[167254] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Dec 5 17:03:00 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1312050744250.24602@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 14:00:28 -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 10:54 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> =
wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:
>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> =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.
>>=20
>> 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).
>>=20
>> Several of the MVNOs offer unlimited for $40/month.
>=20
> Have you tried downloading 500 gigabytes in a month on any of these? I =
highly doubt any of the LTE solutions are =93unlimited" then.
>=20
Nothing is completely unlimited because you hit the bandwidth =
limitations if you try hard enough.
I generally get around 40-50 Mbps over LTE.
Downloading 500Gig at that rate would be roughly 1/2 of the maximum =
possible throughput for the entire month.
Of course, I haven=92t tried to do that because I can=92t really think =
what I would do with the data.
However, there have been months where I have done over 200GB on the AT&T =
connection. For my purposes, that=92s close enough to unlimited. YMMV. =
Choose the plan that works best for you.
>> 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.
>=20
> Your usage pattern makes wireless feasable. Watching two hours per day =
of Netflix 1080p on the above connections changes the equation =
completely.
>=20
I regularly watch 2 hours of netflix per day on my iPad, so in addition =
to some other bandwidth-intense things that I do (like downloading a =
complete set of aviation charts for the entire (not just continental) =
US, IFR and VFR) every 14-28 days, miscellaneous video surfing, and =
various other usage which is lower bandwidth (most of the time) plus an =
average of about 5GB per month of App updates most of which are =
downloaded via the LTE network, I would say my usage pattern falls =
exactly into the =93changes the equation completely=94 category you just =
mentioned.
>> 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.
>=20
> For your usage pattern, I agree.
>=20
Except you just cited something that falls a little short of my usage =
pattern as an example of what doesn=92t work, so, color me confused.
> We have the same deal here, for the same price per month you can have =
access to ~80 megabit/s LTE, or you can have 100/10 cable. The problem =
is that with LTE you get 80 gigabytes/month in cap. The cable connection =
doesn't have a cap. Also, the cable connection actually delivers 100 =
megabit/s at peak to you, which the LTE connection definitely doesn=92t =
(because you share the cell with hundreds of others).
If AT&T has capped me, then, I haven=92t managed to hit the cap as yet. =
Admittedly, the connection isn=92t always as reliable as $CABLECO, but =
when it works, it tends to work at full speed and it does work the vast =
majority of the time.
OTOH, I have routinely run into circumstances where $CABLECO is not =
delivering what they promised in terms of throughput.
> What's been happening here is that the price for fixed access has =
remained approximately the same (10-50 USD per month for 100/10 or =
100/100 depending on if you have coax or fiber/CAT6), LTE is in the =
20-50 USD range as well for 80 megabit/s, but you get capped and have to =
pay to increase your monthly cap. Thus, for light consumers this is =
fine, but for people who actually use their connection for video or bulk =
data, wireless is very much more expensive (which reflects actual cost =
of producing the service, wireline has a low marginal cost for =
bandwidth, there it=92s establishing the infrastructure that costs, =
whereas for wireless you have medium-high cost for establishing the =
infrastructure, but also a medium-high cost to increase the bandwidth in =
the cell).
Even if you double the price of LTE today, that=92s still less than =
1/10th of the cost of equivalent bandwidth in 3G wireless. My argument =
wasn=92t that they are equal today, but, that the price ramp on wireless =
is APPROACHING parity. The fact that you are arguing not that the price =
won=92t reach parity, but, that the extent to which it has done so is =
limited kind of makes my point in that regard.
Owen
