Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ISP Bandwidth Caps are Really Rate Hikes

cringely.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 45 posts

Re: ISP Bandwidth Caps are Really Rate Hikes

#31

Post by wmf »

joelhaus wrote: post #25

Does anyone feel that the new white space standard (up to 22Mbps over 12,000 sq mi; 802.22) could be a game changer? Original article was posted here yesterday: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2814917 Cross-posting my question from this thread: Is this spectrum encumbered by any regulations that would prevent an enterprising individual from leasing some land near a backbone connection and setting up a startup ISP…

22 Mbps shared by hundreds or thousands of customers is much worse than cable or DSL. You can already do ~100 Mbps at decent range in 2.4 GHz using Ubiquiti or similar equipment; there are dozens of WISPs doing this and if they're lucky they barely break even.

Re: ISP Bandwidth Caps are Really Rate Hikes

#32

Post by wmf »

ericd wrote: post #22
wmf wrote: post #3

Cringely doesn't mention ISPs' claims that they will increase the caps every year. I'm willing to wait for them to renege before breaking out the torches and pitchforks.

And if they reneg, are you going to be able to get enough pitchforks to make a difference?

No, which is why Cringely's rant is pointless.

Re: ISP Bandwidth Caps are Really Rate Hikes

#33

Post by MrVitaliy »

Nrsolis wrote: post #29
MrVitaliy wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix client has been out on Android phone OS for awhile and is quite popular. http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/mobilebroadband/?page=pla... Default data plan for smart phone is $30/mo, capped at 2Gb/mo, on a 4G network. Their maximum cap is 10Gb/mo for an outrageous price of $80/mo. It is evident that the whole point of 4G network for Verizon is to bring their customer to the monthly cap at a blazing speed and s…

Ya know, I can't help feeling that this quote is apropos: "Everything is amazing, and nobody is happy." --Louis C.K. It used to be the case that you couldn't get ANYTHING approaching 5mbps download speed in your home. Now we regularly get 15, 25, and even 50mbps download speeds. You also couldn't get decent wireless data. Remember EDGE? 1xRTT? Try streaming Netflix back then. I remember Airphone and using a MODEM to…

I can't disagree. Perhaps it's all the Netflix, Dropbox and Youtubes that are way ahead of what wireless infrastructure can currently support. And frankly, it is those cloud services that steal the spotlight not the ISPs.

Although, having unlimited 56kb connection and downloading non-stop for a month (maximum utilization on customer's end with whooping 3kbyte/s) would result in roughly 7.5 Gbytes of downloaded data per month. Which is still 4x the standard 2Gb limit set by cellular phone companies. Not to mention cheaper.

Re: ISP Bandwidth Caps are Really Rate Hikes

#34

Post by joelhaus »

wmf wrote: post #31
joelhaus wrote: post #25

Does anyone feel that the new white space standard (up to 22Mbps over 12,000 sq mi; 802.22) could be a game changer? Original article was posted here yesterday: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2814917 Cross-posting my question from this thread: Is this spectrum encumbered by any regulations that would prevent an enterprising individual from leasing some land near a backbone connection and setting up a startup ISP…

22 Mbps shared by hundreds or thousands of customers is much worse than cable or DSL. You can already do ~100 Mbps at decent range in 2.4 GHz using Ubiquiti or similar equipment; there are dozens of WISPs doing this and if they're lucky they barely break even.

Thanks Wes - If I understand correctly, it's the density of end-points within range that would determine whether the economics are favorable.

Wondering then, what is the use case for this new standard? Only very rural areas?

Re: ISP Bandwidth Caps are Really Rate Hikes

#35

Post by cma »

Game_Ender wrote: post #17
baddox wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my small town of 10,000 people, to my college town with 100,000, to my current home in San Francisco, there has always been at least two broadband providers: usually the local cable company and AT&T DSL. Perhaps this isn't the norm, or perhaps two companies with completely separate local infrastructures isn't enough competition.

DSL is not good competition for any reasonable cable internet service. In Pittsburgh Comcast's $60 a month service is 5 times the speed of the $25 a month 1-3 mbps DSL service offered by Verizon DSL. The DSL connection is barely enough for reasonable quality video streaming, but it's not enough if you want to have two people use pipe at the same time. FIOS does provide decent competition but it's availability is limi…

You can get two lines and bond them.

Re: ISP Bandwidth Caps are Really Rate Hikes

#36

Post by pasbesoin »

e40 wrote: post #28
wmf wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Business service?

