[167232] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Dec 4 18:12:59 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1312042234410.24602@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 15:12:12 -0800
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Cc: NANOG List <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Dec 4, 2013, at 13:43 , Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
>=20
>> Nope... I look at the consumer side pricing and the fact that =
cellular providers by and large are NOT losing money. I assume that =
means that the rest of the math behind the scenes must work somehow.
>=20
> Cost !=3D price.
>=20
Price from the suppliers perspective absolutely =3D cost from the =
consumers perspective.
> Also, wireless providers are not delivering the same service as =
wireline providers. How many gigabytes per month do you usually get for =
the same money on wireline compared to wireless?
Depends on your carrier. =46rom AT&T, I have $29 unlimited and I have =
definitely cranked down more over that (faster) LTE connection in some =
months than through my $100+ cable connection.
=46rom VZW, I'm paying $100+/month and only getting 10GB over LTE, but I =
rarely exceed 10GB per month from my (again slower) cable connection.
T-Mo is offering unlimited LTE for something like $100/mo IIRC. (Their =
plans change so often and so quickly right now that it's hard to keep =
up).
Several of the MVNOs offer unlimited for $40/month.
>> Yeah, I'm sure there are all kinds of ways that wireline could be =
made cheaper, etc. However, I'm talking about comparing consumer =
pricing, not behind the scenes costs as the former is relatively easy to =
compare on even footing while the later is far to obfuscated by far too =
many parties to ever have a rational debate.
>=20
> Consumer pricing often have nothing to do with cost in a dysfunctional =
market. It a functional market, cost and price are more closely related.
Who cares? I'm talking about cost to the consumer which is absolutely =
equivalent to price from the supplier since they are one and the same.
>> I said nothing about what was possible... I only comment on what is =
actually happening. If you know how to achieve a functioning market in =
the US, I'm all ears. In the mean time, dysfunction is all I have =
available to work with.
>=20
> Well, there would have to be a huge amount of changes, and most likely =
only a portion of them would be implemented and then the changes would =
be deemed a failure.
>=20
> Make it administratively fairly easy to put fiber in the ground. Make =
municipalities/utilities put in fiber along other infrastructure and =
make them rent it out at pricepoints that are related to cost.
>=20
> If it's possible to rent dark fiber, then you can all of a sudden get =
competition instead of having a few huge companies dominate the market.
>=20
> Access to possibility of renting or installing L1 infrastructure to =
the block/cabinet is the key.
Sure, I'd love to see all of that. I'd also love to see L1 providers =
prohibited from engaging in L2 and higher level service provision and =
require L1 providers to accept all comers on an equal price and service =
basis (fiber from the MMR to any given subscriber costs the same per =
strand no matter who you are, no matter how many you buy, etc.).
However, just like the mythical isotropic radiator, I don't expect any =
of that to happen any time soon. So, in the meantime, wireless bandwidth =
cost (from an end-user perspective) is rapidly approaching wireline =
bandwidth cost as I said before. This is the reality that we currently =
live in, regardless of how dysfunctional it may be.
Owen
