Once More With Feeling: There Is No Exaflood - Traffic patterns show reasonable growth, and even some slowing...
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
Links: New Topic
Forums »
me1212 @ 18th Feb 09:39AM:
If it slowing why do we need caps?
My guess is their network cannot handle 25-60+m down unlimited for ever and so instead of doing the smart thing and expanding/adding to their system so the CAN handle it they choose to put caps in. I know that expanding would cost a more than caps, but thats just in the here and now in 10yrs it could cost them, they may not have as many people sing up as they would have in the expanded, and it would have given them more money than not expanding r what ever you want to all it would have saved them.
As for government money NO NO NO NO! If they want MY money they HAVE to EARN it, not take it from me and pocket then give me nothing in return, on the other hand if it would mean no caps I would not mind giving them some.
reply
jmn1207 @ 18th Feb 09:39AM:
ExaWarming
I'm concerned that massive network congestion will create an enormous amount of heat dissipation from overstressed electronics, contributing to global warming.
How ironic would it be if the cause of global warming is actually the result of something invented by Al Gore? Now I understand his obsession with global warming, it's a guilt-driven crusade. :D
reply
kontos @ 18th Feb 09:43AM:
Moderate growth is still growth
As users demand more bytes, the ISPs costs increase. Even if the rate isn't as fast as it was in the past, it's still rising. Now that broadband penetration has plateaued, ISP revenue is flat, but costs are increasing. Looking at that graph will make any MBA nervous.
reply
TKJunkMail @ 18th Feb 09:44AM:
Re: If it slowing why do we need caps?
said by me1212 :
I know that expanding would cost a more than caps, but thats just in the here and now in 10yrs it could cost them, they may not have as many people sing up as they would have in the expanded, and it would have given them more money than not expanding r what ever you want to all it would have saved them.
Unfortunately, the here and now has limited ability to fund capital expenditures due to the economic recession which is expected to last this year and probably the next as well. So expansion now is very unlikely.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
reply
kamm @ 18th Feb 09:46AM:
And not only slowing but...
...prices ar egoing DOWN all across the industry, especially wholesale bandwidth prices so there you go, another reason why whining-lying ISPs actually making MORE money even if they don't raise prices (which they do.)
reply
kontos @ 18th Feb 09:52AM:
Re: And not only slowing but...
said by kamm :
...prices ar egoing DOWN all across the industry, especially wholesale bandwidth...
prices aren't going down so fast that you can upgrade your old OC-3 to an OC-12 for no increase in cost.
reply
me1212 @ 18th Feb 10:06AM:
Re: If it slowing why do we need caps?
I know just sayin'. However IF the cap was 300gb+ and no throttle(or one that ONLY slowed the speed, not messed with QoS, ya know for VoIP) I would be ok with that much, how ever if I could get a no cap for an ok speed I would that that one. I just hope there will always be a no cap ISP other than T1, unless the cost goes dwon to like $220 or less.
reply
fatness @ 18th Feb 10:10AM:
from 2007
»www.cioupdate.com/trends/article···2007.htm
quote:
Internet Capacity Woes: Reaching the limits of cyberspace
The unrelenting growth in Internet traffic in 2007 may overwhelm the Internet's backbone; the terabit-cable pipes connecting continents will reach capacity and ISPs will not be prepared to pay for extra bandwidth because consumers will be unwilling to pay increased costs.
The threat to available capacity will be driven by the number of Internet users continuing to grow, and the exponential increase in the transmission of video files. This threat could raise questions about the long-term commercial viability of broadband provision, unless a satisfactory solution can be found to the issues of monetizing the growing usage to fund future growth, without disenfranchising customers.
While this is probably not going to come to a head in 2007, these issues loom on the horizon because the investment in core infrastructure is not keeping pace with the usage and demand, said Openshaw. The growth in demand for video delivered over the Internet in particular, one of Deloitte's other predictions, as well as IPTV, will be a major contributor to excess capacity being absorbed.
