Data Usage for Video Streaming Comparisons

[Arysyn]

I read a very interesting semi-mathematical artical today on Huffington Post :

 

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7829664

 

It gives some calculations of how much data video streaming consumes, particularly the cost of such when consumed using AT&T and Verizon.

[nick]

interesting, thanks for sharing i think we are a long ways way from that reality, perhaps sprint will have an unlimited home internet plan by then? 

[Arysyn]

I've been involved in a lot of discussion here on S4GRU regarding Unlimited Data. While I like unlimited data, I also understand the points made by many here concerning its affect on networks and I agree with many points about it. I stop at the issue where some mention "data abuse" in regards to video streaming, because technically as long as its allowed in the T&C, then really it ought to be fine. However, the carriers do need to be more restrictive if it affects their networks. That is where I blame the carriers rather than my blaming the users, as long as the users are not violating the T&C.

 

Eliminating unlimited data and instituting an affordable per gb data plan that is fair for both light and heavy data users, along with a variabe yet still very durable speed cap system, is where I believe is that "happy medium" which all carriers ough to strive for. I detailed a solution in one of my threads I'll be updating soon, which shows a much more fair per gb pricing system than what is shown in the HP article I linked to here, contrasting to what AT&T and Verizon currently are charging.

[nick]

I agree with that on mobile data, but when it comes to replacing home internet I don't think a per gb plan would work for most people, unless you are a light user or the per gb is very cheap. Take my example most months I will use 100-120 gb over my home wifi, I pay around $35/ month for Att u verse. Under that the per gb price would have to be around .35 cents per gb. Imo I don't see wireless rates hitting that any time soon.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joshuam]

I don't think wireless internet at home will ever work for my family. We average 20GB a day when you combine downloads and uploads. Interesting to see the costs if we didn't have options for home internet.

[nick]

However with sufficient tower density, and back haul it's not crazy to think sprint could provide home internet services considering how much spectrum they hold in 2.5, not saying any time soon but someday perhaps. you would of course need caps of some type like most current IPS providers, 150-200 gigs is a common soft cap.  

[Arysyn]

I'm definitely not suggesting a per gb pricing model for home internet, only for mobile internet. I think the price would have to go down to around 20¢ to 25¢ per gb, in order for home internet consumers to be accepting of such a plan. In that scenario, 100gb would be around $20 to $25 monthly, which like mobile carriers, there needs to be some sort of minimum figure set for ARPU reasoning. In this case, I can't imagine there being a per gb plan with any less than $45 monthly for home internet, which again in this scenario, would be 180gb to 250gb monthly, depending on if the price were either 20¢ or 25¢ per gb. Again, this is the idea of pricing for per gb home internet data, at acceptable rates.

 

The highest per gb data rate for home internet, at most I'm thinking for something like fiber internet, is 30¢ per gb, starting no lower than $60 monthly, which at that per gb data rate, would include 200gb. That is, if the providers give that data included fairly by not decreasing the amount of given data for other fees, etc. If they did, I can't imagine the offer being any less than 150gb for $60 monthly, with additional data of course at 30¢ per gb.

 

Anyways, I'll update my Data Plan thread later tonight with some revisions and additions.

[nmartine3]

However with sufficient tower density, and back haul it's not crazy to think sprint could provide home internet services considering how much spectrum they hold in 2.5, not saying any time soon but someday perhaps. you would of course need caps of some type like most current IPS providers, 150-200 gigs is a common soft cap.  

Your 100-120 soft cap is unrealistic. I'm saying this, as someone, who recently got the Halo: Master Chief Collection DLC, which itself was 65 GBs and Halo 3: ODST, which was 8 GBs, and over my home internet, I watch at least 5-6 hours of online video, sometimes more, a day. In the age of digital, and everything becoming online, soft caps, caps in general, are unrealistic. Unrealistic to the point, where I feel like caps in general, in the future, are potential business killers, and can be harmful to those who would wish to enter the online, digital economy.

[Arysyn]

I really do not like these data caps on home internet usage, but I think if there is going to be such things in place, it shouldn't be any less data than 300gb, which at that amount no more expensive than $60 monthly, unless a fiber connection is in place, which in that case no less than 200gb.

 

However, that still is a very limiting amount of data I'm using as an example here, in terms of what the near future has in store for data streaming with more 4k content becoming available. In all fairness, the real rate that would be more in line with what I'd actually like to see happen if data caps and/or per gb rates are to be used, is a base rate of $45 monthly for 450gb, then 10¢ per gb after that as overage.

 

While I'll often write about my rate ideas for wireless service, I try to keep it as realistically possible for the current system of things wirelessly, considering network capacity issues and such. However, if I had a choice on it, I'd price it at $45 monthly for 15gb, then $1 per gb after that as overage. Yet, I realized that is a bit unrealistically cheap at the moment.

[travismheim]

Its a good article. However I don't see AT&T pushing wireless ott video when they are in the middle of buying DirecTV.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[red_dog007]

This article doesn't make any sense because regional and other national brands can come in and take the market share.  

 

I could understand expansion into new markets with wireless.  It would be a great way to offer internet quickly and cheaply.  This article is also assuming that the rates would stay constant from Cellular to WISP.  Look at Sprint + Clearwire.  Clearwire offered home internet cheaply, while Sprint did not. 

 

Also, it is sorta possible.  There are a lot of WISPs throughout the nation.  They offer a wide range of speeds, unlimited data.  They just are managed differently.  They tend to not oversell capacity really bad.  They tend to limit the number of customers if needed.  My dad uses a WISP and pays for 2Mbps.  That right there automatically throttles your streaming video.  Netflix defaults to 480p. 

