| reply to Hall
Re: and 100% of this survey is stupid Thanks for that Tidbit...I was waiting for you to come along.
You are correct...we wouldn't be paying $20/month for DSL or $40/month for cable or what I pay for their "business versions" of $120/mo and $140/mo. It would be more like $8/mo, $15/mo, $65/mo, and $73/mo Respectively. Think about it.
Also begs the question. If I am a TV Sub where TV is delivered via IP. Am I going to be considered a Bandwidth Hog if I leave 2 or 3 TV's on 20 hrs a day, but only use Internet data for Email and Web purchases? |
|
| said by TechSponge: If I am a TV Sub where TV is delivered via IP. Am I going to be considered a Bandwidth Hog if I leave 2 or 3 TV's on 20 hrs a day, but only use Internet data for Email and Web purchases? nope
the bandwidth that ISP's generally care about is the stuff clogging the big transit pipes between providers
the stuff that just flows on their own self contained network is just the cost of hardware (not hardware, plus transfer fees, plus redundant external links, etc etc)
there's generally lots of bandwidth on an ISP's network, it's just the pipes that link the ISP's together that has the bottleneck AND the highest cost to maintain |
|
| don't forget only a foolish isp would think that the number of "hogs" is not going to increase.
These stats are meaningless |
|
|
|
 roamer1sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA | reply to Tikker_LoS
said by Tikker_LoS:the bandwidth that ISP's generally care about is the stuff clogging the big transit pipes between providers ...hence why most ISPs try to peer (vs. using transit) when possible. Of course, most consumer ISPs have very lopsided traffic patterns (lots of traffic in, relatively little traffic out) that scare away a lot of potential peering partners, and some have only regional networks which don't get anywhere near the major peering points, which leaves a lot of them stuck using transit for most sites.
-SC
--
said to me: "it seems like all you ever buy is Abercrombie and cell phones"  |
|
| reply to Tikker_LoS
Most of the stuff "people" seem interested in is what isn't already available (or we'd sorta be content with our cable tv).
Isn't it incumbent on the ISPs to figure out methods to get that traffic on net (partnering/caching etc)?
Then again, that won't play too well for the charging for content when the BOCs (VZ/T) get into content distribution over their IP networks.
Doesn't seem to be a market ISPs (non incumbent-owned) really have a place in long term.
Then again..it's always more than the cost of hardware...
it's sales, marketing, support and corporate operations...
Course the latter might be considered an add-on compliance type fee.
The game certainly changes when the ISP is our local Cable and Telco.  |
|
