HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
I don't know how we missed this interview last week with the CEO of Sonic.net but you guys really need to go check it out.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Caps And Bandwidth Limits Are 'Artificial and Contrived'
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Domingo
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2004
- Messages
- 22,640
I'll never forget when the Comcast rep showed me what "Business Class" would get me. My speed went from 58MB to 400MB in the time it took him to call in a speed uncap demo.
Ashbringer
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,522
wait a god damn second...
are you trying to tell me that my Century Link connection of 256kbps isn't business class?!?
GotNoRice
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2001
- Messages
- 12,006
Did Sonic.net ever start offering anything beyond mediocre DSL services?
It's sort of ironic for them to take a stand against bandwidth limits when their own services are already bandwidth limited simply by the old technology.
It's sort of ironic for them to take a stand against bandwidth limits when their own services are already bandwidth limited simply by the old technology.
pgwalsh
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 698
We need more providers in my area.
Option 1: Comcast @ 50Mbps for $74 a month
Option 2: CenturyLink @ 1Mbps for $45 a month.
Option 1: Comcast @ 50Mbps for $74 a month
Option 2: CenturyLink @ 1Mbps for $45 a month.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2001
- Messages
- 15,814
old tech isn't an artificial bandwidth limit though... it's a technical limit.. if the copper pair can't go any faster there really isn't much they can do about it
pigwalk
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2004
- Messages
- 8,396
If they update their dslams to VDSL2 capable ones they sure as hell can push more speed on that copper.
This article and CEO didn't mention any reasonable reason why. Just "because" its artificial?
One would think if there were different speed/metered options, ISPs could properly judge upgrade requirements and scheduling.
While yes they can hit a couple buttons and upgrade customers, there has to be a bottle-neck to plan for and fix eventually if this was done.
What if everyone on a cable node got business class speed... they could possibly piss off their customers because someone flipped the "artificial switch" and then found out the node needed to be split up... pissing customers off with poor service.
If a companies infrastructure planning is built around the idea that everyone gets the same speed/meter etc then yes its no problem but could possibly cost everyone more (but maybe not, it is cable companies we are talking about here).
One would think if there were different speed/metered options, ISPs could properly judge upgrade requirements and scheduling.
While yes they can hit a couple buttons and upgrade customers, there has to be a bottle-neck to plan for and fix eventually if this was done.
What if everyone on a cable node got business class speed... they could possibly piss off their customers because someone flipped the "artificial switch" and then found out the node needed to be split up... pissing customers off with poor service.
If a companies infrastructure planning is built around the idea that everyone gets the same speed/meter etc then yes its no problem but could possibly cost everyone more (but maybe not, it is cable companies we are talking about here).
And then Comcast/Verizon can offer a slightly better service a point where Sonic cant recover the cost of upgrading. Sure it might be illegal but with appeals that'll take 5 years and maybe get the cable company a really nasty slap on the wrist they'll not even remember 10 minutes later.
Article said they currently offer 1GB service now to a select few markets, I think they are expanding ala Google style. Hopefully the next 10 years sees growth in this area, and a trend where we as customers have ISPs competing for our business.
Interesting. I'm a Network Engineer for an Telecom/ISP. We are working on getting 1G services to subscribers now. The think is the infrastructure equipment needed to transport and deliver such services can cost into the Millions. Even broken down, the costs can exceed $10,000 per subscriber.
pigwalk
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2004
- Messages
- 8,396
Telco's already can't afford to match up. Why do you think every Telco hasn't upgraded to VDSL2 everywhere? They have their niche already. Unfortunately that niche is old people and folk who are so mad at their cable provider that they're willing to drop to 1/5th the speed to get rid of them.
If this is true, then how does anyone do it (anywhere in the world). Maybe your company is bad at it? Not a dig - just a question. I know my company pays like 3X as much as they should for like - everything - due to their inefficiencies and wonky culture... or are you in a super rural area and that drives the cost up?
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,994
Did ya read the story at all? Having limits based upon the actual equipment is real stuff so yeah you expect it there. Having limits because you don't want to pay $10 more a month is what is the artificial aspect of it.
Yeah they still use DSL technology, however they flatly state their service is "Up to 20Mbps" and you get what you get based upon whatever factors (distance, line quality, etc). There are no tiered groups. They lease lines from AT&T, but their DSL service is cheaper than AT&T, go figure how that works.