"At the rate of growth of consumption at some point in time in the not too distant future, maybe it's not this year, but it's not in the too distant future, the excess capacity is gone," said Openshaw. "So somebody's got to step up and decide who is going to make the investments and who is going to pay for them."
Oops
--
goodbye dad
reply
Transmaster @ 18th Feb 10:48AM:
Re: ExaWarming
Don't give AlGore any ideas. Don't worry I will not post any more picture of AlGore, at least not as a member of the Red Guard. but I do feel great that I have been given the title of an offical Troll master ;) Life is so sweet.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption
reply
Pizz @ 18th Feb 11:05AM:
Re: If it slowing why do we need caps?
Caps are put into place, to keep costs down on the network/plant side. It's also used to protect a company's revenue. I.E. Video On Demand, Movies Streams, Watching TV on your PC. That's why companies (Mainly MSOs) use this model, because they've decided no way in hell, you're going to view free stuff and use our bandwidth (that you've help fund).
It's sad in this day and age, we're using a 90's business model now of limiting what you can do with your connection. Least in Japan they cap your upload to 500gb or 1TB a month for their fiber to the home connections. But on the download side, go at it.
When we can start making this companies actually provide, instead of milking us and the gov't with handouts. We'll just be paying more for less.
--
Would you ever allow me to study the phislophy of your spirit.Masiela Luasha>
reply
me1212 @ 18th Feb 11:13AM:
Re: If it slowing why do we need caps?
Do you mean less speed or more caps? and I know thats why they are doing it hulu and netflix are hurting their pocket book. What IS MSO?
"because they've decided no way in hell, you're going to view free stuff and use our bandwidth (that you've help fund)."
Yeah if they see even $0.001 of their money go away because of the IPTV they get ticked, but there not much we can do about that right now. Thats why I like DSLs like Embarq no caps, less speed, but after a certain speed I could care less.
Japan has it better they have 500gb-1tb caps and I think I read like 1gb internet.
Hopefuly in the NEAR future we can make the ISP say up fromt that have a cap, like on their main page.
reply
qworster @ 18th Feb 11:14AM:
Here's the bottom line:
North American consumers pay the highest prices per GB for Internet service of ANY first world country! What does this truly mean?
It means that North America's ISPs make the highest profts of ANY first world country!
BUT that obscene profit margin isn't enough for them!
THEY WANT MORE!
So, they create this FAKE bandwidth crisis...and use it as a reason to raise prices by implimenting caps and then REALLY overcharging for additional bandwidth ($1.50 per GB that costs THEM about a dime!)!
The same thing is happening to gas prices now. Have you noticed that gas prices are up about 80 cents a gallon over last fall?
Yet, crude oil prices have remained steady at about 40 dollars a barrel!
What's happening is that the oil compaines have cut refinery capacity to CREATE a FAKE shortage!
By doing so, they make MORE money for LESS oil sold!
The USA is a BIG RIPOFF..and until the American consumer finally says: NO MORE RIPOFFS! it will continue to be so!
reply
Pizz @ 18th Feb 11:17AM:
Re: If it slowing why do we need caps?
MSO is a Multiple System Operator, which means. They operate their cable companies in many areas. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi_system_operator
There will never do less speed, because they're banking on customers will be attracted by the huge speed, but not tell you it's all dependent on your local area.
If the MSOs would just bring their speeds back down to where their local plants, network can handle.. We'll be alright.
--
Would you ever allow me to study the phislophy of your spirit.Masiela Luasha>
reply
TKJunkMail @ 18th Feb 11:17AM:
Re: If it slowing why do we need caps?
said by me1212 :
What IS MSO?
MSO = Multi System Operator. It means Comcast is really a group of separate operating cable systems controlled under a corporate umbrella. That is why it often happens that there is not one list of stations carried by "Comcast". Each operating company actually makes decisions and contract deals separate from the corporate parent.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
reply
me1212 @ 18th Feb 11:17AM:
Re: Here's the bottom line:
Hopefuly with this mess we are in more people will go t oIPTV only and go WAY over their cap and get mad and then there will be a big market for no cap ISPs. I can dream can't I?
reply
TKJunkMail @ 18th Feb 11:20AM:
Re: Here's the bottom line:
said by qworster :
BUT that obscene profit margin isn't enough for them!
