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.
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
You got it all wrong. The question is that if your business was thriving comparatively to that chart, would you state the complete opposite?
Call me crazy, but you don't need a BSBA to figure that one out (I hope!), but you fail to recognize the context that is part of the linked chart.
You see... when you portend that your bottom line is being destroyed when your financial reports say the complete opposite, it's bad... mmmkay.
-Mr. Mackey
And pardon my confusion, but you said 'actual topic': what does your 'RR Turbo smoking ATT' have to do with "Time Warner to begin internet billing based on usage in SA (updated title) "? BTW, you do recognize that ATT was/is conducting the same capped trials in Texas right? So in all likelihood there will be no immunity there should TWC proceed with the cap policy in the future as ATT has already expressed similar plans in the same areas in which TWC will implement caps.
Last edited by tekka-maki; 07-15-2009 at 10:45 AM..
No, actually it's $20-100, $100 being customers with old modems... where do you come up with these outlier figures all the time?
The number was from the top of my head. It is an inexpensive option, but is it not free as more than modems have to be deployed. And considering docsis 3 modems were not generally available till 2008, most people are going to have old modems.
Quote:
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.
And 86% did not break the 20 gig cap. Double the cap t0 40 and that probably goes to 95% not breaking the cap. I doubt SA is radically different.
Quote:
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.
evey telecom/cableco spend bllions every year on upgrades.
Quote:
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.
You have been reading telle-halftruth too much. The reality is the telecoms and cableco have delivered serioud bandwidth upgrades over the year and continue to do so. Mid 90s broadband was sparse, to 85% of the population have a choice of cable or dsl. Cable is going docsis and telco is going vdsl/fttp. IT takes a while to rewire a country our size.
Quote:
Sure... see Committed information rate. See T1. Nothing to do with private consumers.
Until you realize that those commited lines are what feeds the consumers. A T1 costs around $300 a month these days. A $50/month consumer internet connetion can saturate several of these, you do the math.
Quote:
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.
Docsis modems were bairey available last year. And SA will be one of the first markets for TW to do docsis.3.
Quote:
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.
Looking at their investor website is not that difficult, but a link is posted above.
The point that I was making that you kept missing, was never about TW profits large or small. It was that casual users subsidize those that use excessive bandwidth. Managing these users has always been an issue for internet providers. If you think you can do it better, start your own isp, but you will soon find out it far more difficult than you think.
And 86% did not break the 20 gig cap. Double the cap t0 40 and that probably goes to 95% not breaking the cap. I doubt SA is radically different.
Even that number going over is staggering. 1 in 7, are you kidding?! Obviously, It will be worse more technically savvy markets (e.g. Austin, S.A.) where folks depend on 'net creatively, Cloud Storage as well as Streaming Vid services such at Netflix, Hulu, ITunes VOD, music, pictures etc. etc., both up and down. And what say you about the lower tier? A 1 GB cap for $15/mo w/ $2/GB overage charge?? Do you realize that a typical modem (w/pc shut off for a month) registers ~2GB of usage because of all the various port-scanning malware packets currently on the Internet?
We have approached a bandwidth needs paradigm. At the same time, TWC would like to take us back to the 90s. Obviously you agree. Good for you... but it would hurt other the market as a whole far more than the benefit to TWC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
There is not alleged about it. TW had 3.5B in capital expenses in 2008.
not bad for a company that spends nothing on upgrades. http://www.timewarnercable.com/Media...ease_FINAL.PDF
evey telecom/cableco spend bllions every year on upgrades.
TWC is highly profitable now and they allege otherwise... right or wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
You have been reading telle-halftruth too much. The reality is the telecoms and cableco have delivered serioud bandwidth upgrades over the year and continue to do so. Mid 90s broadband was sparse, to 85% of the population have a choice of cable or dsl. Cable is going docsis and telco is going vdsl/fttp. IT takes a while to rewire a country our size.
Riiighhht... I'm getting roughly the same speeds I had 5 years ago, for just about the same retail price. Most rural areas still connect via dial up or super latent SAT at egregious prices. You've been drinking too much kool-aid. If ATT spent as much time implemented wireless services to geographically disparate areas and laying fiber rather than propping up it's archaic copper business, lobbying, and suing municipalities with our money, 100% of this country could have access broadband and they'd be doing fiber to the door, not node. Nevertheless, you portend these 'caps' are justified by the 'upgrades' and they are not. One only needs to look at what TWC said, vs. what the financial report (e.g. cost, revenue) reflects, as well as TWC retracting their immediate plans to see that they are in fact wrong. If anyone is reading 'telle-halftruth' it is you subscribing to Internet "exaflood" theories conspiracy theories of bandwidth shortages on the horizon. The irony is that the metered plans don't even address available bandwidth, but how much data you can have in a month. If TWC was concerned about capacity of distro, they'd implement better QoS.
