Tiered pricing doesn't make sense

[mattkime]

tiered pricing makes sense when trying to extract cash (duh)

the same service is worth different amounts to different people. people who use more bandwidth likely value it more.

its not at all about expenses.

[Chakravartin]

cbelt3 wrote:
Color me confused. Bandwidth IS a consumable resource. It's not infinite.

It's pretty close to infinite once you go fiber.

First off, there's still a huge surplus of unused fiber in this country.

And the reason for that is that there's been a constant improvement in the amount of data that can be sent over fiber. Once it's in place, you just have to upgrade a few parts at the endpoints -- often just a matter of reflashing a few chips -- and you've got better bandwidth. They were doing 3Tbps per strand for trans-atlantic cables as far back as the turn of the century and those strands come in huge bundles.

So, they don't use what they've got anywhere near to capacity and at the rate that the tech is improving there's no end in sight.

It might as well be infinite.

You might argue that not everyone gets fiber to their home and the copper cables that go to most people's homes can't push data so efficiently, but a similar improvement in speed occurs with copper cabling. We could easily do 10Gbps to homes across 90% of the population with minimal investment. The biggest expense would be replacing people's cable/DSL modems, but that gets reimbursed over time because most people's "rental" fees for such devices cover their costs within a 18 months.

They've been able to do 10Gbps over Ethernet since 2002 and it's been available to consumers since around 2009-2010. If they were interested in doing any improvements at all, it would be pretty cheap and wouldn't take much investment to go with fiber to the end of the block, 10GbE to the switch and true Gbps at your wall. Most local cable monopolies could do it inside of a year if they wanted to.

[Spock]

There is plenty of unused fiber just waiting to be used but Monopoly Cable Co's and Telecoms lobbying deprives you, the users, the choice. Yes, the corporate kleptocracy is screwing you.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hundred...-it-unused

[silvarios]

Chak,
For cable and DSL modems, the current lease generally pays for itself in a year, often far faster. I think my mom's modem rental was something like $8 before I convinced her to buy her own for $40. These companies are pocketing so much money now from rental fees alone, they should have plenty to spend on infrastructure upgrades.

[Chakravartin]

silvarios wrote:
Chak,
For cable and DSL modems, the current lease generally pays for itself in a year, often far faster.

Yep. Depends upon the provider. I was being generous.

[Bill in NC]

Less than that.

I just bought a combination cable modem/wireless router for $25 (canceled my Clear iSpot yesterday - switching to cable broadband)

silvarios wrote:
Chak,
For cable and DSL modems, the current lease generally pays for itself in a year, often far faster. I think my mom's modem rental was something like $8 before I convinced her to buy her own for $40. These companies are pocketing so much money now from rental fees alone, they should have plenty to spend on infrastructure upgrades.

[silvarios]

Was the modem/router new? There are definitely inexpensive options on the market. Seen modems (DOCSIS 3.0, up to 220Mbps) in the $30-$40 range, combo units for $70. It wouldn't surprise me if they were even cheaper on sale or perhaps refurbished instead of new.

The only time Comcast really puts the screws to you is with the phone service. Drastically overpriced for the service alone, and generally about $150 for the combo unit, assuming Comcast even lets you buy and activate one. Comcast must make a killing on Xfinity phone. Even at $33 with a triple play, I can go cheaper with a VOIP option.