The margins are barely enough to attract investments. They can hardly be called obscene. That is a charge laid on by those who have no understanding of finance and how a business has to compete for funds to expand and maintain their business.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
reply
me1212 @ 18th Feb 11:21AM:
Re: If it slowing why do we need caps?
Thanks guys.
"If the MSOs would just bring their speeds back down to where their local plants, network can handle.. We'll be alright."
they won't do that for a while, then they would not be able to put caps on, if I understand what you are saying. But if thats what has to be done to remove the caps, or at least get them 500gb-1tb That would be ok. If I had CC or *insert cableco here* 500g would be enough for me to feel safe, 1t even better..
reply
nasadude @ 18th Feb 11:31AM:
Re: from 2007
Oops my @ss.
first of all, that link is to a 2006 article giving predictions for 2007.
second, from the Ars article:
quote:
According to the CBC, "The figures from seven ISPs also reveal that annual growth in total traffic volume declined for two consecutive years from 2005-06 to 2007-08 for five of the seven ISPs, in one case dropping from 66 percent growth in 2005-06 to 21 percent growth in 2007-08."
actual data from the ISPs themselves shows the rate of growth slowing, in some cases significantly, for a majority of them.
reply
nasadude @ 18th Feb 11:37AM:
Re: If it slowing why do we need caps?
"We" don't need caps at all; neither do the ISPs.
The ISPs badly want caps (and throttling and deep packet inspection), but not because of bandwidth issues.
This quote from the article pretty much nails it:
quote:
SaveOurNet.ca, which wants to see network management rules imposed on ISPs, seized on the data. "If traffic growth is slowing, then it is hard to imagine why the ISPs need to suddenly selectively throttle Internet traffic," said co-founder Steve Anderson. "The fact that ISPs are slowing access to Internet technologies that compete with their own services seems like more than just a coincidence."
The ISPs want ways to control bandwidth, either to prevent video competition with their own offerings or to further monetize their network without adding further value.
reply
qworster @ 18th Feb 11:40AM:
Re: Here's the bottom line:
said by TKJunkMail :said by qworster :
BUT that obscene profit margin isn't enough for them!
The margins are barely enough to attract investments. They can hardly be called obscene. That is a charge laid on by those who have no understanding of finance and how a business has to compete for funds to expand and maintain their business.
I RAN a business for many years! I KNOW all about profit margins, finance and investment! The reason that they can't attract investments with revenues of almost 114 dollars per subscriber (see above) is because of the VULTURE CAPITALISTS' GREED! They want to make obscene profits too-for producing NOTHING! The whole finance system and it's obscene GREED is the reason WHY the world is in such deep SH*T right now! AND..they STILL don't 'get it'. They make poor decisions, take taxpayers' money in bailouts by the billion$ and then thumb their noses at the rest of us by giving themselves BILLIONS of dollars in bonuses! They have 5 day Super Bowl parties and junkets to resorts in the Bahamas. They fly to from Detroit to Washington D.C. in THREE CORPORATE JETS to BEG for taxpayer money!
They have the attitude that they are ENTITLED to their obscene profits and lavish lifestyles for doing NOTHING!
And..they believe that the rest of us should bail them out and give them back their entitled style of living after they squandered it in their quest for even MORE greed! Well, guess what? They aren't! The gravy train is OVER!
Not to mention that Internet profits are almost 100% GRAVY! Internet runs over (the) coax and fiber ALREADY IN PLACE for cable TV and (the) copper pairs ALREADY IN PLACE in the case of DSL!
reply
me1212 @ 18th Feb 11:41AM:
Re: If it slowing why do we need caps?
I kinda lareayd knew that, but thanks anyway.
