Hmm, IRONIC, DEMENTIA, and ALZHEIMER'S. Has nothing to do with my post. You even know what those big words mean
Me thinks you meant SARCASTIC. And I was.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Verizon CTO Sees Eventual Move to Metered Broadband
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Hmm, IRONIC, DEMENTIA, and ALZHEIMER'S. Has nothing to do with my post. You even know what those big words mean
Me thinks you meant SARCASTIC. And I was.
To some degree it seems like this is coming full circle. In the early days of the internet, when everyone used a modem and connected over a phone line, many of the portals to the internet (e.g. Compuserve) worked off of a metered model. For those of us that didn't have a local dial up connection, you could find yourself paying long distance fees on top your metered bill from your internet portal. Back when I played the original Diablo game online, the meter was always running for me.
My history may be shaky, but I think it was actually AOL that first really pushed for a flat-rate monthly service. That and their "internet with training wheels" approach was what led to their large popularity in the late 90s early 00s.
It's admittedly different now since we are talking about broadband, since there are technical issues with how much the hardware can handle. The lesson from that time, though, was that people like a flat rate structure much more than a metered approach. It wasn't until the metering went away that people really began to explore all of the things available on the internet. I would contend that it was almost necessary for the internet to become really popular.
My history may be shaky, but I think it was actually AOL that first really pushed for a flat-rate monthly service. That and their "internet with training wheels" approach was what led to their large popularity in the late 90s early 00s.
It's admittedly different now since we are talking about broadband, since there are technical issues with how much the hardware can handle. The lesson from that time, though, was that people like a flat rate structure much more than a metered approach. It wasn't until the metering went away that people really began to explore all of the things available on the internet. I would contend that it was almost necessary for the internet to become really popular.
Who would do something like that
I've only read about it on the internet...so I have no idea.
obviouslytom
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 29,735
Why don't we all get together and we can star up the [H]ard ISP?
You still have to use software to hack their servers to make changes for the faster speeds. Its not the modem thats slowing you down,unless its old, its the settings at their end. Its OK to unlock your modem I own mine but your treading into dangerous water hacking into their system. I don't know if its worth the risk for charges to be laid or disconnect.
I think you are getting your terminology confused, maybe?
I am not saying it's legal, or that I do it, but you are only partially correct. You do not have to "hack" their system to adjust your settings. You don't have to connect to any of their tftp servers at all. Chances are that you are breaking a law just by "unlocking" your modem as you speak, even if you own it due to the DMCA.
Here is a very general/rudimentary breakdown of how cable modems work:
- Cable modem broadcasts for dhcp address
- Cable Modem gets DHCP address from DHCP server.
- Modem registers on network. Gets configuration file from TFTP server.
- modem attempts to access internet. With valid configuration you are allowed to access the net. Without valid configuration, will generally bring up install page for respective vendor.
It would be hypothetically possible to get your DHCP address from the network and ignore the configuration file for your modem, thus never connecting to their servers or "hacking their servers".
On the opposite end of the CPE (your cable modem), there is a theoretical limit enforced, although your cable modem actually controls what your configuration is via that configuration file. I just quickly googled a cable modem config file and found this example:
Code:
Main { /* this is a comment */
DownstreamFrequency 123000000;
UpstreamChannelId 1;
/* this is a comment */
NetworkAccess 1;
ClassOfService {
ClassID 1;
MaxRateDown 512000;
MaxRateUp 64000;
PriorityUp 3 ;
GuaranteedUp 32000;
MaxBurstUp 54314;
PrivacyEnable 1;
}I am sure you can figure out some of the numbers
Hmm, IRONIC, DEMENTIA, and ALZHEIMER'S. Has nothing to do with my post. You even know what those big words mean
Me thinks you meant SARCASTIC. And I was.
-Sarcasm is a form of irony.
-Dementia is a cognitive disorder (which affect the ability to perceive things)
-Alzheimers's leads to dementia and confusion.
