IanR
join:2001-03-22
Madison, NJ | Nearly $40.00 to transmit a 2 hour HD movie?
Utter nonsense............ |
|
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs: | I agree, completely. |
|
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| not on the wholesale level, really?
pretty insane.. its got to be at least HALF that price on the wholesale level, they probably aren't using enough of the latest generation fiber signaling equipment to bring economies of scale down to size. (either that or competition is not thriving on the internet backbone in UK) |
|
Chiyo
Save Me Konata-Chan
Premium
join:2003-02-20
Minneapolis, MN
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| If they are going to charge the customer more money because they want HD content they I say F them. We pay and Im sure the UK pay a good amount for cable TV so asking us to pay more is insaine. When are people going to tell the cable co's NO MORE?
--
"Sure there have been injuries and deaths in boxing - but none of them serious."- Alan Minter, Boxer"I get to go to lots of overseas places, like Canada."- Britney Spears, Pop Singer |
|
firewire9999
join:2004-07-11
Livonia, MI
| LOL - They must be using two math???
They got to be using "New Math" (ones our little crumb crunchers learn in grade school).
Thats my two cents.
P.S. It only took two cents to transmit this post to DSLREPORTS.COM
 |
|
DrugSkill
join:2005-11-14
Saint-Jean-Sur-Richelieu, QC
·Videotron
| reply to Chiyo
Re: not on the wholesale level, really?
I don't get it.I'm not a network expert,but why would it cost more when there is data transfered? I mean it cost something to maintain an infrastructure period.The fact that this same infrastructure is used at full capacity just force them to upgrade it.If it's the case, I call this investments and we don't have to pay for this.We are already paying well enough. |
|
bufferoverru
Premium
join:2002-12-10
Ottumwa, IA | wow
At 39$/9GB, I would cost my isp 1,300$/m in bandwidth. Oooo wait, I'm on a Tier1 provider, so it's more like 10$. |
|
HawkI911
join:2002-04-08
San Antonio, TX | reply to firewire9999
Re: LOL - They must be using two math???
I think they're using Al Gore's calculator. Please note, this is the same one that said we were all going to die horrible deaths from global warming and no ozone by the year 2000. |
|
grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY | Yeah
Holy walloping Bullshit Batman! |
|
Mr Anon
@172.16.x.x
| I'm just being an idiot on word play.
So they can tream 9gigs over two hours!
Thats like 1.28MB a sec!
On second thought I guess that is possible for 10Bb connections and higer not including overhead and network traffic.
I'm not sure about the cost and the cost structure outside the US but It hink it would be beneficial for ISPs, that and in increase of backbone access a capability as well as probably a few hand washing deals. After all I think a lot of cost in bandwidth is not real. (not in that it doesn't exist in that it doesn't need to be there, IE the cost of DSL between two sites VS a dry copper pair and DIY) |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
| reply to grandpinaple
Re: Yeah
ya i guess if you trasmit i high def video for all of great Britan... i guess the cost is 39$
What would happen if everybody used this techology?
20,000,000/39$ = about right
economies of scale |
|
Dillio56
@savvis.net
| Figuring True Cost
If you are using a telco tier-1 provider their actual cost is under $10/mbit. If you are using a cable co without a backbone figure $20-40/mbit on the high end.
1 mbit = 320 GB/moth
So for the actual cost:
Telco = 10/320 = $.03/GB * 9GB = $.27
Cable = 20/320 = $.06/GB * 9GB = $.54 |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to Mr Anon
Re: I'm just being an idiot on word play.
Actually I don't think you're being an idiot, but rather hitting the nail on the head. 9GB of data probably doesn't cost $49, but the capacity to deliver it at 1.28MB/sec probably does. Here in the US T3/OC3s/etc are mighty expensive, I'm sure they're no better over there.
--
Rabble, rabble, rabble! |
|
IanR
join:2001-03-22
Madison, NJ
2 edits | Creative math at it's best...
This is what makes these companies look really silly. And who are they trying to kid?
What they do is look at their Total infrastructure, ongoing maintenance costs and HQs costs. Then they look for the most "creative" way of distributing those costs by use. They decide that their current data thruput is "X" and that 9 GBs of data therefore costs $40.00
Of course this isn't a true way of charging out these costs.
It takes "Y" cost just to hook up someone even if they only want to use occasional email. Hence the ISPs get back their full infrastructure costs by the monthly fees they charge AND they make a PROFIT.