How much does 1GB cost them? I think I read that it was like a $0.10 so we need a PAYG ISP like 1gb is $0.20(a 100% profit) so like 250g is $50 and 500gb is $100.
reply
nasadude @ 18th Feb 11:41AM:
Re: Here's the bottom line:
said by TKJunkMail :said by qworster :
BUT that obscene profit margin isn't enough for them!
The margins are barely enough to attract investments. They can hardly be called obscene. That is a charge laid on by those who have no understanding of finance and how a business has to compete for funds to expand and maintain their business.
from another front page article:
quote:
On the plus side, Comcast says that their average revenue per video subscriber rose to $113.80 from $104.25, and the cable company beat most Wall Street estimates.
golly, sounds like comcast is doing OK.
reply
Pizz @ 18th Feb 11:56AM:
Re: If it slowing why do we need caps?
Bandwidth doesnt cost them much at all. Its something like 5-10 cents per gigabyte, during peak times. And very much lower through non-peak times. What costs them money is last mile run from homes to the network. Take cablevision out of the equation, but MSOs do not like to spend the needed funds to improve and upgrade that sector.
Cablevision on the other hand, is pretty quick on jumping to the newer tech, i'll give them credit. And I'll wager they'll have most of their systems with Docsis 3.0 by the end of the year. TimeWarner on the other hand? Probably wont even have 1% of Docsis 3.0 implemented until 2011.
reply
TKJunkMail @ 18th Feb 12:00PM:
Re: If it slowing why do we need caps?
said by Pizz :
Cablevision on the other hand, is pretty quick on jumping to the newer tech, i'll give them credit. And I'll wager they'll have most of their systems with Docsis 3.0 by the end of the year. TimeWarner on the other hand? Probably wont even have 1% of Docsis 3.0 implemented until 2011.
That is much easier to do when all they have to cover is the NYC metro area instead of much of the US like Comcast, TWC, etc.
[att=1]
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Cablevision coverage area |
Pizz @ 18th Feb 12:01PM:
Re: Here's the bottom line:
said by TKJunkMail :said by qworster :
BUT that obscene profit margin isn't enough for them!
The margins are barely enough to attract investments. They can hardly be called obscene. That is a charge laid on by those who have no understanding of finance and how a business has to compete for funds to expand and maintain their business.
Greed my man, pure greed. Comcast has the highest markups in the industry. IF they cannot get over 1000% markup on a fee, they wont implement it. Trust me, comcast is never going to run out of funds, not find investors, nor get any captial for said investements.
reply
me1212 @ 18th Feb 12:06PM:
Re: If it slowing why do we need caps?
Thats why a lot of DSLs have no cap. They have no tv, so they won't loose money if people use them for IPTV, they may even make money. If people want to use IPTV only they need more speed and more speed costs more so DSLs make more money, so some DSLs could be hurting them selves with caps.
reply
Karl Bode @ 18th Feb 12:08PM:
Re: from 2007
The very word exaflood came from a think tank paid by telecom carriers to lobby for their interests. The same think tank that coined "intelligent design" and other re-branding terms used to win political fights. The "debate" began in 2007 when that think tank first used the word in an editorial (infomercial) in the WSJ that year. Neither our public or our press are very bright if they can't do the math there...
The entire argument was started by a political think tank trying to eliminate regulation from the telecom sector. Hopefully it will be finished by academics and network engineers wielding real data.
reply
Pizz @ 18th Feb 12:33PM:
Re: If it slowing why do we need caps?
said by TKJunkMail :said by Pizz :
Cablevision on the other hand, is pretty quick on jumping to the newer tech, i'll give them credit. And I'll wager they'll have most of their systems with Docsis 3.0 by the end of the year. TimeWarner on the other hand? Probably wont even have 1% of Docsis 3.0 implemented until 2011.
That is much easier to do when all they have to cover is the NYC metro area instead of much of the US like Comcast, TWC, etc.
