Quote:
I already DO. I paid for a higher bandwidth connection. It's not my fault that AT&T doesn't want to deliver on what they promised. It's also not my fault that their attempts to extort content providers is failing miserably.
|
Originally Posted by White Hot Flash
No sympathy for someone that uses bandwidth that much. You SHOULD be paying more than someone who doesn't use it near as much.
|
Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.
Quote:
Its not just that, but ATT with their uverse has for sometime now been taking hits on quality based on the idea that running HD tv connections and highspeed internet and phone service all off the old network of analog lines not made for it was causing performance issues. Im sure that by making their customers feel that they might need to throttle down their usage they are hoping to eliminate some over use that they feel is dragging down their network.|
Originally Posted by Hyperstrike
Okay 150 Gigabytes a month is equivalent to half the total thruput of a T1.
150GB/month = 50GB/day = 2.08GB/hour = 605KB/sec Also keep in mind we're talking about KiloBYTES here. Connection speeds are expressed in KiloBITS. 605KB/sec * 8 = 4840Kb/sec (In other words, just under 5 megabits/sec.) Now I likes me some internet, but nobody (and I mean NOBODY) is on 24x30 (24 hours a day, 30 days a month). Even were you on 10-12 hours a day, a good chunk of that time is spent NOT using bandwidth. Unless you're torrenting, you have little to fear from this cap. But make no mistake. This is, essentially, an end-run around the net neutrality issue and a large provider's attempt to squeeze more cash out of their network. They tried rattling the "we'll bill content providers for stuff we request" saber and not only got laughed at, they got humiliation conga'ed too. Now they're going after the other side, their own subscribers. Notice how their own video on demand services don't count towards the quota. And, were Netflix, Hulu, etc paying them, likely they wouldn't either. Think "protection racket". |
Also keep in mind, kinda like comcast got smacked down for on the whole capping or blocking file sharing, this is yet another way to address this issue. Yet now rather then capping a specific function that comcast got smacked in court for, they are simply imposing caps on all usage to end run around that.
Quote:
Ummmm i would argue that yes it is our fault. Yours and mine, collectively we ******* and moaned about the net netruality issues, made our voices known that we didnt care for the idea of throttling back content providers etc. Well those attempts failed, now this is the result. Instead of profiting off google etc, the cable companies are going to profit off of us. So the customer maintains their freedom of choice that we wanted, yet for a higher price.|
Originally Posted by Hyperstrike
I already DO. I paid for a higher bandwidth connection. It's not my fault that AT&T doesn't want to deliver on what they promised. It's also not my fault that their attempts to extort content providers is failing miserably.
|
We all know how this is going to go though. Major providers will see this as some type of boom for them, start lowering caps to get over use charges. A small provider or reseller will break that mold and advertise unlimited use again, be successful and the big boys will squash them by going back to offering high or unlimited caps.
Quote:
Bullcrap. It's neither yours nor my fault that these idiots under-built and over-sold their network to this degree.|
Originally Posted by QuiJon
Ummmm i would argue that yes it is our fault. Yours and mine
|
Quote:
| collectively we ******* and moaned about the net netruality issues, made our voices known that we didnt care for the idea of throttling back content providers etc. |
The very fact that they were selling different tiers of service should tip you off that this is nothing more than a bald cash grab.
Essentially this is just a nudge back in the direction of pay-per-bit.
Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.
Quote:
Wrong. They're not capping "all" usage. Merely usage of any services not directly provided from within their network. Their television service doesn't count against the cap. Their own in-house video on demand service doesn't count against the cap either.|
Originally Posted by QuiJon
Also keep in mind, kinda like comcast got smacked down for on the whole capping or blocking file sharing, this is yet another way to address this issue. Yet now rather then capping a specific function that comcast got smacked in court for, they are simply imposing caps on all usage to end run around that.
|
Strictly and utterly anti-competitive.
Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.
Add in the duopoloy at best for a good portion of the country, massive profits that ISPs are raking in, decreasing transfer cost per gigabyte, and lack of investment in upgrading infrastructure (srsly, where is all that build out of new tech like fiber? Oh wait, that only happens when a municipality tries to build out something, the local ISP sues to stop it, then they start) and data caps are only good for one entity...
The ISP.
I'm lucky enough to have an ISP that isn't one of the "big" ones, but I pay for that by the fact that the my bill is $50/month for a measley 2mb down and 512k up. Yes, I'm getting ***** on it, but I don't have a lot of choice since I live in the country.