Lest you forget the network neutrality issues posed by such a bold move. Time Warner could push it’s own services over it’s competitors, in an “end-run” around Network Neutrality by offering their own services w/o a cap, making it impossible for a plethora of other competing services to remain competitive...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
but is it not free as more than modems have to be deployed. And considering docsis 3 modems were not generally available till 2008, most people are going to have old modems.
Never said anything it was free. But the cost associated with DOCSIS headend gear and required modems is KNOWN to be cheap in the field and is both comparatively less than the DSL costs to upgrade and incommensurate with the profit of the data caps proposed. The markup over cost on the proposed data caps is between 1000% and 1500% for crying out loud!
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
Until you realize that those commited lines are what feeds the consumers. A T1 costs around $300 a month these days. A $50/month consumer internet connetion can saturate several of these, you do the math.
Wow! Your ham handed correlations are astonishing. Just because a business pays $300/mo for a T1 (or fractional T1 even) with a bevvy of services (i.e. retail value) doesn't mean that's what the ILEC pays! ISPs and co-location customers are typically billed either on a weekly average or a 95th percentile utilization of a bandwidth of x Mb/s. My point was in response to you implying that consumers get committed information rates. They don't. Wholesale price of bandwidth is dirt cheap. Even if you assume the "average" TW customer only uses 5 GB a month that less than 8 cents per GB!
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
The point that I was making that you kept missing, was never about TW profits large or small. It was that casual users subsidize those that use excessive bandwidth. Managing these users has always been an issue for internet providers. If you think you can do it better, start your own isp, but you will soon find out it far more difficult than you think.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding. You are confusing bandwidth with data. Capacity of distribution would be the same before or after the cap.
To charge for data will have no impact on congestion because congestion is caused by an over-demand on the service at any particular time.
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. This is a fact.
Heavy users do not incur higher costs
For the hundredth time, according to Time Warner’s 2008 earnings reports, it’s high speed data costs declined by 12%, while subscribers increased by more than 10%, and high speed data revenues increased by 11%. If anything, the increased use of the Internet seems to have been extremely good for Time Warner’s bottom line.
AND... TWC already charges different prices for bandwidth... so if data really does cost them more money, why do they offer a service 20 times faster at only twice the price?
AND... if TWC is being forthright, why only implement the caps in markets where they have either a monopoly or duopoly (with ATT who is in the process of doing the same thing, but admittedly is more slick in doing so)?
Anyway, continue to obfuscate the issue at hand here, but until you show real, documented evidence that the shift from flat-rate pricing to metered pricing is necessary (which TWC themselves unsuccessfully tried to substantiate), you are simply wrong.
I won't hold my breath as you've brought nothing to the table yet...
Last edited by tekka-maki; 07-16-2009 at 12:49 PM..
Even that number going over is staggering. 1 in 7, are you kidding?! Obviously, It will be worse more technically savvy markets (e.g. Austin, S.A.) where folks depend on 'net creatively, Cloud Storage as well as Streaming Vid services such at Netflix, Hulu, ITunes VOD, music, pictures etc. etc., both up and down. And what say you about the lower tier? A 1 GB cap for $15/mo w/ $2/GB overage charge?? Do you realize that a typical modem (w/pc shut off for a month) registers ~2GB of usage because of all the various port-scanning malware packets currently on the Internet?
meaning 6 out of 7 would not bust the cap. I completely agree that internet video is going to increase bandwidth usage and that any cap impleneted would have to be adjusted to current usage patterns.
I think $15 a month for 1 gig would be a great value for those light internet users. Some people are better off paying for what they use, vs going to the buffet. And malware is not going to consume 2GB a month on port scans and attacks.
Quote:
We have approached a bandwidth needs paradigm. At the same time, TWC would like to take us back to the 90s. Obviously you agree. Good for you... but it would hurt other the market as a whole far more than the benefit to TWC.
