Honestly, I don't ever see the model changing to metered billing.
Telephone service isn't that way. Water service (in my area at least)
isn't that way. And yes, some have started, but with 250GB monthly
caps, it's not really even a cap.
Travis
Microserv
Sam Tetherow wrote:
I couldn't imagine how the logistics of this would work. What makes
sense is if your customer uses more bandwidth, then they pay for it.
Everything else is just an inefficient way to do the same.
Lets say you are going to charge $150/Mb/month for 95% usage (just
picked a number). If the customer pays the bill for their usage 100%
comes to you. Now lets say that we have come up with some efficient
scheme to accurately bill the various content providers for their
'usage'. If we need $150/Mb/month and bill at that rate to say Netflix,
do you think that Netflix is going to have $0 overhead on accounts
payable for that bill? Do you think they are going to take a loss on
that expense? So it is going to cost the end customer $150/Mb/month+$x.
This cost will be averaged out to each customer based on total usage.
As the service becomes more popular then the price is going to go up.
Wait, doesn't this sound familiar? The problem with selling a commodity
is that supply and demand laws do apply. The more the demand the less
the supply. We don't get economy of scale savings in last mile on
wireless gear. We have a very finite amount of bandwidth we can
effectively deliver from an AP/tower.
Marlon is the one ahead of the curve on this one (and all the others
that have been billing based on usage already). This is most likely
where we are going to end up. I don't necessarily think it will be down
to $x/GB transfer it will at least be tiered service similar to cell
phone plans today.
Where WISPs run into the issue is in the short term. We have to survive
the market until the billing model changes. Eventually Cable and Telco
(and even Fiber at some point) is going to have to switch from unlimited
to some form of metered (Comcast and Time Warner are already testing
this model). They just have the advantage of having better last mile
bandwidth than we do and they generally get better upstream pricing.
Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless
Scottie Arnett wrote:
I read about a model somewhere that might work. The content providers paid the ISP a percentage for delivery of the content. Now I might could live with that if the economics worked out.
Scottie
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:11:04 -0600
I think we will eventually see people just leave constant streams open day
and night. How many of you leave your TV on much of the time whether you are
watching it or not? This throws off the over-subscription model which
relates to how many people are using the service at one time. When we start
seeing all channels available at all times via Internet with some common
interface (Netflix, Tivo, Windows Media Player, Real Player, Quicktime,
etc.) then we will have this problem to contend with as well.
I hope content providers start making all of their content interactive such
that viewers have to click something (like ads) from time to time to
maintain the free TV service. This would help them to sell their ads at a
premium and would provide an automatic "off" button for the stream when
people walk away from the "TV" and do not click something once in a while to
prove they are watching the content and commercials.
Scriv
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Chuck McCown - 3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think the canopy 450 will do something like 30 down and 10 up. So that
could give you 20 simultaneously which statistically could work if you had
50-100 on an AP.
----- Original Message -----
From: Travis Johnson
To: WISPA General List
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 7:30 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NetFlix Streaming Bandwidth Information
You have hit the problem directly on the head. You think a simple Canopy
AP is going to solve the problem? Let's say you are allocating 10Mbps
downlink on this AP... that would mean 5 customers per AP (@ 2Mbps each).
Nobody in this market can survive on those ratios.
This service needs capped and people that want it can pay for "video
streaming" which is $100/month extra... that would be my vote.
Travis
Microserv
Drew Lentz wrote:
In areas like yours, though, some would argue that is the perfect place for
some type of licensed LTE/WiMAX type of service. Even with a Canopy type
service it would beat down the doors of the telco offering only 3Mbps of
service. As more and more devices have bandwidth requirements, the service
providers will fall into line, I believe.
Everyone has always pushed for more bandwidth, but it as always come from
the customers as opposed to the devices. It seems like now, the device
requirements will leave the customer with no choice and force them into a
decision of higher consumption.
As far as furthering the digital divide, I don't think it will hurt it all
that bad. On the contrary what would be nice to see is the communications
mediums becoming less expensive because of the amount of services required.
