Comments on: Congressman Massa Introduces Broadband Internet Fairness Act – Thanks Stop the Cap! and Free Press for Consumer Advocacy http://stopthecap.com/2009/06/17/congressman-massa-introduces-broadband-internet-fairness-act-thanks-stop-the-cap-and-free-press-for-consumer-advocacy/ Promoting Better Broadband, Fighting Data Caps, Usage-Based Billing, & Other Internet Overcharging Schemes Thu, 24 May 2012 00:06:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Stop the Cap! » Blog Archive » Congressman Massa Introduces … http://stopthecap.com/2009/06/17/congressman-massa-introduces-broadband-internet-fairness-act-thanks-stop-the-cap-and-free-press-for-consumer-advocacy/#comment-4822 Stop the Cap! » Blog Archive » Congressman Massa Introduces … Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:58:52 +0000 http://stopthecap.com/?p=3232#comment-4822 [...] See the article here: Stop the Cap! » Blog Archive » Congressman Massa Introduces … [...] [...] See the article here: Stop the Cap! » Blog Archive » Congressman Massa Introduces … [...]

]]> By: Michael Chaney http://stopthecap.com/2009/06/17/congressman-massa-introduces-broadband-internet-fairness-act-thanks-stop-the-cap-and-free-press-for-consumer-advocacy/#comment-4786 Michael Chaney Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:52:27 +0000 http://stopthecap.com/?p=3232#comment-4786 "In essense, the majority of the users are subsidizing the minority" This is true, but not as you imagine it to be. TWC's own statements say that Turbo users are effectively subsidizing their Lite users. It's the power users who are pushing the limits of emerging Internet technology (and paying more for the higher bandwidth) who are subsidizing the email-checking crowd who pay less for their broadband connection. Those who use more bandwidth are ALREADY paying more. “In essense, the majority of the users are subsidizing the minority”

This is true, but not as you imagine it to be. TWC’s own statements say that Turbo users are effectively subsidizing their Lite users. It’s the power users who are pushing the limits of emerging Internet technology (and paying more for the higher bandwidth) who are subsidizing the email-checking crowd who pay less for their broadband connection.

Those who use more bandwidth are ALREADY paying more.

]]> By: BrionS http://stopthecap.com/2009/06/17/congressman-massa-introduces-broadband-internet-fairness-act-thanks-stop-the-cap-and-free-press-for-consumer-advocacy/#comment-4784 BrionS Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:02:44 +0000 http://stopthecap.com/?p=3232#comment-4784 You have it right KP - speed (bandwidth) and quantity (usage) are completely separate though they are related in a linear fashion. As speed increases, the ease with which one can download more content (quantity) also increases. Back in the days of dial-up modems if you wanted to download a large (5MB) file you'd generally have to do two things: 1. Tell everyone NOT to pick up the phone for the next hour or more 2. Walk away and do something else or play solitaire -- you certainly couldn't continue browsing because your bandwidth (speed) was being used completely for downloading a single file. The question I have for RSR is, "Would you be equally satisfied with your Internet access if it were half as fast as it is now?" That is, would it bother you for a web page to take twice as long to load or a file twice as long to download? If the answer is "no, it wouldn't bother me," then you should talk to Time Warner about their most basic RoadRunner service for $15/mo or consider DSL which may also be cheaper. You'll still have "unlimited" access but it will be at a slower rate and you won't feel like you're subsidizing the kid down the street. Likewise, if the kid down the street feels like his connection is too slow to do what he wants (maybe a lot of online gaming), then he could opt to pay for a faster connection that provides him with a greater ability to transfer lots of data simultaneously. Paying for speed (bandwidth) makes sense because it's the speed that is the issue, not the ones and zeros that travel over the wire. Much like the difference between a small sand egg timer and a large hourglass, the data (sand) that travels through both is only affected by the size of the hourglass in terms of how quickly the finite amount of sand can pass through the center. You have it right KP – speed (bandwidth) and quantity (usage) are completely separate though they are related in a linear fashion.

As speed increases, the ease with which one can download more content (quantity) also increases. Back in the days of dial-up modems if you wanted to download a large (5MB) file you’d generally have to do two things:

1. Tell everyone NOT to pick up the phone for the next hour or more
2. Walk away and do something else or play solitaire — you certainly couldn’t continue browsing because your bandwidth (speed) was being used completely for downloading a single file.

The question I have for RSR is, “Would you be equally satisfied with your Internet access if it were half as fast as it is now?” That is, would it bother you for a web page to take twice as long to load or a file twice as long to download?

If the answer is “no, it wouldn’t bother me,” then you should talk to Time Warner about their most basic RoadRunner service for $15/mo or consider DSL which may also be cheaper. You’ll still have “unlimited” access but it will be at a slower rate and you won’t feel like you’re subsidizing the kid down the street.