Once the industry goes into major media downloading the additional (marginal) costs of supplying the increased data is minor as an incremental EXTRA. (Because 90-95% of the necessary infrastructure is already there and paid for). The extra hardware. suport etc. to allow for multi-media downloading is incrementally relatively minor, though real cost. Down the road I can see a Basic service costing "$A.00 p.m. plus a media (unlimited) allowed download sevice of $A.00 + $10.00 p.m.
This would more than cover all the costs associated with the extra data and allow ISPs to make a decent profit. Frightening Consumers with creative math is a really silly way to go IMHO. First of all the business is going in this direction, whether they like it or not. Second they cannot expect to run a business gouging consumers (they will not accept those charges), third someone else with another data channel would step in and eventually take out their whole business, if they tried to cost it that way. So what's the point of going Public with this kind of creative math? |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to tmc8080
Re: not on the wholesale level, really?
problem is the ISP market is trying to apply a metered water system to something that doesnt really have any cost to create.(every gallon of water costs a city money, every megabit of data costs an ISP nothing to send over its own network).
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY | reply to backness
Re: Yeah
I think you mean $39/2,000,000 |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Chiyo
Re: not on the wholesale level, really?
When did this become an issue with the cable co? I believe this is about "ISPs" in general. In fact, they are talking about HD movie files being downloaded from the internet, not the cable company... you've totally lost me.
Personally, I don't buy this article as it is anyway.. these 3rd party so-called 'looks into X" articles are usually meaningless or pointless. Seems like there is a new piece of drama coming out every 5 minutes these days. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to DrugSkill
You just made the phone company's point and case for why they want to charge more and tier the internet.
The internet is, in their words, becoming clogged up and as you say, "full capacity"... since many people are out there placing everything on line they can think of, why does the ISP have to pay to upgrade and not expect to pass the cost to the customer who is part of the congestion?
Are we paying enought? Let's look.. Dial up modems, circa $20 a month per one computer. It also usually meant holding your phone line hostage or a second line for the computer.. that was for ONE computer. Dial up and a phone line was about $45 a month for about 30k on average. Cable HSI (since people like to bitch so much about it's price) is often LESS than most people paid for a dial up modem + phone line. Now, let's add to this that HSI can be shared among multiple computers, where dial up wasn't feasable to do so. In some homes, people had multiple dial up accounts even so the cost gets higher.
Now let's look at what you do with a 56K line vs. a 6 or 8mb line. (Many DSL customers are STILL trying to get beyond 1.5).. look at all you are doing and getting with that $45 cable modem line and how many computers in the home are using it at one time. So, please tell me again how that $45 is "already paying well enough" again?
As to the internet,... the internet, in my opinion, needs to slow down for a moment. There is a reason we have Cable TV and Satellite companies... they provide television viewing services. There is a reason that phone companies exists.. to provide telephone services. I personally want the internet, today, to remain what it is... a place to transfer data.. and not the kind that I can get on TV or the phone. The internet is trying to become EVERYTHING over night and it just isn't going to happen the way people want it to. Everyone wants to throw everything on it at one time and then cry foul when it can't hanlde it! No kidding!
So, the ISP is the one to foot the bill for everyone else's desire to explode and, again, as you say "we already pay enough"? I hate to say this, I have been against tiering of the internet as SBC started talking about a few months back, but with this thinking of yours, you have given me reason to now see a valid argument on the other side.
I still want net nutrality, don't get me wrong, but comapnies are not in business to just exist and break even. Innovation comes with more than an idea - they have to be backed with money. Upgrades come with money.. that money comes with the fact that your product makes a profit.. profits go back into the system to enhance the network. If the product is flat, there is no money.. no money, no upgrade.. no upgrades - internet will max out and stay that way and BBR will continue to get pleanty of hits for people looking for a place to bitch. |
|
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace | reply to IanR
Re: Nearly $40.00 to transmit a 2 hour HD movie?
Agreed as well. I'd love to know the calculations used to pull that number directly out of their asses. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Kearnstd
Re: not on the wholesale level, really?
said by Kearnstd  :problem is the ISP market is trying to apply a metered water system to something that doesnt really have any cost to create.(every gallon of water costs a city money, every megabit of data costs an ISP nothing to send over its own network). Try again... it does cost money to move data.. the internet IS a metered water system. I suppose the fiber lines, the routers, switches, and, well EVERYTHING doesn't cost a dime to purchase, install, run, maintain, replace, and upgrade to meet the growing demands? |
|