 

All the carriers have huge spectrum reserves in rural markets that are heavily under utilized.  I am honestly surprised that one one has gotten into this business, and it seems like after Clear is gone, Sprint doesn't care to continue.  

 

 

Also, not like Fiber is needed. For VZW DOCSIS 3.0 is plenty fast, and DOCSIS3.1 is even faster.  Makes upgrading to fiber right now kind of a waste.  Then ATT is upgrading UVerse everywhere but still copper.  I don't really see why just because a line is copper that they are going to stop providing service to that line when there is still money to be made.  Really only ATT needs to upgrade their copper lines because DSL just sucks.  They need to get away from that technology.  

[Arysyn]

Here is another article doing rate comparisons :

 

http://www.droid-life.com/2015/07/22/comparison-verizon-vs-att-vs-t-mobile-vs-sprint-data-plan-pricing/

[chamb]

This article doesn't make any sense because regional and other national brands can come in and take the market share.  

 

I could understand expansion into new markets with wireless.  It would be a great way to offer internet quickly and cheaply.  This article is also assuming that the rates would stay constant from Cellular to WISP.  Look at Sprint + Clearwire.  Clearwire offered home internet cheaply, while Sprint did not. 

 

Also, it is sorta possible.  There are a lot of WISPs throughout the nation.  They offer a wide range of speeds, unlimited data.  They just are managed differently.  They tend to not oversell capacity really bad.  They tend to limit the number of customers if needed.  My dad uses a WISP and pays for 2Mbps.  That right there automatically throttles your streaming video.  Netflix defaults to 480p. 

 

All the carriers have huge spectrum reserves in rural markets that are heavily under utilized.  I am honestly surprised that one one has gotten into this business, and it seems like after Clear is gone, Sprint doesn't care to continue.  

 

 

Also, not like Fiber is needed. For VZW DOCSIS 3.0 is plenty fast, and DOCSIS3.1 is even faster.  Makes upgrading to fiber right now kind of a waste.  Then ATT is upgrading UVerse everywhere but still copper.  I don't really see why just because a line is copper that they are going to stop providing service to that line when there is still money to be made.  Really only ATT needs to upgrade their copper lines because DSL just sucks.  They need to get away from that technology.  

DSL does not need to suck.  I live about 2,000 feet from a CenturyLink DSLAM. I am getting 25 Meg down with VDSL.  I can get more speed if I want to pay for it. (probably about 60 meg)   The providers just need to get Fiber in a neighborhood and hang a DSLAM or two or three around the community.   My  VDSL works GREAT.     25 meg is more than enough for any household unless something unreasonable is going on.

[red_dog007]

DSL does not need to suck. I live about 2,000 feet from a CenturyLink DSLAM. I am getting 25 Meg down with VDSL. I can get more speed if I want to pay for it. (probably about 60 meg) The providers just need to get Fiber in a neighborhood and hang a DSLAM or two or three around the community. My VDSL works GREAT. 25 meg is more than enough for any household unless something unreasonable is going on.

Yeah, the area is VDSL2 now and the offerings are still that way.

 

FTTN with copper to the home. DSL does suck. You are only 1/3 a mile from the box, thus you can say GREAT. You get 1, 2 , 3 miles from that box, speed sucks, no TV service. Think about it, that isn't a long distance at all. Put yourself 2 to 3 miles from that box and see if you'll say "GREAT" again.

[mozamcrew]

Yeah, the area is VDSL2 now and the offerings are still that way.

 

FTTN with copper to the home. DSL does suck. You are only 1/3 a mile from the box, thus you can say GREAT. You get 1, 2 , 3 miles from that box, speed sucks, no TV service. Think about it, that isn't a long distance at all. Put yourself 2 to 3 miles from that box and see if you'll say "GREAT" again.

Yeah, but you can add a lot of DSLAMs for the cost of ripping out existing copper lines and running fiber. Certainly if you were laying down new lines, then yes, fiber makes more sense, but we are talking about companies with lots of existing money spend on their infrastructure. The point is that you CAN provide decent speeds over DSL, you just need to have enough DSLAMs.

[red_dog007]

And this is why DSL sucks.  You are still limited to range, DSLAM capacity, and user capacity.  The guys after a mile get really reduced capped speeds, no TV service, and further out you get you get nothing for speed.  Cable and Fiber is consistent.  They serve your area, everyone gets the same speed, same TV, etc.  If your area is served by DSL, everyone gets different speeds, and may or may not get TV service, no matter how many DSLAMs are added.

 

Im in a U-Verse market, and it is horrible.  Yeah, with upgraded VRADs the service is a lot better than before, but speed offerings still suck (can't compete with cable, let a lone fiber), few can still get U-verse TV, and many are too far away to get what is now defined as Broadband.  

[Arysyn]

And this is why DSL sucks. You are still limited to range, DSLAM capacity, and user capacity. The guys after a mile get really reduced capped speeds, no TV service, and further out you get you get nothing for speed. Cable and Fiber is consistent. They serve your area, everyone gets the same speed, same TV, etc. If your area is served by DSL, everyone gets different speeds, and may or may not get TV service, no matter how many DSLAMs are added.

 

Im in a U-Verse market, and it is horrible. Yeah, with upgraded VRADs the service is a lot better than before, but speed offerings still suck (can't compete with cable, let a lone fiber), few can still get U-verse TV, and many are too far away to get what is now defined as Broadband.

I've got Uverse too. I don't like it, despite getting 18mbps download speed, when I'm watching streaming movies using it, that takes up all the speed. I can't get decent speed doing anything else online while doing that, which is why I use the smartphone for online use.