But here's the kicker
Monthly caps top out at five gigabytes.
Verizon has upped the ante in the fibre-to-the-home business, plugging some test kit into its network to show off 10Gbps. The test was a proof-of-concept for what's called NG-PON2 – next generation passive optical network – an ITU roadmap that plots GPON (gigabit PON) upgrades with a minimum of new kit. In the test, Verizon …
There is a choice pay for speed, pay for data or a mix. I would argue that data based charging is the most efficient because:
- pay for what you use (like most other utilities)
- encourages ISPs to run congestion free networks so you can consume more
- encourages ISPs to upgrade speeds because you can consume more
After exceeding the quota, speeds should be capped and preferably extra quota available for purchase.
Speed based charging discourages investment because a relatively small number of users consume a disproportionate amount of the bandwidth making faster speeds prohibitively expensive and discouraging the average person from buying faster speeds.
As for a 5GB quota, for Great-Grandma to check her email and video conference with the great-grandkids a couple of times a month that is better than Great-Grandma being stuck on 512Kbps and video conferencing sucking.
Verizon has no caps. I have 150Mbit FIOS from Verizon, it's very reliable. The big problem with Verizon is that they've lost interest in fibre, they haven't added a new town in several years. All of Verizon's efforts are going into mobile.
One more thing, this is for business not individuals. The fastest service that a home user could possibly want is 1G because that's the speed of a PC's Ethernet port, only servers have 10G ports and 10G switches are still extremely expensive.
is 10-20Mbit upload.. just got a note in the mail from my municipal cable company is raising download speeds and prices, but upload is still the same 3Mbit, I can upgrade to their 150Mbit plan and get 5Mbit, but I want more, I'd be really happy with 10 up and 20 down, but that's not available. In large part because I have a server at a fast local co-location facility with TBs of space which I like to do lots of file transfers between home and it, also I proxy the bulk of my internet web traffic & DNS through it as well(20ms away), peering there seems quite a bit better than the cable company.
When I move next year it will be to Comcast territory(100 miles east). Most people seem to hate Comcast, though as a customer for a few years before I moved back to California I never had an issue with them. My current cable bill from a small cable company that serves only my city of about 40k people is about the same as Comcast(not that I had an issue with Comcast's pricing but find it sort of funny people complain about their pricing when it seems pretty average). Looking forward to getting a comcast "business" connection with faster uploads. Happy to pay more for it.
I just got a letter from my cable provider too. They're upping my speeds from 75/75 to 80/80. ;) Although this being Norway, they're going to charge me extra for the pleasure.
All this is largely redundant though. I still end up waiting the same amount of time for web pages to load as I did with my old ADSL line. Too many web servers are sitting behind totally inadequate networks for today's traffic. The only time I really use my fully available bandwidth is with peer to peer *cough*torrent*cough* applications.
"I finally made the switch from Verizon to TWC and, maybe I'm one of the lucky ones, I couldn't be more pleased with TWC."
You are one of the lucky ones. TWC's service must be better in areas where they have direct competition. If you're like most of us where TWC has a local monopoly, their service is overpriced and slow.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018