I have had said many times I disagree with TW low caps. I will also agree that the caps are low to protect TW VOD service. BUt I will aslo say that there are people willing to pay less to get less. And that is not possible if their monthly fees go to subsidize the heavy users.
Quote:
TWC is highly profitable now and they allege otherwise... right or wrong?
Never said they were not, but that was not the issue at hand. Nice attempt at a deflection. THe question was how does TW spend on capital investments and it was billions annually. Far more than you wanted to claimed.
Quote:
Riiighhht... I'm getting roughly the same speeds I had 5 years ago, for just about the same retail price.
Not sure what planet you are on. but TW has fairly consistantly upped speeds here in SA without price increases. Same goes for ATT. Much higher speed are available today and at lower costs than 5 years ago.
Quote:
Most rural areas still connect via dial up or super latent SAT at egregious prices.
Every consider the fact that putting a satellite into space is not an inexpensive option?
Quote:
If ATT spent as much time implemented wireless services to geographically disparate areas and laying fiber rather than propping up it's archaic copper business, lobbying, and suing municipalities with our money, 100% of this country could have access broadband and they'd be doing fiber to the door, not node.
rural areas are not easily or cheaply served. You do realize that fttp vs FTTN is far more expensive and time consuming process. Verizon is spending 2-3x to do FTTP and only covering 3m new homes a year. ATT is covering 6m+ new homes a year with FTTN. There is nothing wrong with an incremental upgrade approach.
Quote:
Nevertheless, you portend these 'caps' are justified by the 'upgrades' and they are not. One only needs to look at what TWC said, vs. what the financial report (e.g. cost, revenue) reflects, as well as TWC retracting their immediate plans to see that they are in fact wrong. If anyone is reading 'telle-halftruth' it is you subscribing to Internet "exaflood" theories conspiracy theories of bandwidth shortages on the horizon. The irony is that the metered plans don't even address available bandwidth, but how much data you can have in a month. If TWC was concerned about capacity of distro, they'd implement better QoS.
I have already said I dont believe in the exaflood as there is constant investment in broadband. I have not said tw caps are justified as I thnk they are too low. I have said this many times. I have only said that small bandwidth users subsidize the larger users.
Quote:
Lest you forget the network neutrality issues posed by such a bold move. Time Warner could push it’s own services over it’s competitors, in an “end-run” around Network Neutrality by offering their own services w/o a cap, making it impossible for a plethora of other competing services to remain competitive...
Like I have said many times, this is largely an effort to protect their VOD.
Quote:
Wow! Your ham handed correlations are astonishing. Just because a business pays $300/mo for a T1 (or fractional T1 even) with a bevvy of services (i.e. retail value) doesn't mean that's what the ILEC pays. ISPs and co-location customers are typically billed either on a weekly average or a 95th percentile utilization of a bandwidth of x Mb/s. My point was in response to you implying that consumers get committed information rates. They don't. Wholesale price of bandwidth is dirt cheap. Even if you assume the "average" TW customer only uses 5 GB a month that less than 8 cents per GB!
Which is why I have stated many times the caps are too low and they would need to be adjusted to current normal consumption. Let someone pay less for using less and let someone pay more for using more.
Quote:
You have a fundamental misunderstanding. You are confusing bandwidth with data. Capacity of distribution would be the same before or after the cap.
To charge for data will have no impact on congestion because congestion is caused by an over-demand on the service at any particular time.
I fully understand how it works. I have worked for an ISP before
Quote:
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. This is a fact.
Yes there are fixed costs, but bandwidth is not a fixed cost as it can well vary.
Quote:
Heavy users do not incur higher costs
By you own numbers they cost 8 cents more per gig transfered. It may be cheap, but it aint free.
Quote:
For the hundredth time, according to Time Warner’s 2008 earnings reports, it’s high speed data costs declined by 12%, while subscribers increased by more than 10%, and high speed data revenues increased by 11%. If anything, the increased use of the Internet seems to have been extremely good for Time Warner’s bottom line.
I have never disagreed or disputed that for the 100th time.
Quote:
AND... TWC already charges different prices for bandwidth... so if data really does cost them more money, why do they offer a service 20 times faster at only twice the price?
Those fixed costs you are talking about, but bandwidth is not one of the fixed costs.
Quote:
AND... if TWC is being forthright, why only implement the caps in markets where they have either a monopoly or duopoly (with ATT who is in the process of doing the same thing, but admittedly is more slick in doing so)?