Quote:
Honestly part of me thinks that the Googles and such sould to a certian extent be responsible in some part of expanding or upgrading networks. After all if i drive a truck for a living to deliever products to stores i pay taxes in my fuel usage to support the upkeep and building or roads. If i am walmart or target, when i get my building license i am responsible for envirmental impact and building access streets, electric lines etc to my new store location. However internet companies like google, hulu, amazon, itunes, have simply built a system where all they are responsible for is their own support. Paying for the servers needed for their business and are completely reliant on the ISPs to deliver it for them but accept little to none of the cost for that delivery, but all of the profit. |
Originally Posted by Hyperstrike
Bullcrap. It's neither yours nor my fault that these idiots under-built and over-sold their network to this degree.
And I repeat, BULLCRAP. Again, neither we, nor Google/etc should be held for ransom just because AT&T under-spec'ed and over-promised. The very fact that they were selling different tiers of service should tip you off that this is nothing more than a bald cash grab. Essentially this is just a nudge back in the direction of pay-per-bit. |
Your right its basicly the cable/phone companies attempts to make a system that will have some customers at higher prices. And as people get more and more into relying on the online services and ask for more cap space but complain about the cost, then a new unlimited plan will come about. Just like cell phones, we paid for minutes, texing, data etc etc, finally now almost every carrier has a unlimited plan and its at a higher rate then really anyone needs. Because mostly people are dumb, and they dont realize that they dont need unlimited phone minutes when almost all their connections are through text messages now. But they want the shinney smart htc or iphone and the companies say if you want that its only with these plans.
This is really just the the same business plan that has worked so well for the oil companies for so many years. Every year before summer gas goes up like 50 cents a gallon or more. But at the end of the summer it never goes back down as low as it was. They maybe drop it down 40 cent. So progressively the price goes up, but it spikes, meets complaints, and gives some relief against the spike so the public breaths a sigh of relief and doesnt realize the price is still higher then it was.
#1. The US government paid to have broadband free for everyone years ago... the phone companies took it and didn't build it
#2. You pay for higher speeds with the intent of the contract of getting more and/or faster. One can sue over these data caps because the intent is not being honored. Theoretically there is already a data cap and one could view that data cap as what they are paying for and not the actual speed.
12Mbps x 60x60x24x30 = 3,796.875 GB/month should be my bandwidth cap.
949.2187 GB/month should be the cap of the 3Mbps people.
Imagine if an MMO said $15 a month...but only for the first 45 hours and for every 5 hours after that wer'e going to charge you another dollar. Is that fair? No. Well you shouldn't be playing for more than 45 hours anyways... And you're abusing the system if you are....and you're clogging the system for others.
Sorry no. I am paying for 30 days of access. Not 45 hours. It doesn't matter if the average time spent online is 10 hours a month and it doesn't matter that other people can't get on because I'm playing so much. It is the company's fault for not having more servers or having crappy servers. Granted, the system is built around the average user and that the average number of people on at time will be x and the outliers make that not necessarily so, but that is not the outliers fault. They paid for it and as such the company is contractually obligated to provide or return the money. If their facilities can't handle those outliers then they need to upgrade, or stop offering that service.
Quote:
Except for the fact that Google and the like are already paying for the upgrades...it's called their access fees.|
Originally Posted by QuiJon
Honestly part of me thinks that the Googles and such sould to a certian extent be responsible in some part of expanding or upgrading networks. After all if i drive a truck for a living to deliever products to stores i pay taxes in my fuel usage to support the upkeep and building or roads. If i am walmart or target, when i get my building license i am responsible for envirmental impact and building access streets, electric lines etc to my new store location. However internet companies like google, hulu, amazon, itunes, have simply built a system where all they are responsible for is their own support. Paying for the servers needed for their business and are completely reliant on the ISPs to deliver it for them but accept little to none of the cost for that delivery, but all of the profit.
|
What, do you think that bandwidth is "free"? It's not. They are already paying their fair share, same as the people who are requesting the data. They may not be paying one specific ISP that's ******** about Google and the like "using their pipes for free", but the fact is that they are paying. Same as you or I that aren't paying every ISP, but rather the one specific gatekeeper.
Quote:
[citation needed]
|
Originally Posted by Durakken
#1. The US government paid to have broadband free for everyone years ago... the phone companies took it and didn't build it
|
Comrade Smersh, KGB Special Section 8 50 Inv/Fire, Fire/Rad, BS/WP, SD/SS, AR/EM
Other 50s: Plant/Thorn, Bots/Traps, DB/SR, MA/Regen, Rad/Dark - All on Virtue.
-Don't just rebel, build a better world, comrade!
