Bandwidth Caps May Be Critical Error For Broadband Companies 317
Technical Writing Geek writes "An Ars Technica article argues that after many years of stagnation, the US broadband landscape is finally 'primed for change'. Companies like Time Warner that decide to cap bandwidth risk being relegated to a 'broadband ghetto. Alternatives to the standard cable modem vs. DSL conundrum will come from technologies like WiMax and (eventually) the 'white space' broadband that might be offered by whoever wins the 700mhz auction. 'All of that is to say that cable and DSL won't always be the only games in town. If wireless solutions are able to deliver on their promises of high speeds with no usage limits, capped cable broadband service like Time Warner has planned is likely to be unattractive, to say the least. Instead of developing plans designed to discourage consumers from feeding at the bandwidth trough, cable companies would be better served in the long run by making investments in new technologies like DOCSIS 3.0 and the kind of infrastructure improvements necessary to meet bandwidth demands.'"
Uh Huh (Score:5, Informative)
Wishful thinking (Score:5, Informative)
In the DSL arena there is ADSL2+ and VDSL which have lower absolute bandwith but that bandwidth isn't shared with your neighbors as is the case with cable so the end result is a wash aside from the distance issues with DSL.
On the wireless side of things, there is no way any service can compete with the hardwired services on speed. At some point the wireless systems have to connect to the hardwired network and that is the point where the bandwidth will be severely restricted. The telcos will treat these new providers the way they do the current CLECs.
Re:Uh Huh (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly. As I said in a reply to the previous article on this topic, bandwidth caps have been successfully implemented for years in Canada, and it brings a nice clarity to the product rather than receiving a letter claiming you've surpassed some mysterious "limit."
The key is ensuring the caps and packages are reasonable. I had a plan that allowed me 30GB/month. About a year ago I decided to pay $5 more a month to double my speed (to 3Mbps) and increase the cap to 60GB/month. And even as a heavy user, I'm hard pressed to burn through that entire quota (which is probably a better term than "cap").
And has applications increase the bandwidth usage, I would hope companies invest in technology to help increase these limits. So far it's happened here in Canada, I remember when the quotas first came in a few years ago, my monthly quota was 10GB. Over about a year and a half that increased to 30GB because of market demands.
What you folks need to press for down there is more power for the FCC, and hopefully some independence from Dem/Rep politics and lobby groups. A strong regulatory body to kick some corporate ass when they focus more on profit than customer service will hopefully get the investment you so deserve in network infrastructure. It's time to quit whining on slashdot to those who already agree more network infrastructure is needed and to get out there and say, "We are the people, this is what we want, no excuses, make it happen."
Re:It's about time! (Score:2, Informative)
As someone who has used Wireless... (Score:4, Informative)
The pluses:
Overall though, I'd say I was very satisfied. I experienced exactly one outage the whole time, IIRC... and it was back up in less than an hour. I'm in Oregon now, so it would be kind of impractical to use it here (it tends to rain a lot), but if they can overcome the limitations that I saw as late as 2005, then more power to 'em. It was one of the most pleasant experiences overall that I ever had with any ISP. Plus, I had the exquisite pleasure of telling a Qwest sales droid to fuck off when they finally did get DSL into the neighborhood three years later (really... 256Kpbs DSL, when I already had 1Mbps both ways? Pfft! whatever...)
A little perspective... (Score:5, Informative)
The cable companies, as we speak, are caught in a precarious situation. Several factors came into play at the same time, which has limited their ability to make huge improvements, but, if they're lucky, they might come out on top.
So history: when cable modems first arrived on the scene, in the early-to-mid 90's, the technology was largely unproven and had tremendous issues, both technically and from a service delivery perspective. Much like the early days of DSL, the cable companies were essentially forced to re-wire infrastructure that had been in place for over a decade, sometimes up to 2 decades. Because of the technical issues, many cable executives didn't see the cost-benefit ratio of rewiring tens of thousands of miles of cities to be able to provide the service.
Plus, if you know anything about cost, doing so was a multi-million dollar effort, cumulatively probably costing in the billions.