Likewise, if the kid down the street feels like his connection is too slow to do what he wants (maybe a lot of online gaming), then he could opt to pay for a faster connection that provides him with a greater ability to transfer lots of data simultaneously.

Paying for speed (bandwidth) makes sense because it’s the speed that is the issue, not the ones and zeros that travel over the wire. Much like the difference between a small sand egg timer and a large hourglass, the data (sand) that travels through both is only affected by the size of the hourglass in terms of how quickly the finite amount of sand can pass through the center.

]]> By: David http://stopthecap.com/2009/06/17/congressman-massa-introduces-broadband-internet-fairness-act-thanks-stop-the-cap-and-free-press-for-consumer-advocacy/#comment-4783 David Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:59:50 +0000 http://stopthecap.com/?p=3232#comment-4783 RSR, If you do only use your broadband connection for about 1 hour per day then yes, you are probably over paying for your service, and yes you probably are subsidizing other users, not just the kid next door but basically anyone who uses their connection more than you do, however, what you are paying for is not the hour of utilization of your service, but the POTENTIAL for the service to be there...when you go to your computer you're connected and ready to go where you want to go and do what you need to do. You do not need to wait for a dial-up connection to be made, you are not tying up a phone line (either a primary or an additional line at an additional expense), and you are getting to the sites that you wish to visit quickly and (for the most part) reliably. If TWC and their money grubbing ilk are successful in throwing their money party, do you think for one moment that your bill is going to go down at all for the equivalent speed POTENTIAL that you have now? I can tell you that unless you choose a lower SPEED tier (which you can already do now at a significant savings to standard broadband from TWC) and take a much lower cap then the answer is no, it won't go down a bit. You can look at this exactly like your home phone if you have one...If you only use your home land line phone for 1 hour per day and the teenager next door talks all night long for the same local phone calling plan (which almost certainly includes unlimited local calling), are you subsidizing them too? How about a cell phone, do you have one of those? Most cell phone providers are offer at least some form of unlimited calling, whether it is in network or otherwise, and you may be paying for someone else to talk all night and all day even if you don't use yours, right? The cost and availability of these unlimited phone plans (land and mobile) came about because 1) The cost of providing the service decreased, primarily due to the number of users and 2) Increase in competition, not because you or anyone else was or is paying their bill to subsidize anyone else. RSR, If you do only use your broadband connection for about 1 hour per day then yes, you are probably over paying for your service, and yes you probably are subsidizing other users, not just the kid next door but basically anyone who uses their connection more than you do, however, what you are paying for is not the hour of utilization of your service, but the POTENTIAL for the service to be there…when you go to your computer you’re connected and ready to go where you want to go and do what you need to do. You do not need to wait for a dial-up connection to be made, you are not tying up a phone line (either a primary or an additional line at an additional expense), and you are getting to the sites that you wish to visit quickly and (for the most part) reliably. If TWC and their money grubbing ilk are successful in throwing their money party, do you think for one moment that your bill is going to go down at all for the equivalent speed POTENTIAL that you have now?
I can tell you that unless you choose a lower SPEED tier (which you can already do now at a significant savings to standard broadband from TWC) and take a much lower cap then the answer is no, it won’t go down a bit. You can look at this exactly like your home phone if you have one…If you only use your home land line phone for 1 hour per day and the teenager next door talks all night long for the same local phone calling plan (which almost certainly includes unlimited local calling), are you subsidizing them too? How about a cell phone, do you have one of those? Most cell phone providers are offer at least some form of unlimited calling, whether it is in network or otherwise, and you may be paying for someone else to talk all night and all day even if you don’t use yours, right? The cost and availability of these unlimited phone plans (land and mobile) came about because 1) The cost of providing the service decreased, primarily due to the number of users and 2) Increase in competition, not because you or anyone else was or is paying their bill to subsidize anyone else.

]]> By: KP http://stopthecap.com/2009/06/17/congressman-massa-introduces-broadband-internet-fairness-act-thanks-stop-the-cap-and-free-press-for-consumer-advocacy/#comment-4782 KP Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:32:06 +0000 http://stopthecap.com/?p=3232#comment-4782 There's a fundamental difference between speed and quantity. As a lay person, here's my understanding. You could use as much quantity as you wanted per month and if you didn't care about speed it wouldn't put the slightest burden on the system. Unless I'm very much mistaken, nobody that's written on this site (either on the management/editing side or as a run-of-the-mill contributor) has ever opposed the idea of paying for higher speeds. That's the way it should be - pay voluntarily for higher speed if you want it, and no caps. The idea of caps may sound innocent enough at first glance but it's nothing but an anti-competitive money grab by the providers which they see as an easy alternative to boosting their bottom line by offering an improved service. Do this thought experiment. Imagine yourself as a for-profit service provider in two markets, one of which is very competitive and in the other of which you had a monopoly position. How best would you try to boost your bottom line in each market? I don't think I need to explain further. There’s a fundamental difference between speed and quantity. As a lay person, here’s my understanding. You could use as much quantity as you wanted per month and if you didn’t care about speed it wouldn’t put the slightest burden on the system. Unless I’m very much mistaken, nobody that’s written on this site (either on the management/editing side or as a run-of-the-mill contributor) has ever opposed the idea of paying for higher speeds. That’s the way it should be – pay voluntarily for higher speed if you want it, and no caps. The idea of caps may sound innocent enough at first glance but it’s nothing but an anti-competitive money grab by the providers which they see as an easy alternative to boosting their bottom line by offering an improved service.