I supposed the proper word to describe you is "idiot".
no thank you metered broadband service
even if you don't pirate, there are legit ways to use tons of bandwidth
Downloading games off the Playstation network/xbox live, downloading rented movies from netflix, downloading games you bought on Steam/direct2drive
downloading music you bought off itunes
and i dont really want to have to sit there watching my bandwidth meter towards the end of the month, trying hard not to go over the cap, for fear of being hit with a ridiculous fee for exceeding my limit...
even if you don't pirate, there are legit ways to use tons of bandwidth
Downloading games off the Playstation network/xbox live, downloading rented movies from netflix, downloading games you bought on Steam/direct2drive
downloading music you bought off itunes
and i dont really want to have to sit there watching my bandwidth meter towards the end of the month, trying hard not to go over the cap, for fear of being hit with a ridiculous fee for exceeding my limit...
-Sarcasm is a form of irony.
-Dementia is a cognitive disorder (which affect the ability to perceive things)
-Alzheimers's leads to dementia and confusion.
I supposed the proper word to describe you is "idiot".[/QUO
Hehehe. Funny.
What did that have to do with the interweb?
Back on topic. I agree with a high cap, as already mentioned earlier. max speedx24x7x365.
-Sarcasm is a form of irony.
-Dementia is a cognitive disorder (which affect the ability to perceive things)
-Alzheimers's leads to dementia and confusion.
I supposed the proper word to describe you is "idiot".[/QUO
Hehehe. Funny.
What did that have to do with the interweb?
Back on topic. I agree with a high cap, as already mentioned earlier. max speedx24x7x365.
Are you off of your meds?
Hehehe. Funny.
What did that have to do with the interweb?
Back on topic. I agree with a high cap, as already mentioned earlier. max speedx24x7x365.
Are you off of your meds?
(had to fix your failure at quoting)
Apathy
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2004
- Messages
- 890
verizon is going to cap me? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
I have 20/20 fios right now for like 50$/month. always hits max speeds. but a 300GB cap is much much much too low for my normal levels of usage.
give me 1TB/month for 50$ at 20/20 and i have no problems with this.
this is shitty.
I have 20/20 fios right now for like 50$/month. always hits max speeds. but a 300GB cap is much much much too low for my normal levels of usage.
give me 1TB/month for 50$ at 20/20 and i have no problems with this.
this is shitty.
MrBojangels
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Messages
- 763
I don't even see how 250GB is an "unfair" amount of data transfer, with my current 25mbps fios connection that is just under the amount of data I could transfer in a day if I so chose. How the fuck is it unfair that I use my connection fully 22hours, out of the 720 hours of the month? On top of that I don't see this throttling bullshit occurring in countries where the internet providers are ahead of the curb offering 100mbps symmetrical home connections for less than what comcast would typically charge/
MrBojangels
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Messages
- 763
Comcast is a joke, you quite literally flash a modem, point it at the right server and configuration file and you are an un-bannable(you can change MAC address on the fly) and un-meterable customer.
JUSTJOEL73
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 669
Well yes we are paying for bandwidth that we don't use 24/7, or at least most of us. The business model the ISPs have been using is broken. The number of P2P users is just going to increase. P2P users are essentianly gaming the business model currently in place.
With the current business model, the expectation was that say for example, at any one time 10% of subscibers will be maxing out their alotted bandwidth. With the increased popularity of downloadable content, that number may have doubled or tripled, straining their resources. From the several P2P users I know, they are maxing their bandwidth almost 100% of the time. For users like me who spend less then an 1hr/day watching media on the internet, I pay the same fee as they do while using less then 4% of the resources they use. Is that fair? Now the ISP needs to raise my rates so they can upgrade their network to cater to those few maxing out their network. Is that fair?
Like I said, the busness model is broken. Metered internet is the way to go. They can even increase everyones bandwidth this way, since throttling won't be needed anymore. Imagine people paying for what they actually use. Wow. Most internet broadband users will probably see a drop in what they pay. Somehow I just like the idea of not having to carry someone else.
MrGuvernment
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 21,812
Why would they? your paying for what you use........
MrGuvernment
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 21,812
No it isnt? people on comcast could clear 250G a month easily and people do with their connections.
They can put what ever speeds they want, they could make it so the $20 package has a rate of say $0.01 per mb at max of say 10mb/sec, but the 20mb/20mb service is $0.03 per mb or something, again they would still oversell what they have so they need to cap speeds at some point so they dont bring their network down.