They are both doing trials. Neither one may actually do it.But I know every ISP tries to manage the excessive users in one way or another.
Quote:
Anyway, continue to obfuscate the issue at hand here, but until you show real, documented evidence that the shift from flat-rate pricing to metered pricing is necessary (which TWC themselves unsuccessfully tried to substantiate), you are simply wrong.
I have never said it was necessary. But the truth is those with excessive usage are subsidized by the users that light users. This is reality.
Quote:
I won't hold my breath as you've brought nothing to the table yet...
And you continue to miss the point. Bandwidth costs money. If you use more, it is not unexpected or surprising to pay more for usage.
Yeah, only 15% would pay exorbitant overages in a hill jack town. You so got me on that one!
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
I think $15 a month for 1 gig would be a great value for those light internet users. Some people are better off paying for what they use, vs going to the buffet. And malware is not going to consume 2GB a month on port scans and attacks.
LMFAO! Why yes [tongue in cheek] $15/GB is an excellent deal! It's much better to have 1GB in one place for $15 than 500% more gigabyte for $30 in any place with far lower overage charges... Are you by chance a used car salesman at 'Slick Ricks'?
I know... let's take a poll here? Who thinks 1GB a mo for $15 is a 'great value'?
Yes, I've read up to ~2GB has been reported per monh tapping modems... I'll try to find the source statistic, but nevertheless at those egregious tiers it will certainly contribute a noteworthy amount to someone's usage cap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
I have had said many times I disagree with TW low caps. I will also agree that the caps are low to protect TW VOD service. BUt I will aslo say that there are people willing to pay less to get less. And that is not possible if their monthly fees go to subsidize the heavy users.
Please, please, please, show data to reflect increased cost goes to subsidize heavy users. You WILL NOT. Don't point me to some broad PDF... frame and support your 'theory'. Wondering how that works when those costs resulted in a 12% decline while customers and revenue jumped 10%/11% in the same period...
All that will happen is that most customers will pay MORE. Tiers will present zero cost savings, but only LOCK people into TWC services by brutish attrition. In the end it will hurt you, me and everyone else. Actually I'd invest in TWC stock before the turnover, but I'm afraid it's corp. suicide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
Not sure what planet you are on. but TW has fairly consistantly upped speeds here in SA without price increases.
I guess the planet beyond Tejas? I lived in Chicago suburbs in 2004 and SBC's DSL Pro was 6Mb/s down 256Kb/s up for ~ $45/mo. Now, I have 6Mb/s down and 468Kb/s which retails for roughly the same cost... all the while the ISP's costs have gone down for the same service. I've been paying the same cost for 5+ years w/o a mediocre increase in upload speed. I've lived in Chicago, SA, and Austin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
Same goes for ATT. Much higher speed are available today and at lower costs than 5 years ago.
As I've illustrated, 6Mbps down 5 years ago and now are pretty much the same. Notwithstnding, how can you even posit that 'higher speeds' are available now at lower cost, if they weren't around 5 yrs ago?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
Every consider the fact that putting a satellite into space is not an inexpensive option?
Who said anything about SAT being a cost effective way to server rural or disparate areas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
rural areas are not easily or cheaply served. You do realize that fttp vs FTTN is far more expensive and time consuming process. Verizon is spending 2-3x to do FTTP and only covering 3m new homes a year. ATT is covering 6m+ new homes a year with FTTN. There is nothing wrong with an incremental upgrade approach.
lol, impossible talking to you when you overstate the obvious and negate my premise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
I have only said that small bandwidth users subsidize the larger users.
And it sounds just as naive to the subject at hand now as it did before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
Let someone pay less for using less and let someone pay more for using more.
Umm... hate to rain on your crusade against the elusive 'hogs', but that's simply NOT how it works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
I fully understand how it works. I have worked for an ISP before
I'm sorry... but you obviously do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
Yes there are fixed costs, but bandwidth is not a fixed cost as it can well vary.
We're not talking about 'bandwidth'. Well you are, but than maybe that's why you're so confused...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
By you own numbers they cost 8 cents more per gig transfered. It may be cheap, but it aint free.
and nowhere near $300 a month at wholesale value as you portended a short while ago to justify caps in general, lol... but with regard to TWC (and not ISPs/ILECs that piggy back), it is not as easy as saying $.08 per gig. That was merely to put the 1000-1500% markup into perspective. I guess that's not enough for you so I will expound below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
Those fixed costs you are talking about, but bandwidth is not one of the fixed costs
I didn't say bandwidth is fixed. I said:
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 necessarily cost Time Warner more than a light user to subscribe, maintain, or service.
