Comments on: Nothing Wrong with Higher Charges for High Volume Users http://blog.cdt.org/2008/05/08/nothing-wrong-with-higher-charges-for-high-volume-users/ Digital Policy in Process Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:02:16 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: barry payne http://blog.cdt.org/2008/05/08/nothing-wrong-with-higher-charges-for-high-volume-users/comment-page-1/#comment-6077 barry payne Mon, 12 May 2008 03:21:51 +0000 http://blog.cdt.org/?p=248#comment-6077 this is off the mark on several levels ... bandwidth cost at the network level is not "caused" by GB use over time except by coincidence - it's caused by the coincident use of Mbs within a bandwidth tier which has an "up to" maximum and in that context, neither is it an "all you can eat" condition - from which the myth of "exafloods" and "bandwidth hogs" is bandied about as nonsense to undermine net neutrality - each time the burst speed is hit, it's "all that can be eaten" and absent congestion, it's "always on and available" as marketed and paid for from the customer's perspective capping GBs is a crude measure of bandwidth cost because it doesn't track bandwidth cost 1:1, including congestion cost in peak periods - consequently, "small" users don't "subsidize large" users or vice versa when both pay the same for bandwidth - nor do "large" users cause more congestion in peak periods than equivalent amounts of bandwidth use in Mbs by "small" users, regardless of total GB use over time - this is another myth made up by opponents of net neutrality to justify arbitrary and intimidating management to suppress the effects of oversold bandwidth and its consequences of manufactured shortages and congestion caused by major network providers - not the customers - rather than pricing it transparently and uniformly the 250GB cap for Comcast does act in conjunction with "up to" maximums of bandwidth to replace the blatant discrimination with neutral access and pricing, and also functions as a "dumb pipe" in agnostic fashion among content use up to that maximum, beyond which selective discrimination kicks in again - it is designed as a calculated "sweet spot" to retain a maximum revenue base of "low" users while either losing high users or forcing them to a higher grade, while deterring competition for its cable tv content this is off the mark on several levels … bandwidth cost at the network level is not “caused” by GB use over time except by coincidence – it’s caused by the coincident use of Mbs within a bandwidth tier which has an “up to” maximum and in that context, neither is it an “all you can eat” condition – from which the myth of “exafloods” and “bandwidth hogs” is bandied about as nonsense to undermine net neutrality – each time the burst speed is hit, it’s “all that can be eaten” and absent congestion, it’s “always on and available” as marketed and paid for from the customer’s perspective

capping GBs is a crude measure of bandwidth cost because it doesn’t track bandwidth cost 1:1, including congestion cost in peak periods – consequently, “small” users don’t “subsidize large” users or vice versa when both pay the same for bandwidth – nor do “large” users cause more congestion in peak periods than equivalent amounts of bandwidth use in Mbs by “small” users, regardless of total GB use over time – this is another myth made up by opponents of net neutrality to justify arbitrary and intimidating management to suppress the effects of oversold bandwidth and its consequences of manufactured shortages and congestion caused by major network providers – not the customers – rather than pricing it transparently and uniformly

the 250GB cap for Comcast does act in conjunction with “up to” maximums of bandwidth to replace the blatant discrimination with neutral access and pricing, and also functions as a “dumb pipe” in agnostic fashion among content use up to that maximum, beyond which selective discrimination kicks in again – it is designed as a calculated “sweet spot” to retain a maximum revenue base of “low” users while either losing high users or forcing them to a higher grade, while deterring competition for its cable tv content

]]>