My thoughts exactly as i stated earlier, i am not going to pay for crap i did not approve to be sent to me or ask for........ i could see some legal battles over that, we all know how bad ISP's seem to sell off your email to affiliates of their's.
this isnt the year 2000, unlocking your modem now in most countries doesnt do jack shiet, because your bandwidth is all controlled at their gateways, and tracked on their side as said, so short of hacking your isp.. it aint happening, and you dont think your ISP would notice say someone who had a 20mb line suddenly downloading at 50mb....
get off the P2P deal, this isnt the real reason, this is their excuse, they want to oversell and not spend money building up better systems, this is there way of going on the cheap t make more money, screw the customers!
it is all about overselling what they have for maximum profit!
gwarren007
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,912
Putting caps just kills business, another wise Version decision
I am glad you know what you are talking about. Instead of reading what I wrote and maybe doing a little research, you spew the same FUD that everyone else does. You would do well in religion or politics with all of your FUD spewing.
With more and more ISPs starting to offer faster and faster service, you can get speeds in excess of 30mb. Once docsis 3.0 rolls out everywhere, you'll be able to get 60mb+. A little configuration change and you go from a 2mb/512k service to a 60mb/5mb service.
What MrBojangels said is absolutely correct. However, it's pretty much the same for ALL cable ISPs. It is not a complicated process and it's easy to avoid getting caught if you use a little common sense. It's still a crime, and one that I won't advocate; metering could well be flawed which is my original point.
I don't think metering is going to help anyone other than providers. Low users will be charged a high base rate just like cable/satellite TV subscribers. High users will simply be charged more. I doubt quality of service will come into play either; my 3Mbps download bandwidth will still cost me the same as someone else's 9Mbps speed.
On top of that, we can't control content very well aside from staying offline. Websites are getting more and more bloated and full of multimedia, some of which is more or less required by websites in the form of ads that support their site. Plus, we can't do much to stop spam, particularly considering that nearly everyone sells your personal information to one another, which generate more targeted ads and more bandwidth.
OTOH I figure I'm already subsidizing some of the cost that those ubiquitous "ISO downloaders" generate. Capping them wouldn't hurt my feelings any.
On top of that, we can't control content very well aside from staying offline. Websites are getting more and more bloated and full of multimedia, some of which is more or less required by websites in the form of ads that support their site. Plus, we can't do much to stop spam, particularly considering that nearly everyone sells your personal information to one another, which generate more targeted ads and more bandwidth.
OTOH I figure I'm already subsidizing some of the cost that those ubiquitous "ISO downloaders" generate. Capping them wouldn't hurt my feelings any.
It's been mentioned before on many sites but note that most(all?) the providers who speak in favor of metered billing also offer TV services. So those folks really do not care if they deliver their content to you via your cable modem or your TV, they get paid either way. Especially as bandwidth intensive offerings like Netflix/Hulu/Others gain more mainstream popularity and more and more folks use services like that, the telcos are going to look for a way to make more money off of it and they will hit you at both ends. If you download/stream and pay a premium to do so or if you take the other route and try the 'On-Demand' type TV offerings, they certainly don't care. Its just a way for them to make more loot and to put a crunch on the growth of online businesses who may be competing for the same dollar.
The industry should have been called to task ages ago for overselling their bandwidth at rates which seem criminal to me. Not to mention the monopolistic practices that exist and are expanding as we speak. Lets not forget advertised speeds vs actual...I don't believe the majority of internet users come anywhere near the advertised speeds unless all the stars line up just right and you slay a goat as an offering. It's like Hyundai saying the Accent can go 0-60 in 3 seconds but neglecting to mention you would have to drop it out of an airplane to make it possible.
Metered billing sounds great in theory. Pay for what you use. Simple. Anti-competitiveish, but simple. I highly doubt however that the person who uses their access to check email once a day and shop now and again is going to be paying significantly less then they do now for 'unlimited plans'. I could very well be wrong on that, but I doubt it.
Verizon wants metered billing - They offer TV services
Time Warner wants metered billing - They offer TV services and even kick customers off their networks for using too much of the 'unlimited' bandwidth.
Comcast wants metered billing...you see where this is going.
AT&T wants metered billing....blah blah
Crap. They all want it. We are screwed.
Cablevision seems to be the only one against it that I can find anyway.