Stay on their fiber, same cost. Travel outside their far reaching backbone to the many 'Peered' (i.e. contract) networks (which are the majority): no cost once link is set up and same cost whether you download 5GB or 5KB. Only time TWC pays transit costs is on networks which they don't have an arrangement and this is an extremely small cost of their overall budget. See page 83 of their annual report: High Speed Data Connectivity. Linkage
In fact, if you really get down to the nitty gritty, you'll see that TWC Internet bandwidth contracts in 2009 are actually 10 times less than those for its digital phone service, and are one of the smallest expenses on their chart at a mere 40 mil. Not even in the same planet to justifying TWC's (and your own) hackneyed argument of bandwidth hogs I'm sorry to inform you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
I have never said it was necessary. But the truth is those with excessive usage are subsidized by the users that light users. This is reality.
If I download 20GB today on my connection or 412KB, it doesn't necessarily cost TWC a nickel more. Which is exactly why I keep alluding to:
In 2008, TWC's high speed data costs declined by 12%, while subscribers increased by more than 10%, and high speed data revenues increased by 11% despite an annual ~50% increase in traffic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
And you continue to miss the point. Bandwidth costs money. If you use more, it is not unexpected or surprising to pay more for usage.
Which is exactly why TWC already charges for bandwidth! They are called tiers to the uninformed. If TWC were genuine in their effort to curb a diminutive portion of their overall budget (that common sense dictates isn't linked to heavy down-loaders per se), then they would increase the price of their bandwidth tiers no? But alas they are not... they are more interested in controlling the media, and taxing every multimedia purchase online, while simultaneously putting all the competition out of business in the process.
Last edited by tekka-maki; 07-16-2009 at 05:41 PM..
TW can suck it if they think I will be paying $15 a month for lousy gig. I play PS3 games online and between my g/f and I we both use the internet for various things other then just checking email. 1 gig will probably last me 1 hour at the most if not sooner. I said this before but if they charge me per net usage I'll drop them the second I find out that they finalized that plan.
LMFAO! Why yes [tongue in cheek] $15/GB is an excellent deal! It's much better to have 1GB in one place for $15 than 500% more gigabyte for $30 in any place with far lower overage charges... Are you by chance a used car salesman at 'Slick Ricks'?
I know... let's take a poll here? Who thinks 1GB a mo for $15 is a 'great value'?
How much should a bare bones internet connection cost? $15 is as cheap as dialup, which is what this product would compete with. Should a $15 account have unlimited bandwidth? if not, what limit?
Quote:
Please, please, please, show data to reflect increased cost goes to subsidize heavy users. I can't wait! Don't point me to some broad PDF... frame and support your 'theory'.
Pretty much every ISP reports that 5% of their users consume >50% of their bandwidth. So yes, the excessive users have higher bandwidth costs.
Quote:
I guess the planet beyond tejas? I lived in Chicago suburbs in 2004 and SBC's DSL Pro was 6Mb/s down 256Kb/s up for ~ $45/mo. Now, I have 6Mb/s down and 468Kb/s which retails for roughly the same cost.
Last time I checked the the 6meg service was 35/month. I am pretty sure it was higher a few years ago. When I first signed up with roadrunner, it was 3meg, by the time i dropped their service it was up to 7 with no price hick. I think it is up to 10 now. Uverse is offering 18 meg for less than I paid for IDSL about 10 year ago. The change has been cheaper and fster and I dont expect that to change.
Quote:
Who said anything about SAT being a cost effective way to server ruraly or disparate areas? Are you sure you worked in IT? I do and have, for 10 years... hmmm...
Sat wireless is about the only way to get 100% of all rural areas. It is much better than dialup. However terrestrial wireless is going to be next best option for rural broadband as it will be far cheaper and faster to deploy than wire line.
For what it is worth, I have 15 years of IT experience.
Quote:
Umm... hate to rain on your crusade against the elusive 'hogs', but that's how it works now. Bandwidth is already tiered.
bandwidth right now is all you can at a given speed. So in that respect it is tiered.
Quote:
and nowhere near $300 a month at wholesale value! lol.