Yes, but it's expensive. I pay $89 + $10 for static IPs per month. The data rates I get: 50+Mbps/6Mbps. I torrent tv shows and I've never noticed any problems seeding. My downloads usually start out at 3-5MB/s, and drop down to 2MB/s. Clearly they are throttling the downstream, but I can live with that rate. EDIT: I don't know what the advertised rates were, but they were less (20/5?).

There was some discussion around this recently (e.g. my recent history for a link into it). My Comcast residential rate is approaching that level. Installation fee and lengthy commitment aside, it would make sense for me to switch to their low end business plan.

Re: ISP Bandwidth Caps are Really Rate Hikes

#37

Post by noonespecial »

I wish it was just a rate hike. Instead, you are often simply cut off with no recourse for exceeding the cap. You can't pay more and get more.

If you're not granny checking her email and facebook, you're not welcome here.

I think its more about quietly but forcefully sending the message that your internet is not for tv.

Re: ISP Bandwidth Caps are Really Rate Hikes

#38

Post by nitrogen »

cma wrote: post #35
Game_Ender wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DSL is not good competition for any reasonable cable internet service. In Pittsburgh Comcast's $60 a month service is 5 times the speed of the $25 a month 1-3 mbps DSL service offered by Verizon DSL. The DSL connection is barely enough for reasonable quality video streaming, but it's not enough if you want to have two people use pipe at the same time. FIOS does provide decent competition but it's availability is limi…

You can get two lines and bond them.

That's about as useful as taking two slices of bread, gluing them together, and declaring the result a complete bakery. You'd have to get ten bonded DSL lines to compare with the speed of a cable modem in my area.

Re: ISP Bandwidth Caps are Really Rate Hikes

#39

Post by nitrogen »

Nrsolis wrote: post #29
MrVitaliy wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix client has been out on Android phone OS for awhile and is quite popular. http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/mobilebroadband/?page=pla... Default data plan for smart phone is $30/mo, capped at 2Gb/mo, on a 4G network. Their maximum cap is 10Gb/mo for an outrageous price of $80/mo. It is evident that the whole point of 4G network for Verizon is to bring their customer to the monthly cap at a blazing speed and s…

Ya know, I can't help feeling that this quote is apropos: "Everything is amazing, and nobody is happy." --Louis C.K. It used to be the case that you couldn't get ANYTHING approaching 5mbps download speed in your home. Now we regularly get 15, 25, and even 50mbps download speeds. You also couldn't get decent wireless data. Remember EDGE? 1xRTT? Try streaming Netflix back then. I remember Airphone and using a MODEM to…

Ya know, I can't help feeling that this quote is apropos:

"Everything is amazing, and nobody is happy." --Louis C.K.

Whenever this point is raised, I always argue that human progress depends on the amazing becoming commonplace, luxuries becoming essentials, etc. If we were always walking around being bewildered by everything, we'd have no reason to improve.

Re: ISP Bandwidth Caps are Really Rate Hikes

#40

Post by Nrsolis »

nitrogen wrote: post #39
Nrsolis wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ya know, I can't help feeling that this quote is apropos: "Everything is amazing, and nobody is happy." --Louis C.K. It used to be the case that you couldn't get ANYTHING approaching 5mbps download speed in your home. Now we regularly get 15, 25, and even 50mbps download speeds. You also couldn't get decent wireless data. Remember EDGE? 1xRTT? Try streaming Netflix back then. I remember Airphone and using a MODEM to…

Ya know, I can't help feeling that this quote is apropos: "Everything is amazing, and nobody is happy." --Louis C.K. Whenever this point is raised, I always argue that human progress depends on the amazing becoming commonplace, luxuries becoming essentials, etc. If we were always walking around being bewildered by everything, we'd have no reason to improve.

My main point was to illustrate just how far we've come in absolute terms.

My second point was to point out that there are real reasons why the assumptions made about what broadband "costs" aren't really relevant to what you "pay" for it.

Without putting too fine a point on it, CAPEX on equipment/fiber tend to be dwarfed by the OPEX of leasing and labor costs associated with running a telecomm business for profit. Somewhat distended depreciation schedules mandated by GAAP compound the problem of removing obsolete assets from production networks and replacing them with newer equipment.

BTW, pricing for "Internet" has been "metered" almost from the beginning of commercial availability. UUNET did 95th percentile pricing for almost all of its dedicated access customers because that was the best way to tie consumption patterns to bandwidth availability.

If bandwidth seems expensive now, it's only because you've been paying for it for a very, very short time.

Post reply on HN