The industry should have been called to task ages ago for overselling their bandwidth at rates which seem criminal to me. Not to mention the monopolistic practices that exist and are expanding as we speak. Lets not forget advertised speeds vs actual...I don't believe the majority of internet users come anywhere near the advertised speeds unless all the stars line up just right and you slay a goat as an offering. It's like Hyundai saying the Accent can go 0-60 in 3 seconds but neglecting to mention you would have to drop it out of an airplane to make it possible.
Metered billing sounds great in theory. Pay for what you use. Simple. Anti-competitiveish, but simple. I highly doubt however that the person who uses their access to check email once a day and shop now and again is going to be paying significantly less then they do now for 'unlimited plans'. I could very well be wrong on that, but I doubt it.
Verizon wants metered billing - They offer TV services
Time Warner wants metered billing - They offer TV services and even kick customers off their networks for using too much of the 'unlimited' bandwidth.
Comcast wants metered billing...you see where this is going.
AT&T wants metered billing....blah blah
Crap. They all want it. We are screwed.
Cablevision seems to be the only one against it that I can find anyway.
Do you not realize their profits margins have been consistently growing? They are signing on more and more customers and not upgrading their networks with all that tons of new cash flowing in. Stop being a fool and looking for a scapegoat to a problem that isn't really there. Lack of funds is not the issue here, its the lack of willingness to upgrade their networks with their growing profits. They want everyone to pay MORE to upgrade the network so they can' keep their profits and not have to reinvest as much of it into the infrastructure.
JUSTJOEL73
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 669
Installing the networks that are currently in place took years and billions of dollars in investments. These funds were quite often raised by issuing debt. As the return on their investment is being realised, the debt is slowly paid off, which results in increasing profits.
A new round of investment and issuing of debt should not be required as yet. Why? The vast majority of subscribers don't use torrents. By spending billions a second time round, they would only be catering to the few subscribers that use a huge amount of bandwidth. Why spend billions to realise only possibly a slight increase in subscriptions?
Your argument that their profits should reinvested in infrastructure fails because it would not be a "reinvestment" at all because as there is no expected return at this point in time. As more people begin to use more bandwidth, there will came a tipping point when more investment will become necessary.
If I owned stock in a company that did that, I would demand the whole board of directors be fired. If they could legally drop all big torrent users, they would. Since they can't, metering the internet is their solution.
What I am bitchn about is the aholes out there who feel they need to use torrents 24/7, I know they are out there, I know a few of them personally as well. They are gaming the system and they like it just the way it is.
Get your head out of the sand. Torrent and P2P users aren't the only people using the internet.
I would love fatter pipes to push my company apps out faster and listen to less client bitching. I'd even love it if we could run client-side apps instead of server-side apps if the pipe was fat enough to push database over the wire.. it would take a massive load off the Citrix server.
At home I would love to watch high definition contents online without having to let it download first. Hell, even YouTubeHD stutters unless I pause it and let it download first. Hulu does too.
We need an upgrade. We're overdue for them because of clueless close-minded bureaucrats like you who thinks we don't need it.
JUSTJOEL73
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 669
Have you seen any statistics on torrent traffic? Some estimates put it at as high as half of all internet traffic. If 24/7 torrent users fell of the face of the earth, you might actually see the bandwidth you are paying for. If you still have problems watching YouTubeHD or Hulu, maybe you need to Upgrade your connection. As for your company, can't they buy fatter pipes, what kinda pipes are you paying for now? Are they trying to push more stuff then what the pipes supposed to hold?
I am not the closed minded bureaucrat here. I am open to the idea of more investment in the infrastructure. The question is are you open to ideas like metering which is not exactly a brand new concept, seeing as we use it with gas, water and electricity. Even the trash pickup, limits the bags/size they will take from houses.
Bullshit. They have these profits because they are getting more subscribers and spending less on the networks, while at the same time increases the prices for internet service. Even the ones who have a net loss of subscribers are still growing their profits from said spending cuts and price hikes. Stop being a fool.
Not only that, but they've been paid billions already for a national rollout of fiber networks which were never delivered. So, even if this was a bizarro world where your post actually had truth and merit, it still wouldn't matter one fucking iota due to this.
Internet companies are throttling access to sites like Hulu nd Youtube. Only on video do I experience slow downs. Stop making up shit.