Do this thought experiment. Imagine yourself as a for-profit service provider in two markets, one of which is very competitive and in the other of which you had a monopoly position. How best would you try to boost your bottom line in each market? I don’t think I need to explain further.

]]> By: Scott Cranfill http://stopthecap.com/2009/06/17/congressman-massa-introduces-broadband-internet-fairness-act-thanks-stop-the-cap-and-free-press-for-consumer-advocacy/#comment-4755 Scott Cranfill Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:25:44 +0000 http://stopthecap.com/?p=3232#comment-4755 RSR, you clearly have not done your research about costs to providers. Time Warner Cable's own SEC filings and annual statements to shareholders plainly state that their costs are decreasing, and they anticipate that trend continuing. They also explicitly stated they did not see a need for major infrastructure upgrades in the very near future. Further, the "If you use it more, you should pay more" argument is based on a fundamentally fallacious understanding of the cost model for providing broadband. The cost to providers DOES NOT INCREASE LINEARLY with the amount of data a user consumes. RSR, you clearly have not done your research about costs to providers. Time Warner Cable’s own SEC filings and annual statements to shareholders plainly state that their costs are decreasing, and they anticipate that trend continuing. They also explicitly stated they did not see a need for major infrastructure upgrades in the very near future.

Further, the “If you use it more, you should pay more” argument is based on a fundamentally fallacious understanding of the cost model for providing broadband. The cost to providers DOES NOT INCREASE LINEARLY with the amount of data a user consumes.

]]> By: RSR http://stopthecap.com/2009/06/17/congressman-massa-introduces-broadband-internet-fairness-act-thanks-stop-the-cap-and-free-press-for-consumer-advocacy/#comment-4753 RSR Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:06:50 +0000 http://stopthecap.com/?p=3232#comment-4753 Interesting ideas, but there are many flaws to the logic used. Broadband costs to providers is not dropping, it is increasing. Broadband is like cocaine to an addict. They can never get enough so once a provider network is designed and built, it is already obsolete. Costs for high bandwidth network switches are very high and the cost for overbuidling a copper or coax network with fiber is still well over $1500 per home. If every user was happy with 1.5 Mb service, then yes, broadband costs will decline. But this just isn't the case. Lastly, a small portion of broadband users are the advocates of this type of policy because they are the primary users of the bandwidth. In essense, the majority of the users are subsidizing the minority. I only use my broadband for about 1 hour each evening. I have no interest in paying equivalently more per gigabit so that the kid next door can stream video and enjoy HD gaming all day long sucking up all the bandwidth to the neighborhood. If you use it more, you should pay more. Interesting ideas, but there are many flaws to the logic used. Broadband costs to providers is not dropping, it is increasing. Broadband is like cocaine to an addict. They can never get enough so once a provider network is designed and built, it is already obsolete. Costs for high bandwidth network switches are very high and the cost for overbuidling a copper or coax network with fiber is still well over $1500 per home. If every user was happy with 1.5 Mb service, then yes, broadband costs will decline. But this just isn’t the case.

Lastly, a small portion of broadband users are the advocates of this type of policy because they are the primary users of the bandwidth. In essense, the majority of the users are subsidizing the minority. I only use my broadband for about 1 hour each evening. I have no interest in paying equivalently more per gigabit so that the kid next door can stream video and enjoy HD gaming all day long sucking up all the bandwidth to the neighborhood. If you use it more, you should pay more.

]]> By: T.M. http://stopthecap.com/2009/06/17/congressman-massa-introduces-broadband-internet-fairness-act-thanks-stop-the-cap-and-free-press-for-consumer-advocacy/#comment-4740 T.M. Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:04:14 +0000 http://stopthecap.com/?p=3232#comment-4740 Will the full language of the bill be posted here once made public? Will it include any kind of net neutrality language? Will the full language of the bill be posted here once made public? Will it include any kind of net neutrality language?

]]> By: Smith6612 http://stopthecap.com/2009/06/17/congressman-massa-introduces-broadband-internet-fairness-act-thanks-stop-the-cap-and-free-press-for-consumer-advocacy/#comment-4739 Smith6612 Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:42:49 +0000 http://stopthecap.com/?p=3232#comment-4739 Very good article here :) Very good article here :)

]]>