Quote:
Except for when you accidentally shove the external drive off of the desk while it is running. And it is the only copy you have of things. |
Originally Posted by sleestack
External backup hard drives are cheap.
|
But it's MY sadistic mechanical monster and I'm here to make sure it knows it. - Girl Genius
List of Invention Guides
Quote:
Incorrect. There were financial incentives at multiple points for major carriers (not just phone companies) to build out broadband networks. Most of them took the money and ran. But the broadband was never supposed to be "free for everyone". The money was intended to make it ubiquitous (not the same thing as free), like telephone service.|
Originally Posted by Durakken
#1. The US government paid to have broadband free for everyone years ago... the phone companies took it and didn't build it
|
Quote:
| #2. You pay for higher speeds with the intent of the contract of getting more and/or faster. One can sue over these data caps because the intent is not being honored. Theoretically there is already a data cap and one could view that data cap as what they are paying for and not the actual speed. |
People's only real recourse is to switch providers.
Quote:
|
12Mbps x 60x60x24x30 = 3,796.875 GB/month should be my bandwidth cap. 949.2187 GB/month should be the cap of the 3Mbps people. |
Realistically some significant percentage of your total upload speed's true bandwidth allotment should be used as your cap. But For people on a 12Mb service, less than 4% of your total promised bandwidth allotment is downright criminal.
I'm paying for the 6Mb service, some I'm inching closer to 8% utilization. But still criminal.
Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.
Quote:
Interesting reading.|
Originally Posted by Smersh
[citation needed]
|
Can't vouch for the accuracy in it, of course. If true, while not free, it would be a significant upgrade from what we see today where 10mb down is touted as being exceptional. Basically, they got money and didn't do a thing, if true. Combine this with the hundreds of millions in NEW subsidies coming out and I have to laugh if anyone thinks the situation will actually improve.
Quote:
Actually they are getting paid twice for the same usage. They are being paid by the sender AND receiver. It's like going to a little football meet and greet and having a fan pay an advertiser to have a NFL football legend pass them the ball... and then the advertiser charging the Legend the same amount to pass the ball. That makes no sense.|
Originally Posted by Dark One
Except for the fact that Google and the like are already paying for the upgrades...it's called their access fees.
What, do you think that bandwidth is "free"? It's not. They are already paying their fair share, same as the people who are requesting the data. They may not be paying one specific ISP that's ******** about Google and the like "using their pipes for free", but the fact is that they are paying. Same as you or I that aren't paying every ISP, but rather the one specific gatekeeper. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Smersh
[citation needed]
|
Quote:
They aren't getting paid twice unless the service provider for <x> internet company is the same as the service provider for the recipient. Otherwise, that 'net company is paying XYZ Company for their upstream bandwidth and I am paying QRS Company for the downstream bandwidth.|
Originally Posted by Durakken
Actually they are getting paid twice for the same usage. They are being paid by the sender AND receiver. It's like going to a little football meet and greet and having a fan pay an advertiser to have a NFL football legend pass them the ball... and then the advertiser charging the Legend the same amount to pass the ball. That makes no sense.
Indeed >.> |
What you are stating is what they WANT, not what actually happens now.
Quote:
That, yes. There is also the E-Rate program that's supposed to increase access in rural areas.|
Originally Posted by Dark One
Interesting reading.
Can't vouch for the accuracy in it, of course. If true, while not free, it would be a significant upgrade from what we see today where 10mb down is touted as being exceptional. Basically, they got money and didn't do a thing, if true. Combine this with the hundreds of millions in NEW subsidies coming out and I have to laugh if anyone thinks the situation will actually improve. |
It was the 'free' part that needed the citation.
Comrade Smersh, KGB Special Section 8 50 Inv/Fire, Fire/Rad, BS/WP, SD/SS, AR/EM
Other 50s: Plant/Thorn, Bots/Traps, DB/SR, MA/Regen, Rad/Dark - All on Virtue.
-Don't just rebel, build a better world, comrade!
Quote:
"Free" is an overstatement. It would see a significant price reduction compared to the absurd rates being charged now. There is ONE thing that would alleviate pricing concerns...|
Originally Posted by Smersh
That, yes. There is also the E-Rate program that's supposed to increase access in rural areas.
It was the 'free' part that needed the citation. |
Mandated last-mile line sharing. Any startup ISP can use the lines at wholesale pricing. That would garner REAL competition rather than the lipservice competition we have now.
Well, I've done about the only thing I can do short of dropping AT&T service. I've written my congresswoman.
If you guys are really as disgruntled as you seem, I'd urge you to do the same.
Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.
Quote:
I wrote the people who are nominally representing me before, about ACTA. All I got back was a canned response about how they appreciate my input and a form letter that had next-to-nothing to do with what I wrote about. I doubt that they even actually saw my letter to them.
|
Originally Posted by Hyperstrike
Well, I've done about the only thing I can do short of dropping AT&T service. I've written my congresswoman.
If you guys are really as disgruntled as you seem, I'd urge you to do the same. |
Quote:
Actually, there was avideo i saw a while back that told you how to stand out so that the congressman/woman would be highly likely to read it...|
Originally Posted by Dark One
Unless you are a campaign contributor, I highly doubt your letter will ever actually be seen by the person in question much less get any consideration beyond a form letter response, if that. YMMV of course.
|
One of easiest ways to do it... pen and paper, hand written
Quote:
See here is where i am not sure about how everything works.|
Originally Posted by Dark One
Except for the fact that Google and the like are already paying for the upgrades...it's called their access fees.