They run fiber in their home town near the office. They have (had?) plans to run fiber in an area of the Sunset in San Francisco although they have been met with hurdles ontop of hurdles in the name of city zoning/protesting/etc, since they'd need to put boxes up similar to AT&T Uverse (except you get fiber to your home) but to be fair AT&T is having opposition putting in their boxes as well.
Although one thing I do have to say, is that I think the article is wrong with the pricing (unless things changed), 1Gbps fiber is $70/month, if you want 100Mbps it's $40 a month, and I think that's mostly a cost of running wire more so their a separate tier of usage (although it does kind of sound like it)
The largest problem with getting shit like this is opposition from local governments/people. Whatever cable company that runs in your city may have exclusivity agreements that were worked out, or someone needs an ecological study for putting up boxes, or boxes are grafitti magnets, or... and to everyone saying "Come to my city" ... you'll have just as many issues if not more (larger cities are less likely to have exclusivity contracts with cable companies at least for broadband). I would love to have fiber to my house, there's a fiber line buried 2 blocks away that was put in there some 8+ years ago, however all the old Asian people that live around me will never want to fork over any sort of installation costs for internet and that's the last nail in the coffin that kills high speed bandwidth deployment, at least Cable companies had another service (TV) that they knew people would go for so they absorbed a lot of installation costs knowing they'd make out like bandits with monthly costs since so many people would use their service.
This, 100%. Business class customer end equipment can cost around $1000. Then there may be construction to run the last mile out or into your building. A field tech has to install your device. A central office tech has to install the uplink. A tech or automated system has to configure both endpoints and everything in between. A software engineer had to approve or standardize the configuration. A hardware engineer had to design the circuit path. Data entry had to push the order through all the systems and databases. A sales tech or engineer had to try to convert the order from a bar napkin to something all the techs could understand. A salesman had to oversell you the service. All of those people have management. All of those people want paid. And then there's the execs and board.
Data caps and tiers are still bullshit so long as there is infrastructure to support running everything at its physical limit. That infrastructure thing involves all those people listed above.
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,994
Yeah, while 5 million DSL customers sounds like a lot, they really are not that large of a company, and Dane has said they do not want to over extend their deployment leaving the company in a state of financial limbo.
As mentioned before..Bullshit.
They don't break it down into cost per subscriber, its cost per mile. And there are a shit ton of government (federal and local) subsidies that Telco's got to cover the costs of laying the infrastructure. Once all that is in place, then it is just coming from the main pipe to the customer. That is at most a few hundred per subscriber in equipment and man power, Especially for straight fiber connections. The practice of justifying the cost of running the infrastructure down the street ceased a long time ago. The only ones that try and push that bullshit are the small telco's who took the government subsidies and basically did jack all and continued raping their customers. I used to work for a couple of these groups and I quit quite a few years ago after getting sick of the abuse they get away with due to local monopolies.
Wierdo
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,817
Wierdo
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,817
Their DSL speeds are speed limited, not bandwidth. DSL is slow, but bandwidth is no issue, they don't have caps because the cost to them is negligible.
They don't have caps because it's so slow you couldn't hit any cap using the connection 24/7.
Wierdo
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,817
Really, seems people have little trouble hitting Comcast's 300gb cap on a cable connection half Sonic's DSL speeds, so sorry to ruin the witty joke.
Outamyhead
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,263
Wait so my Comcast bill should be more then, because Comcast put in a brand new infrastructure into our park, they spent almost six months putting in fiber, conduit, repeaters, transceivers, and junctions?
They are completely artificial and contrived! I know I'm absolutely nobody and why should I matter but I've been ranting about it on slashdot for years 
Probably here once or twice.
(i hate those people who are 'i've been saying this all along..' - like who the fuck are you and why would i have cared about your voice - so just a heads up I'm being precisely that)
People always make the comparison that 'oh, you want better than what FIOS/Comcast/etc offer? go get your own t1/t3 and spend 1k+ a month'. The bandwidth doesn't cost money. The data doesn't cost money. Once you flip the switch, it's on. It doesn't cost you more or less based on the data flowing through. The only thing that costs real money is the infrastructure (which comcast and verizon (and others) already own) and maintenance. That's all your paying for when you build your own t1/t3.
Data caps are nothing more than a marketing and accounting circle jerk. Very few things in life are infinitely renewable at very little fixed cost (electricity and upgrades), but data and bandwidth most definitely are.
