe it or not 20gig is not paltry, but I will agree it is very easy to bust if you are not careful. I will also agree that this cap would have to be adjusted fairly often to keep up with average bandwidth growth.
Enjoy your 5 gig cap while tethered, to avoid a 20 gig with a much lower latency connection and pay twice as much for it.
call me a crazy student finishing up my BSBA and going on for an MBA, but increasing profit while decreasing costs is how a business not only survives, but actually thrives. If I owned my own business, I would love to see stats like that.
and to include the actual topic in this post.. my RR Turbo still smokes anything from at&t and I am not being billed extra for my usage
call me a crazy student finishing up my BSBA and going on for an MBA, but increasing profit while decreasing costs is how a business not only survives, but actually thrives. If I owned my own business, I would love to see stats like that.
I agree these caps were more aimed at protecting their vod sales.
I suppose we should move away from flat pricing models for telephone by the same logic then, right? People who use the phone more than others should pay more. It's only fair. They use more.
Still, the problem is NOTHING IS ACTUALLY USED. There's just only so much space in the pipe, sure, but me typing this post does not deplete anything.
The capacity is there. It's always been there and if these monopolies would invest in their networks, we could have significantly more capacity.
Yes, it is obvious that these caps were designed and not marketed as methods to protect their other business, namely video. That's a huge conflict of interest that makes the consumer suffer.
And their talking point that low consumers will get lower bills? There is no way this will happen. They claim that most of their consumers don't use over X number of gigs a month, and these are the people they're saying will save money. No, Time Warner will get the money they've already had and just suck the money out of people who actually use their connection for more than news, weather, and email.
What they're trying to do is commit highway robbery and until San Antonio gets another major competitor Time Warner and AT&T know they can effectively do whatever the hell they want to do to us and we'll still have to buy their service if we want any kind of semi-modern internet connectivity.
It's a damn shame the Europeans and Asians took out technology and have something fast and cheap while we're stuck in 1999 and going backwards.
I generally agree fast is better from a marketing standpoint, however current docsis standards serve most users well. Those that want more bandwidth should be willing to pay for it.
Docsis 3.0 is minimal investment, around $150 per household pass. But remember TW serves more than 15M households. It may be minimal compared to FTTH, but it is still a significant investment to upgrade their entire network to support it.
No, actually it's $20-100, $100 being customers with old modems... where do you come up with these outlier figures all the time? And what is the argument exactly? They are justified in capping because of a not so expensive upgrade? Even your estimate does not justify price raises of $115 a month. Besides, TWC isn't even suggesting this. They've used far more idiotic excuses (i.e. OMG, doomsday for the company if they dont, THIS IS CHEAPER FOR THE SUBSCRIBER, pffftt) and have been called out as a result. Nevermind they dare not even introduce the metered plans in places where there is abundant competition.
Food for thought: 4 hours of HD television shows a week would wipe out the 40GB bandwidth cap entirely. 14% of Beaumont residents are going over the cap. I don't think they are 'bandwidth hogs'. In S.A. or Austin, it'll likely be far more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
Yes I understand all this. And this has nothing to do with billions the telco and cablescos spend annually in capital investments.
What not just say gazillion... it has about as much effect at this point. I have yet to see anything credible source which shows TWC is spending anywhere near that number a year. Thus far, what you are alleging is a complete fabrication. Even if you could prove it (which I highly doubt), it provides no support for the argument at hand (that TWC's proposed caps are justified due to expenses)... numbers don't add up. TWC is a highly profitable company.
Notwithstanding the billions that ATT has spent over the 1-2 decades in 'capital investments' have largely been at the expense of tax payers and government subsidies and have bee wasteful as they've sought to maintain and improvise archaic technologies toward the ostensible goal of 'universal access' while neglecting to face current market realities in both past and present. To put it simply, the dough could have been put toward far better (and profitable) use. This is partly the reason why our nation lags behind many other countries in broadband.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
Bandwidth is cheap at the backbone, but it is not free.
true
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
Bandwidth is more expensive at the node where it actually get delivered.
of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
If you want dedicated and not oversold bandwidth it is even more expensive.
Sure... see Committed information rate. See T1. Nothing to do with private consumers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
Bandwidth maybe falling in cost, but consumption is also rising just as quickly.
Which is why TWC is extremely profitable w/o the caps... and why, if they would like to remain relevant, should upgrade to DOCSIS 3 LAST year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
Not only do you need new modems, the nodes also have to be upgraded as well to support docsis 3.0.
Irrelevant. It's still cheap; has nothing to do with the cap; and is necessary for TWC to remain relevant in that market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
Enjoy your 5 gig cap while tethered, to avoid a 20 gig with a much lower latency connection and pay twice as much for it.
Thank you, I will... and obviously it was a hypothetical that will likely never come to frutiion but nevertheless, I don't play online video games so some negligible latency in UMTS means nothing. Plus 4G is in the works so who's to say that cap will always be 5GB as wireless may compete directly with consumer HSI down the road.
Anyway, this has gotten OT from my original post to you, and you have failed to substantiate (with credible linkage) the "BILLIONS" that TWC spends per year in capital investment so... thank you for the interesting dialogue. Further, since none of this will even effect me by this time next year (not that it'll pass anyway, what with the outrageously low tiers proposed by TWC w/o facts to bolster the claims), I choose not to continue this dead end exchange any further.
FACT: Price Tiers Harm Consumers, Business, Political Participation & Net Neutrality
TWC has made a hamhanded attempt to frame the argument into whether or not it is “fair” for heavier users of the Internet to pay more. Because of the technology involved, that is not the issue. The costs for infrastructure – fiber, routers, IT staff - are fixed costs, and Time Warner’s variable costs have nothing to do with how much data users download over the Internet. A heavy user does not cost Time Warner more than a light user to subscribe, maintain, or service.
Last edited by tekka-maki; 07-15-2009 at 10:22 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the whole idea was to schmooze the consumers and make 'em think it's expected, and then ATT would follow suit in the fall and the short term memory effect would kick in, me thinks anyway... 'except ATT left 'em out to burn and jumped into the trenches for cover.
In S.A. or Austin, it'll likely be far more.
Even if you could prove it (which I highly doubt), it provides no support for the argument at hand (that TWC's proposed caps are justified due to expenses)... numbers don't add up. TWC is a highly profitable company.