You right and the more you buy, the cheaper it gets. However it is still not free.
Quote:
I didn't say bandwidth is fixed. I said:
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.
Yes every user shares a fixed cost. Their bandwidth costs are not the same per user. THe heavy users cost them more in bandwidth. Bandwidth is not fixed cost and it not free either.
Quote:
It's not and there's zero data to prove it. But please, just for entertainment value, explain that one for me, and while you're at it. If I download 3GB today on my connection or 412KB, the cost is exactly the SAME due to FIXED costs. Were it not, than how do you explain how:
THe fixed cost are the same, the bandwidth cost not the same. at 8 cents gig, one download costs a 24 cents and the other cost 4 cents. And that is according do you bandwidth cost number.
How much should a bare bones internet connection cost? $15 is as cheap as dialup, which is what this product would compete with. Should a $15 account have unlimited bandwidth? if not, what limit?
Yes, it should have unlimited transfer!! In fact, is already exists! AT&T offered it as a DSL package, and Time Warner offers it in a cable package.
Time Warner doesn't advertise it because they want to force these people who know they won't use it much to subscribe to much faster connections that cost more. Why is this? This directly conflicts with the argument that people who use less should pay less! Hint: it's not because they're trying to force these customers to subsidize their higher bandwidth tiers (meaning faster connections, for those having trouble with the lingo).
Time Warner doesn't care about people paying less, and it will not happen on their watch across the board. They'll cap the lowest plan at some ludicrously low amount and tell customers that they dare them to cross that line, while increasing the costs for normal users significantly.
This business is a lot like government, the more you give them the more they want to take away. We can either accept their arguments at face value and trust they'll do the moral and right thing, or look past their rosy arguments and see them for what they really are. Me? I sure hope Verizon comes down here, owns the market, and puts TW and AT&T in their place. We're the 6th or 7th largest city in the US for crying out loud. We should not have a stagnant broadband market.
Pretty much every ISP reports that 5% of their users consume >50% of their bandwidth. So yes, the excessive users have higher bandwidth costs.
Nonsensical inference. Fall victim to funny math marketing much?The fact that x% of TWC customer base downloads x% of data says nothing toward cost. You're a sloooow learner. Not only that but you fail to grasp the 80/20 rule. D'oh!
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
Last time I checked the the 6meg service was 35/month. I am pretty sure it was higher a few years ago.
Nope... It's 40 (attached), ~slightly higher~ before at ~$44 but had more value because it included binary usenet hosted by TWC. Same price I paid 5 years ago
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
Sat wireless is about the only way to get 100% of all rural areas. It is much better than dialup. However terrestrial wireless is going to be next best option for rural broadband as it will be far cheaper and faster to deploy than wire line.
Thank you for contradicting your own statement. You really do a great job w/o my help :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
For what it is worth, I have 15 years of IT experience.
Just cuz someone bakes bread for butternut for 15 years doesn't make them Gordon Ramsay. For instance, I've worked in IT for 10 but I'd never exert my tenure to substantiate an argument merely in and of itself. That would be foolish...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
bandwidth right now is all you can at a given speed. So in that respect it is tiered.
Thank you. That's all tiered bandwidth is really. Implementing a cap is not changing bandwidth whatsoever and speaks nothing for congestion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
You right and the more you buy, the cheaper it gets. However it is still not free.
Never suggested it was, just extremely inexpensive and no correlation to it and heavy users. It's not about how much you download on fiber friend, but if you are connecting to non-peer/non-agreement network. Who's to say I do more than you (even though I may download more). And besides the cost is so low that's it's not even worth discussing. You're a victim of 'hyperbole'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
THe heavy users cost them more in bandwidth.
incorrect
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwh
The fixed cost are the same, the bandwidth cost not the same. at 8 cents gig, one download costs a 24 cents and the other cost 4 cents. And that is according do you bandwidth cost number.
That .08 wasn't in reference to TWC. And I see you just glossed over my explanation to you about TWC's *ginormous* fiber and peered network costing not a single extra penny due to increased utilization; never mind that non-peered networks could very well be used mostly my light users, lol.
Absolutely zero facts before, now, and later to back up your correlation. Ergo, you have a very rudimentary understanding of how TWC's cost allocation works as it relates to data consumption. I'm going to go now, because I'm beating a dead horse.
Last edited by tekka-maki; 07-17-2009 at 10:57 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.
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.
but you obviously do not.