If you have 5 TVs in your house and leave them on 24hrs a day for for an entire month, outside of renting the extra boxes and paying your power bill, it costs nothing additional to your TV provider nor you. The following month you leave those TVs off for the entire month you get no discount. It does nothing to the provider, you don't even save them money. I'm not talking about pay-per-usage rates or anything, simply the fact that once you have infrastructure in place, costs are next to zilch.
grumble old man rant over
Probably here once or twice.(i hate those people who are 'i've been saying this all along..' - like who the fuck are you and why would i have cared about your voice - so just a heads up I'm being precisely that
)People always make the comparison that 'oh, you want better than what FIOS/Comcast/etc offer? go get your own t1/t3 and spend 1k+ a month'. The bandwidth doesn't cost money. The data doesn't cost money. Once you flip the switch, it's on. It doesn't cost you more or less based on the data flowing through. The only thing that costs real money is the infrastructure (which comcast and verizon (and others) already own) and maintenance. That's all your paying for when you build your own t1/t3.
Data caps are nothing more than a marketing and accounting circle jerk. Very few things in life are infinitely renewable at very little fixed cost (electricity and upgrades), but data and bandwidth most definitely are.
If you have 5 TVs in your house and leave them on 24hrs a day for for an entire month, outside of renting the extra boxes and paying your power bill, it costs nothing additional to your TV provider nor you. The following month you leave those TVs off for the entire month you get no discount. It does nothing to the provider, you don't even save them money. I'm not talking about pay-per-usage rates or anything, simply the fact that once you have infrastructure in place, costs are next to zilch.
grumble old man rant over
What is this mystical "speed" you refer to? Sonic won't even quote a speed before trying to bill me on their site.
Not to mention all the dark fiber that is available. Simply put, they don't use it so they can fake a supply shortage to inflate prices.They are completely artificial and contrived! I know I'm absolutely nobody and why should I matter but I've been ranting about it on slashdot for years
(i hate those people who are 'i've been saying this all along..' - like who the fuck are you and why would i have cared about your voice - so just a heads up I'm being precisely that
People always make the comparison that 'oh, you want better than what FIOS/Comcast/etc offer? go get your own t1/t3 and spend 1k+ a month'. The bandwidth doesn't cost money. The data doesn't cost money. Once you flip the switch, it's on. It doesn't cost you more or less based on the data flowing through. The only thing that costs real money is the infrastructure (which comcast and verizon (and others) already own) and maintenance. That's all your paying for when you build your own t1/t3.
Data caps are nothing more than a marketing and accounting circle jerk. Very few things in life are infinitely renewable at very little fixed cost (electricity and upgrades), but data and bandwidth most definitely are.
If you have 5 TVs in your house and leave them on 24hrs a day for for an entire month, outside of renting the extra boxes and paying your power bill, it costs nothing additional to your TV provider nor you. The following month you leave those TVs off for the entire month you get no discount. It does nothing to the provider, you don't even save them money. I'm not talking about pay-per-usage rates or anything, simply the fact that once you have infrastructure in place, costs are next to zilch.
grumble old man rant over
Wierdo
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,817
Their DSL is 20mbps I believe.
Dr.Diablo
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2011
- Messages
- 177
I am getting gigabit through my fiber connection hopefully later this month long as AT&T does not pull the "We own the lines" when they are leasing them from the city.
1GB or 1Gb? Man I would love to get 1GBps speeds. I'm stuck at 50 Mbps.
Gb - typing faster than my pinky finger releases the shift key apparently
bboynitrous
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2004
- Messages
- 2,514
Be lucky that you have that. Where I'm at, it's:
Option 1: Comcast 25mbps $75 a month
Option 2: 56k Whatever.
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,994
Funny AT&T had absolutely no problem slapping caps on their DSL service, and there's also different tiers based upon the price... er speed you want to pay for.
IIRC AT&T was 150GB/month, which is 5GB per day which is something you could do with a sustained transfer rate of something like 480kbps. DSL is slow but it's not that slow unless you're so far away from the CO that you're on the tail end of the signal.
Theres no such thing as being bandwidth starved in todays age. All these caps and limits are just there for them to charge you more on top of the what your already paying for for the connection. Its a scam mostly. Bandwidth capacities surpass consumer demand. Theres no such thing as running out of MegaBytes. You have the connections speed and thats that. These companies just artificially create this scarcity which is just fake and artificial so they can charge you more. Make them more money.
pigwalk
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2004
- Messages
- 8,396
Also not true. Dslams and redbacks can only handle so much traffic before they start hitting bottlenecks as well. Centurylink had huge problems with this 3-4 years ago.
I don't see either of those companies beating 1Gbps for $40.00/month (including phone service too, i think).