What, do you think that bandwidth is "free"? It's not. They are already paying their fair share, same as the people who are requesting the data. They may not be paying one specific ISP that's ******** about Google and the like "using their pipes for free", but the fact is that they are paying. Same as you or I that aren't paying every ISP, but rather the one specific gatekeeper. |
My thought or understanding would be that say hulu, they pay a server farm for their servers. They pay that farm for the data they pass through. And then you would think that server farm then pays their ISP inturn for the total amount of data they pass through to that isp.
However that ISP then puts hulus content on the larger network, which inturn passes it onto your local ISP who delivers it to you. That isp, your isp, isnt getting money from hulu if they are not the isp that houses thier servers. But thier network has to be able to sustain the bandwidth to get that content to you. Which is really the same amount of bandwidth that the original ISP has to handle when you think about it.
Now i dont know the real particulars, like i said, i would just only logically think this is how it works. So you local ISP is really only sure to get money from their customers. So since they were shot down to charge the amazons, hulus, etc to charge large providers for that delievery, their two choices are to suck up the cost, or charge the customer. In this case it looks like they chose to charge the customer.
So yes google et al are paying someone to provide the server, but not really all the parties needed to deliver that product.
Again i could be wrong in my understanding.
Quote:
In other words, they are paying for their bandwidth, depending upon which ISP provides access in the location of their servers. It is highly doubtful (IMO) that those mega-corps would allow server farms to be outside of their direct control, especially when their search algorithms and patented methods are their lifeblood.|
Originally Posted by QuiJon
See here is where i am not sure about how everything works.
My thought or understanding would be that say hulu, they pay a server farm for their servers. They pay that farm for the data they pass through. And then you would think that server farm then pays their ISP inturn for the total amount of data they pass through to that isp. |
They may be getting a deal in terms of what they are charged, but they are still charged and paying for their upstream bandwidth.
Quote:
| However that ISP then puts hulus content on the larger network, which inturn passes it onto your local ISP who delivers it to you. That isp, your isp, isnt getting money from hulu if they are not the isp that houses thier servers. But thier network has to be able to sustain the bandwidth to get that content to you. Which is really the same amount of bandwidth that the original ISP has to handle when you think about it. |
If their network can't handle a person (or severals) data requests, it is not the fault of Hulu or the like. It is the fault of the ISP for overselling their capabilities.
Quote:
|
Now i dont know the real particulars, like i said, i would just only logically think this is how it works. So you local ISP is really only sure to get money from their customers. So since they were shot down to charge the amazons, hulus, etc to charge large providers for that delievery, their two choices are to suck up the cost, or charge the customer. In this case it looks like they chose to charge the customer. So yes google et al are paying someone to provide the server, but not really all the parties needed to deliver that product. Again i could be wrong in my understanding. |
It is no different than someone wanting to make a long distance call. Would you have the phone company charge both the call maker as well as the call recipient?
There is no real "cost" that they need to suck up. Data transfer charges are something on the order of <$0.01 per gigabyte, iirc from an article I saw recently on Ars.
Quote:
$0.01 / GB @ 250 GB = $2.50|
Originally Posted by Dark One
There is no real "cost" that they need to suck up. Data transfer charges are something on the order of <$0.01 per gigabyte, iirc from an article I saw recently on Ars.
|
I pay $45
If my math is right. That's $0.18 per GB... or an 1800% mark up.
The only thing that meets and exceeds that is prescription medicine... That's kinda disturbing in terms of metaphors >.> A fair price would be more like $5, maybe $10...
Quote:
Found the article I mentioned. Here. It's towards the bottom of the article itself. Third paragraph from the bottom.
|
Originally Posted by Durakken
$0.01 / GB @ 250 GB = $2.50
I pay $45 If my math is right. That's $0.18 per GB... or an 1800% mark up. The only thing that meets and exceeds that is prescription medicine... That's kinda disturbing in terms of metaphors >.> A fair price would be more like $5, maybe $10... |
And even then, I fscked up and forgot to carry a zero off.
And are you always on, always running Vent and MMO, trillian and netflix 24/7/365 with no days off/out social life whatsovever? I'm somewhat of a recluse and even *I* get out of the house a day or two each week for purposes other than work.
I'm going to be putting the thumb screws to AT&T customer support about this though. Why exactly am I paying more for a 6Mbit connection if I'm limited in use like someone on a 768K basic connection? Literally, on AT&T's lowest tier, they could almost rock their connection 24/7 and never incur a cap fee. I'm paying twice that.
Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.