Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [ARSTechnica] ISP explains data caps to FCC: Using the Internet is like eating Oreos
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[ARSTechnica] ISP explains data caps to FCC: Using the Internet is like eating Oreos - Page 5  

post #41 of 155
Very well said regarding the motivation. The fact that most ISPs are monopolies doesn't help at all.
 
LGA775 X5470
(6 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5470 4GHz (stock v) GA-EP45-UD3P EVGA 9800 GTX+ 512MB 8GB 4x2GB GSkill 1066MHz DDR2 
CoolingCase
XSPC Rasa, D5 + Res, 240mm Rad Lian-Li PC7-HX 
  hide details  
 
LGA775 X5470
(6 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5470 4GHz (stock v) GA-EP45-UD3P EVGA 9800 GTX+ 512MB 8GB 4x2GB GSkill 1066MHz DDR2 
CoolingCase
XSPC Rasa, D5 + Res, 240mm Rad Lian-Li PC7-HX 
  hide details  
post #42 of 155
Time for a car analogy! I liken this to arguing that people should have their odometers checked and be taxed based on how much they drive on roads.

That would be pretty stupid to do... So yea... caps...
M06
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX6300 Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 XFX 7950 - 3GB G.Skill Sniper 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 2133 CL9 @ 1733... 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
WD Blue 500GB WD Black 1.5TB Crucial M4 128GB (OS) LG ODD 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Deepcool Lucifer v2 Win7 Ultimate 64 bit Acer X223w (1050) LG 22EN33 (1080) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Sharkoon Tactix OCZ ModXstream Pro 700w Modular Corsair 300R CM Storm Xornet 
Mouse PadAudioAudioAudio
Steelseries Qck+ DOTA2 Edition Edifier e1100+  Sennheiser HD215 Plantronics Gamecom 307 
  hide details  
M06
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX6300 Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 XFX 7950 - 3GB G.Skill Sniper 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 2133 CL9 @ 1733... 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
WD Blue 500GB WD Black 1.5TB Crucial M4 128GB (OS) LG ODD 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Deepcool Lucifer v2 Win7 Ultimate 64 bit Acer X223w (1050) LG 22EN33 (1080) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Sharkoon Tactix OCZ ModXstream Pro 700w Modular Corsair 300R CM Storm Xornet 
Mouse PadAudioAudioAudio
Steelseries Qck+ DOTA2 Edition Edifier e1100+  Sennheiser HD215 Plantronics Gamecom 307 
  hide details  
post #43 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defoler View Post

No, and no.

To make more oreos is done in mass production, so each oreo cost less the more you make on the same equipment, since if the machine to make them cost 100,000, that price is subsidies on each oreo.
So making just 40 cost 2,5000 to make, and to make 4, cost 25,000 to make.

To ISPs it is different, but similar all the same.
And I'll give an example with very rough numbers.
If 100 people are getting 100GB cap, and using it to the fullest viewing netflix.
It means the ISP needs to support 10,000GB per month for those people, lets say during the 7 hours or rush hour on each day. That means the ISP needs to support 13MB/s overall. And for that you can use a home hub if you have to. Its overall nothing.
Now if he needs to support 100,000 people, it means he need to support 13GB/s. That is a big jump in terms of support.
Now lets say he has 100M people. Now he needs to support 13TB/s.

Now if he caps them from 100GB to 2GB, it means he only need to support 266GB/s in the overall of the network. And that is not a small home hub you are talking about. Its a series of huge network and infrastructure required.

And that is before I'm talking about 150Mb/s speeds, or 1Gb/s speeds which even more complicate the issue.

Because of 100 people have 100GB per month and they are all watching netflix at the same time at lets say 3Mb/s, it means the ISP needs to support 300Mb/s between netflix servers and him and the clients.
Now if he has 100,000 netflix users, he need to support he needs to support 292Gb/s, which requires a lot more. And if the ISP has 100M people, he need to support 286Tb/s.

And this is the reason why they want to get more money from netflix, as netflix is causing them to need to increase their network capacity between netflix and the consumers, increase performance, which all of that isn't a small change. It cost a huge amount of money. So someone needs to pay for it. And if its not netlix, it will be the consumers, either through government, or through data caps to make sure not everyone are watching all the time, or through increasing package prices.