However, with the advent of the dot-com boom and other highly profitable interactive services, the cable company PHB's finally got the picture and started rewiring and running fiber for the new cable plants.
Unfortunately, this was between 95-98, just before the internet boom really got underway, and well before DSL put any pressure on them.
As such, they did a reasonable job of getting the major metropolitan areas wired for a more modern infrastructure.
However, they failed in one major respect: they didn't have a crystal ball, and most, if not all, the cable companies put in the minimum infrastructure to support digital services. They didn't, however, put in overcapacity.
Now, if you swing forward 4-7 years, its pretty obvious that the cost-differential of putting in FTTP (or at least overcapacity of fiber to the neighborhood) would have been the smart thing to do. But at the time, wth DSL being crap, and no other real competition, they missed the boat. This wasn't maliciouos. They just did what they thought would be adequate.
Now, look at cable services today. On most cable infrastructure, the highest percentage of bandwidth (out of the 1000mhz available on the plant) goes to analog TV. Those 30-50 channels take up nearly have the space, each analog channel taking 6mhz of bandwidth.
This log-gain, low-profit bandwidth hog is the biggest impediment to modern services as they reside on the existing cable facilities.
And now there's another problem in the works: how to handle changes in Digital Broadcasting, DOCSIS 3, and PacketCable services, especially with HD programming getting more and more relevant.
While DOCSIS 3 has been out for over a year now, from the insiders I know its still a bit spotty on the internal side, and since many of the operators use Cisco (who fought DOCSIS 3 tooth and nail to get their own standard), they'd love to do it but are still unsure of quality. Not only that, but at least one smaller cable operator where I know the CIO is truly looking at how to deliver everything over PacketCable (TV, Phone, Data, etc.) rather than just make the leap to DOCSIS 3.
These aren't inconsequential issues, as the decisions made now will have some serious impact on the structure of Cable services for a long time.
And finally, when you add in the cost of maintaining hundreds of thousands of miles of fiber and copper plant, along with the huge increases in programming costs to the cable companies, along with the not-insiginificant support and CPE equipment costs of moving to Digital services, DOCSIS 3, or other advanced services, its not much wonder why the cable companies are moving a bit slowly. An error in judgement now could be fatally costly over the lon
Bandwidth isn't free, you idiots (Score:5, Informative)
Bandwidth is expensive. That's why ALL bandwidth is "shared" and "oversubscribed". There simply isn't any way to provide everyone with gobs and gobs of dedicated bandwidth. That's not how it works.
So, don't blame the cable or DSL providers. Blame the huge telcos that keep the price of bandwidth artificially high.
Re:totally naive (Score:3, Informative)
However, in that time, the downstream bandwidth cap went from 5Mbps to 7Mbps to 10Mbps (albiet upstream only went from 384Kbps to 512)
However, $42 dollars in 2001, is only about $36-$37 today, that's not a steep fall. (per http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ [measuringworth.com])
So I would say the average NY'er experience have been the exact opposite of yours (more bandwidth, while prices haven't fallen (in "real" dollars) steeply.
Re:Uh Huh (Score:3, Informative)
There are other providers (Score:3, Informative)
* dialup, slow
* DSL, relatively cheap
* cable modem, a bit more than DSL but a better bargain
* wireless through cell phone, expensive for what you get
* satellite, expensive for what you get and long latencies, may require phone uplink
* T1 and other business-grade, dedicated-bandwidth solutions, very expensive compared to DSL or Cable
Now, if you want faster than dialup, don't need mobility, and don't need dedicated bandwidth, DSL and Cable happen to be the cheapest options today.
The question is not, "Will WiMax, IP-over-power-line, blimp-wireless, and other technologies come online soon," it is "Will they be competitive?"
Re:Don't worry, it'll get "better" (Score:3, Informative)
The Net Neutrality issue is:
AT&T/Yahoo: Oh, you want to use Google Video? Gee, what a shame, Google hasn't paid us to prioritize packets, even though it's you, not them who's using our bandwidth. But since Google hasn't paid extortion, you get to watch that video at 19.2Kbps. On the other hand, if you use our Wonderful AT&T partner(tm) (insert company name here), you get it at 3Mbps.