Just like the price of bandwidth has changed over the years, I think it
will
continue to drop. I would love to see some research data on the cost per MB
over the last 10 years and see what the trend is like.
That combined with less expensive and functional equipment (UBNT's Bullet,
the introduction of Mikrotik years ago, for examples) gives operators the
ability to put more bandwidth than before in users hands at a fraction of
the cost.
I think more than anything it will come down to a backhaul battle. Fiber to
the node, fiber to the AP, high capacity microwave links (Bridgewave,
Dragonwave, Ceragon, etc) These are all going to be critically important to
aggregate and transport these huge amounts of data.
On 11/24/08 1:06 AM, "Scottie Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It will further the digital divide. Rural remote locations will be again
left
in the boon docks. Where I live, 3 meg DSL is the fastest available
connection
at $75/mth. Cheapest T1 here is over $600/mth, and fiber? forget it, can't
get
it unless you want to build about 4 towers just to backhaul, or pay
$1200/mth
for each cell tower to put them on.
Why should the small ISP's foot the bill for Netflix and these companies
that
are making million's of dollars more than we are?
Scottie
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Drew Lentz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:41:41 -0600
I'm all for open systems. Limiting the amount of bandwidth at any level
is,
to me, a terrible thing to do. I understand that it doesn't necessarily fit
the model as it applies to today's business for many ISPs, but, maybe its
time to change the model.
This is where the separation of providers starts to take shape. The
networks
that can handle these loads and supply the end-user are going to win the
customers. I honestly think the demand of large scale bandwidth is going to
be fed to the end-user by the consumer electronics market. Look at CES last
year. Look how many devices demand connectivity at certain levels. If your
current service provider can't get you what you need, there will always be
someone else who can.
There is some great info here from a recent conference:
http://www4.gsb.columbia.edu/citi/events/summit2008
Take a look at the slides. I like the reference to the slide where it
breaks
down how much bandwidth utilization there is expected to be per household:
35+ Mbps (and those are numbers from 2006!)
4 VoIP lines @ 100Kbps
2 SDTVs @ 2Mbps
2 HDTVs @ 9 Mbps
1 Gaming device @ 1Mbps
1 High Spedd Internet @ 10Mbps
Scary how quickly it adds up :)
My favorite quote:
³By the year 2010 bandwidth for 20 homes will generate more traffic than
entire Internet in 1995²
-d
On 11/24/08 12:24 AM, "Butch Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008, Travis Johnson wrote:
It will be interesting to see how this plays out... the amount of
bandwidth required to sustain this type of service is not cost
effective. My upstream costs alone are over $50/Mbps. So if someone
wants to run a constant 2Mbps stream, my raw cost is $100 per month
(not including backhaul, support, AP costs, etc.).
Wait until people realize that this type of service isn't going to
be "free" as they think now.... when they get a $150/month internet
bill, the $40 for DishTV will look pretty good. ;)
Even the cable companies are feeling the burn here:
http://tinyurl.com/3oufk8
Or a better story:
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1034_3-5079624.html
I am glad to see these types of reports coming out. The cable ops
and telcos have been rapidly trying to commoditize Internet access
services and now they are realizing how stupid that was. In my
opinion, high profile companies that are setting these limits are
going to help the smaller guys (that's us) "get away" with what, in
many cases, we were already doing. BW caps are something that will
HAVE to happen in one form or another.
<RANT>
Where are all the net neutrality people now? Why aren't you all
arguing that something like this is not relevant? Isn't this
something that you have all asked for? I mean, if I sell someone a
2 meg connection, shouldn't they (and everyone else on the system)
be able to run at 2 meg for the whole month? What difference does
it make if I am buying a wireless connection, DSL or cable
connection? In a net neutral environment, should it matter that I
am streaming this type of content?
</RANT>
I feel better. ;-)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
Wireless High Speed Broadband service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as
$30.00/mth.
Check out www.info-ed.com/wireless.html for information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
Wireless High Speed Broadband service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $30.00/mth.
Check out www.info-ed.com/wireless.html for information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
|