You are talking about something completely different. Throttling, which is what you are talking about, and data caps are completely different. Most places, when you go over your data cap, they don't throttle you, they make you pay for extra data. Whether you use 1GB a month or 1000GB a month, it is all the same cost bar maybe a little bit of electricity. That is different than throttling.

Throttling on the other hand is another practice that is shady. If you can't handle someone constantly using a lot of data without being able to guarantee the speeds you sell, then you can never guarantee the speeds you sell, regardless of throttling. If it is the first of the month and all data caps are reset and all 100 customers on the same block all start streaming HD video at the same time and your network can't give them the speeds they pay for, you are selling a fraudulent service.
Sab Tower
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3770k ASRock Z77 OC Formula HIS IceQ Radeon 7950 Corsair Dominator Platinum 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung Samsung 830 XSPC Raystorm EX360 OpenSUSE 12.2 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
Acer 21 Inch Flat Screen Seasonic x650 NZXT Switch 810 Logitech MX510 
  hide details  
Sab Tower
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3770k ASRock Z77 OC Formula HIS IceQ Radeon 7950 Corsair Dominator Platinum 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung Samsung 830 XSPC Raystorm EX360 OpenSUSE 12.2 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
Acer 21 Inch Flat Screen Seasonic x650 NZXT Switch 810 Logitech MX510 
  hide details  
post #44 of 155
This is the most ridiculous argument ever.
post #45 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouacyk View Post

Say In your example, I was quoted and sold a service at 3Mbps. It's not my problem that the ISP signed up an additional 100M people. I still need my 3Mbps 24/7, and it doesn't matter what content I'm consuming because they all translate into bandwidth, of which I'm allocated 3Mbps each MONTH. That translates to roughly 949GB per month. Capping that to 100GB is effectively reducing my bandwidth to 0.32Mbps (10%) without reducing my monthly fee. How is that reasonable?

Of course it is your concern.
Because without the needed infrastructure, if the ISP can only provide 30Mb/s, it means only 10 people can run at full speed, and from the 11th up to the next 100M, everyone will start to right on the bandwidth the ISP can master, and in so, he will not be able to provide you with the service that you purchased.
And since he is providing you with the "up to" performance with a certain minimum as most ISPs, it is his best interest to save on money, and provide those 100M people the bare minimum needed. And if that means 0.1Mb/s, he only need to provide 9Tb/s instead of 300Tb/s, which relates to you seeing netflix, only out of rush hour, since every other time, you will never have the bandwidth to view netflix.

So it is your best interest for the ISP to give you as much infrastructure as possible, and in so, your ISP needs as much money as he can. So unless you accept paying several times your current pay, the ISP needs to find some other way to get money to upgrade, and still make a profit.

Saying that it is not your concern, means you are ok with your ISP giving you the bare minimum as possible, which means paying for 3Mb/s, but never reaching that.
Main system
(16 items)
 
Editing PC
(8 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsRAM
E5-1680v2 AMD FirePro D700 AMD FirePro D700 64GB 1866mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
1TB PCIE SSD OSX 10.10.x Dell U2713H Mac Pro 
  hide details  
Main system
(16 items)
 
Editing PC
(8 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsRAM
E5-1680v2 AMD FirePro D700 AMD FirePro D700 64GB 1866mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
1TB PCIE SSD OSX 10.10.x Dell U2713H Mac Pro 
  hide details  
post #46 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by frozne View Post

You are talking about something completely different. Throttling, which is what you are talking about, and data caps are completely different. Most places, when you go over your data cap, they don't throttle you, they make you pay for extra data. Whether you use 1GB a month or 1000GB a month, it is all the same cost bar maybe a little bit of electricity. That is different than throttling.

Throttling on the other hand is another practice that is shady. If you can't handle someone constantly using a lot of data without being able to guarantee the speeds you sell, then you can never guarantee the speeds you sell, regardless of throttling. If it is the first of the month and all data caps are reset and all 100 customers on the same block all start streaming HD video at the same time and your network can't give them the speeds they pay for, you are selling a fraudulent service.