Guess what, that isn't the only solution to network upgrades. You don't get to hoard profits and say, "whelp, if you want internet like the rest of the modern world, you gotta pay even more so we don't have to spend any money", and expect no one to be offended by it. Verizon invested in themselves, which you say is impossible, and see how they are wrecking the cable co's shits because of it. Stop making excuses for greedy shitbags. (Yes Verizon are greedy shit bags, too, because now that they have this growing marketshare, they are trying to rip people off after already claiming they don't give a shit about bandwidth usage because they have gobs and gobs of excess of it)
I thought spam account for about 50% or more of internet traffic! Think of all the Spam coming to your email that you will now be charged for!
Damnit, afterthough again! This goes after "That's the basic concept of net neutrality."
The telco's have absolutely ridiculous profits and can EASILY upgrade their networks and still be in the blank, so this excuse is simply that: an excuse.
The telco's have absolutely ridiculous profits and can EASILY upgrade their networks and still be in the blank, so this excuse is simply that: an excuse.
MrBojangels
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Messages
- 763
No.
There are two scenarios with flashed cable modems, 1. Comast and 2. All other intelligent ISPs. Comcast's system will allow any modem to connect if it has the right server and configuration URL, whatever configuration file you choose( they have different tier, both that exist and don't, you pick whatever you like) and you can download away. Every other cable ISP ties cable modem MAC addresses to accounts, while this is a better method the second someone clones you MAC address is the second you can and will be held accountable to whatever data they transfer.
And THIS is exactly why I wish communications companies were nonprofit organizations rather than for-profit corporations.
They don't give a shit how much profits they already make: they care about how much more they can make, the better for shareholders. If not upgrading the network will net them more profit than upgrading it, that's what they'll do.
adventurous
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 657
Putting caps just kills business, another wise Version decision
It does but not if everyone does it...I hope this doesn't happen.
The real deal comes down to, all of these ISP companies follow this line of logic.
They see Hulu
They see Netflix
Then
They see there Cable
They see people dropping cable in favor of those services
Solution:
Quickly try to establish foothold at locking out such ability of streaming media. It will kill profits.
This is the big picture people are missing. This isn't about controlling torrents or any other bullshit. They are going to lose the monopoly on cableTV. Something they spent years trying to lobby and lock everyone else out of.
Fixing this would be simple. Smash comcast, verizon, att, timewarner, etc etc all into separate companies. They should each provide one goddamn service, and have nothing to do with each other.
They see Hulu
They see Netflix
Then
They see there Cable
They see people dropping cable in favor of those services
Solution:
Quickly try to establish foothold at locking out such ability of streaming media. It will kill profits.
This is the big picture people are missing. This isn't about controlling torrents or any other bullshit. They are going to lose the monopoly on cableTV. Something they spent years trying to lobby and lock everyone else out of.
Fixing this would be simple. Smash comcast, verizon, att, timewarner, etc etc all into separate companies. They should each provide one goddamn service, and have nothing to do with each other.
Manaknight
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 5,446
not far fetched at all. It's no secret that govt doesn't understand the internet, it's real importance and it's uses,plenty of court ruling have shown utter ignorance. Because it doesn't understand the internet it fears it and wants to control it as it is the last big thing that is more or less unregulated.
I have been saying exactly what you have said for a while....but of course i'm a conspiracy theorist
because i don't tow the line.PS you forgot the homegrown terrorism act of 2007 and the miac report, where we are all the enemy.
back to telco. I understand the need for support and etc. but govt aside, they make enough money and have been given enough grants to solve any bandwidth problems. The really sickening thing is if it keeps going in this direction progress is going to grind to a halt and we will slow down our move forward as a connected society. Some of you backwoods types may dig that, but personally i'm all for rocking the jetsons.
thing other thing that makes me pissed off at this utter bullshit is....wasn't verizon just bragging how Fios hasn't even begun to reach it bandwidth potential yet... but we want to cap... something doesn't add up...and admittedly yes, i am one of those high volume users..ALL legal, i buy mp3's from amazon/emusic, most of my games are on steam, I am a technet user and beta tester of various games. Plus i use things like netflix streaming among others. I can eat gb's very fast all doing stuff i have paid for and am legally allowed to do.