[att=1]
Sure Cablevision isnt as huge as Comcast/TimeWarner - but they doesn't change anything. They've spent money to keep their last mile runs pretty on par with growth. They took some loses in doing so if you read their reports. There is no excuse for Comcast/TimeWarner at all, for not improving their last mile runs. Coverage areas mean nothing, not one iota.
reply
fatness @ 18th Feb 12:33PM:
Re: from 2007
The point I was trying to make, poorly I guess, is that this 2006 prediction isn't being borne out by this current report.
said by 2006 prediction :
"At the rate of growth of consumption at some point in time in the not too distant future, maybe it's not this year, but it's not in the too distant future, the excess capacity is gone," said Openshaw.
said by 2009 report :
there is still no sign of an exaflood that would swamp the network. If anything, the tendency seems to be towards a slowdown, not an acceleration.
--
goodbye dad
reply
nasadude @ 18th Feb 12:45PM:
Re: from 2007
I thought you were trying to make the opposite point.
However, the article you link is a good example of the drum the astroturfers have been pounding for the last two years or so.
reply
Karl Bode @ 18th Feb 12:47PM:
Re: from 2007
They probably used the Discovery Institute as their source.
I certainly know that some other pseudo-science PR flaks (like "Americans for Prosperity") went on to use that Deloitte & Touche prediction to argue against a number of concepts, including network neutrality (network neutrality will destroy the Internets):
»www.forbes.com/2007/01/30/info-t···yahootix
There is absolutely no real concern here about capacity by these guys. They are solely interested in subsidies and deregulation. This is all part of the same disinformation campaign started by telecom lobbyists and policy gurus aimed at scaring lawmakers into giving these companies whatever they want.
reply
fatness @ 18th Feb 12:51PM:
Re: from 2007
said by nasadude :
However, the article you link is a good example of the drum the astroturfers have been pounding for the last two years or so.
--
goodbye dad
reply
dynodb @ 18th Feb 01:32PM:
"Reasonable"?
global traffic growth is quite reasonable -- and in some cases actually slowing.
50%-60% average worldwide annual increases are "quite reasonable"? That's still very high. Even Japan's relatively low growth at 30% is quite high.
How much of an increase of bandwidth demand would you have to see before you found it unreasonable?
reply
major marco @ 18th Feb 02:13PM:
Re: Here's the bottom line:
said by qworster :
What's happening is that the oil compaines have cut refinery capacity to CREATE a FAKE shortage!
By doing so, they make MORE money for LESS oil sold!
Hello and welcome to supply & demand 101.
said by qworster :
The USA is a BIG RIPOFF..and until the American consumer finally says: NO MORE RIPOFFS! it will continue to be so!
Consumer sentiment has zip to do with the type of economic system the country currently subscribes to. As long as capitalism rules the day, sellers will consistently and regularly, indeed, inevitably, seek to influence demand by limiting supply.
--
The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
reply
Ignite @ 18th Feb 02:36PM:
Re: "Reasonable"?
Traffic was at one point doubling per year - as broadband penetration in some countries begins to max out bandwidth usage increase drops.
I would bet that removing all new broadband subscribers from the equation we'd be looking at sub-30% growth in most cases.
reply
Pizz @ 18th Feb 04:49PM:
Re: from 2007
Their entire agenda is to turn Broadband/Internet service into a utility. This will take the costs off their end, and to stick it right back to the consumers. By scaring the gov't and people into this looming 'bandwidth crisis', with false data and out-right lies. The gov't and un-educated consumers will give the go ahead, and turn the 'internet' into a Public Utility.
I'm just utter shocked there are people buying into this thing, and literally backing these out-right lies.
--
The more you talk, the less you listen.
reply
SuperWISP @ 18th Feb 06:17PM:
Why not ask some actual ISPs?
My ISP has seen a doubling of traffic in just the past six months -- with no decrease in our cost for wholesale bandwidth. (Since we prohibit P2P by contract, and also gather statistics, we know that the increase is almost entirely due to Internet video, the use of which is swelling as families try to cut costs during the economic downturn. They're canceling their cable and watching shows on the Internet.)
reply
Desdinova @ 18th Feb 09:51PM:
Re: Why not ask some actual ISPs?