I'm not talking about throttling. You read it all wrong.
I'm talking about two separate things. data caps and what is needed by the ISP to provide it to you, and speed and what is needed to provide it.
If you did not get that, read again.
In no point I was talking about throttling.
Throttling is the ISP having to reduce your speed, and in no point I was referring to it.
Main system
(16 items)
 
Editing PC
(8 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsRAM
E5-1680v2 AMD FirePro D700 AMD FirePro D700 64GB 1866mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
1TB PCIE SSD OSX 10.10.x Dell U2713H Mac Pro 
  hide details  
Main system
(16 items)
 
Editing PC
(8 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsRAM
E5-1680v2 AMD FirePro D700 AMD FirePro D700 64GB 1866mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
1TB PCIE SSD OSX 10.10.x Dell U2713H Mac Pro 
  hide details  
post #47 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuell View Post

Time for a car analogy! I liken this to arguing that people should have their odometers checked and be taxed based on how much they drive on roads.

That would be pretty stupid to do... So yea... caps...

Actually some places are doing it like that.
Instead of several taxes, they are putting a tax based on how much you drive. You drive less, you pay less. You drive more, you pay more.
They reason is that the more you use the road, the more you cause the need to maintain it, and hence, you need to pay more.
That is actually pretty logical, and in some countries (france, NZ, russia), it is being applied to trucks. So on your analogy, it is ok to put that tax also on the most heavy users, aka, netflix, or big data users.
Main system
(16 items)
 
Editing PC
(8 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsRAM
E5-1680v2 AMD FirePro D700 AMD FirePro D700 64GB 1866mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
1TB PCIE SSD OSX 10.10.x Dell U2713H Mac Pro 
  hide details  
Main system
(16 items)
 
Editing PC
(8 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsRAM
E5-1680v2 AMD FirePro D700 AMD FirePro D700 64GB 1866mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
1TB PCIE SSD OSX 10.10.x Dell U2713H Mac Pro 
  hide details  
post #48 of 155
LOL at trying to compare oreo's and internet. One you need for various functions, speeds and time. The other are oreo's. Nice attempt to explain to the FCC that you "can't produce an infinite oreo's."
post #49 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by tp4tissue View Post

You want to do this .. FINE..

Block ALL ads traffic, and give me PRECISELY what I want to see.. if you can do that.. I will pay you per Cat-Gif I view..

Ads are basically there to fund the site you are watching for free (or not).
If they block all ads, google, Facebook, OCN, youtube, all big news site, etc etc, will disappear, and no replacement will come otherwise, for they will have zero ways to generate income without forcing you into pay2see.

Ads are not ISP concern. It is just content you are asking for (to them). Those belong to sites. You can always view only sites which don't give any ads (or view them only as text without running scrips or downloading images), and walla, no ads traffic. Isn't it easier?

Are you willing to pay for your free gmail account? How about your free Facebook account? Your free whatapp account? Your free OCN account? Willing to pay for all of them?
Main system
(16 items)
 
Editing PC
(8 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsRAM
E5-1680v2 AMD FirePro D700 AMD FirePro D700 64GB 1866mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
1TB PCIE SSD OSX 10.10.x Dell U2713H Mac Pro 
  hide details  
Main system
(16 items)
 
Editing PC
(8 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsRAM
E5-1680v2 AMD FirePro D700 AMD FirePro D700 64GB 1866mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
1TB PCIE SSD OSX 10.10.x Dell U2713H Mac Pro 
  hide details  
post #50 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defoler View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuell View Post

Time for a car analogy! I liken this to arguing that people should have their odometers checked and be taxed based on how much they drive on roads.

That would be pretty stupid to do... So yea... caps...

Actually some places are doing it like that.
Instead of several taxes, they are putting a tax based on how much you drive. You drive less, you pay less. You drive more, you pay more.
They reason is that the more you use the road, the more you cause the need to maintain it, and hence, you need to pay more.
That is actually pretty logical, and in some countries (france, NZ, russia), it is being applied to trucks. So on your analogy, it is ok to put that tax also on the most heavy users, aka, netflix, or big data users.

Can't you just put a tax on gasoline? Only a few people would top their tanks at the border. Anyway, going a bit off-topic
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [ARSTechnica] ISP explains data caps to FCC: Using the Internet is like eating Oreos