So on the one side the larger cable providers seem to be trying to protect their cable TV business by limiting user bandwidth and on the other side, are actively chasing customers away with rate increases? Sounds like a textbook example of "null space" to me... :D
reply
kamm @ 19th Feb 12:27AM:
Re: And not only slowing but...
...which would be straight down stupid to expect - you make a profit around 1000%-1500% on every bit as an ISP which, along with decreasing Mb prices, should be MORE THAN ENOUGH to maintain the same profit.
IT'S ABOUT GREED, NOTHING ELSE.
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE]
reply
Karl Bode @ 19th Feb 09:28AM:
Re: from 2007
Their entire agenda is to turn Broadband/Internet service into a utility.
I don't believe that's the case at all. Most carriers oppose that idea. The goal is to eliminate government regulation of the sector, by scaring lawmakers into thinking that if they meddle in the sector, nobody will upgrade their networks and the Internet will explode.
reply
kontos @ 19th Feb 09:57AM:
Re: And not only slowing but...
said by kamm :
...which would be straight down stupid to expect - you make a profit around 1000%-1500% on every bit as an ISP which, along with decreasing Mb prices, should be MORE THAN ENOUGH to maintain the same profit.
Um, maybe my math is wrong. If Profit = revenue - costs, and you admit that bigger pipes increase costs, how exactly does profit remain the same when the ISP has to buy bigger pipes to accommodate demand?
And if the ROI for an ISP is > 1000% why aren't we seeing a lot more start-up ISPs popping up to go after that?
reply
kamm @ 20th Feb 08:31PM:
Re: And not only slowing but...
said by kontos :said by kamm :
...which would be straight down stupid to expect - you make a profit around 1000%-1500% on every bit as an ISP which, along with decreasing Mb prices, should be MORE THAN ENOUGH to maintain the same profit.
Um, maybe my math is wrong. If Profit = revenue - costs, and you admit that bigger pipes increase costs, how exactly does profit remain the same when the ISP has to buy bigger pipes to accommodate demand?
Ummm perhaps because bigger pipes costs LESS per megabit...?
You act like if you were truly clueless...
And if the ROI for an ISP is > 1000% why aren't we seeing a lot more start-up ISPs popping up to go after that?
Umm perhaps all we have is giant fuckin monopolies who can crush anyone? :uhh:
Look at Verzion: we are in such a miserable state of broadband that it takes 23 BILLION to wire up some 19M people with a product that can take on cable monopolies.
Look at WiMax: it's an alternative at best (no crazy speeds like on FIOS), gets very expensive in hilly areas and is nowhere in sight...
--
said by bicker :
Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
reply
calvoiper @ 22nd Feb 05:55PM:
Too little, too much, just right?
Anybody find it interesting that many companies are saying that they need subsidies & tax cuts because they have too little business, while the whining Baby Bells and their cohorts are saying they need subsidies & tax cuts because they they expect too much business?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!
reply
kontos @ 23rd Feb 10:56AM:
Re: And not only slowing but...
said by kamm :
Ummm perhaps because bigger pipes costs LESS per megabit...?
Didn't we already agree that price per megabit didn't drop as fast as megabit capacity increases? fore example, and OC-12 is 4 times as fast as an OC-3, so even if the $ per mb is half, the OC-12 is still 2 times more expensive than the OC-3.
said by kamm :
Umm perhaps all we have is giant ...
monopolies who can crush anyone?
Look at Verzion: we are in such a miserable state of broadband that it takes 23 BILLION to wire up some 19M people with a product that can take on cable monopolies.
But you were saying that they'd earn at least a $230 billion return on that investment. I'm surprised that somebody doesn't come around thinking that they'd be happy with making only $115 billion on the same initial investment. They could offer the same service in the same places for half the price and still get rich(er).
reply
Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC