1 edit | You can't build networks to satisfy the hogs, ... ...you build them for the average user and you throttle the hogs or boot them off. No matter how fast you make your network or how much bandwidth you provide, the abusers will always find a way to eat up all available bandwidth. Unless, of course, you move to the pay-by-byte model. Then everyone, except the non-rich hogs, will be happy with speeds.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
 deadiPremium
join:2001-08-26
Perry, OH | Yes, you build to support all your users. My provider, and most others do not seem to have a problem with this. Mis-management?
--
We learn through the exchange of information, tell me more...... |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by deadi:Yes, you build to support all your users. My provider, and most others do not seem to have a problem with this. Mis-management? TCH is just pissed at the pummeling his ILEC stocks took when people stopped getting gouged by insane per-minute long distance rates. He wants it to return, only in the form of per-byte charges. 
--
Use the OS tool for the job. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Well, if the pay per byte model is so good, why don't any of the major ISP's do it? I remember back in the 80's, I used to pay about 5.00 an hour for compuserve access, but I could use as much bandwidth as I wanted.
The reason that pay per byte will never happen is twofold.
First: There is no 'minute' cost for using your connection. Unlike a phone call (switched network), where a phone call ties up a circuit for x amount of time, a packet based network doesn't use any 'resources' if it's not being used. So the concept of charging by 'time' is meaningless.
Now, charging per byte. Granted, the pipes are a finite resource. The limiting factor is how much data the equipment can handle, AT ANY INSTANT. Unlike oil, or other 'physical' resources, the limit on an internet connection is not 'how much' (i.e. if you're not using 100% of your bandwidth, it's lost) but how much per user. If I travel 100 miles, my car uses about 3 gallons of gas. So, I'm out about $7.50. However, if I download 100GB, my 'pipe' didn't consume any 'resources', but I DID use a percentage of the total pipe.
To put it in numbers, if a particular node can handle 100mb/sec, in a perfect world, that node would move about 30TB of data every month. In a typical 500 user node, that means every person could download about 60GB per month. And, if every user DID download 60GB/month, the incremental cost to the ISP would be, umm, ZERO.
We don't live in a perfect world, so some users do 500GB/month, and others do 1GB/month. If the ISP's were to charge 'by the byte', then 500 people at 65.00/month, would mean that the ISP would charge you $1.00 per GB/month. Now, I have NO PROBLEM paying $5.00 for a 5GB/month plan, but the ISP would never do that.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
|
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Of course there is no minute cost if its pay per byte or pay per bit, that would make it a "byte" or "bit" cost.
As much bandwidth as you wanted in the 80's was more than likely over dial up and not even close to as much bandwidth one may want over broadband. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to deadi
said by deadi:... Mis-management? not mis-management, it's probably cheaper and easier to throttle than it is to increase capacity.
Why build capacity to serve new customers when you can throttle existing customers and squeeze the new ones into the same bandwidth? I'll answer my own question: NO COMPETITION. |
|
jsouthJsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS | reply to Matt
Actually he is partially right here. They should expand their capacity, but they shouldn't do it for those who routinely download gigabytes of material a month and strain the system. I'm not talking about 50 or even 100gigs. I'm talking about those users who download 300-400gigs a month every month.
--
Bush bashing is old. How about more solutions instead? |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by jsouth:Actually he is partially right here. They should expand their capacity, but they shouldn't do it for those who routinely download gigabytes of material a month and strain the system. I'm not talking about 50 or even 100gigs. I'm talking about those users who download 300-400gigs a month every month. I agree. However, usage of the percentage model is flawed. What if average usage was 500MB a month and you happened to download 3 GB a month because you receive and send lots of videos to your family? You are now the unprofitable customer - or the low percentile bandwidth hog - is it time for you to go?
While I definitely don't believe in the pay-per-byte method, I like to tease TCH. He is completely entitled to his opinions, as am I, but I am also entitled to tease him about them. 
--
Use the OS tool for the job. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:Well, if the pay per byte model is so good, why don't any of the major ISP's do it? Because the marketing departments fear the customer attrition that would result if the rest of the market doesn't follow suit in charging for actual data transferred.said by karlmarx:First: There is no 'minute' cost for using your connection. Unlike a phone call (switched network), where a phone call ties up a circuit for x amount of time, a packet based network doesn't use any 'resources' if it's not being used. So the concept of charging by 'time' is meaningless. That's why you don't bill by time  said by karlmarx:Now, charging per byte. Granted, the pipes are a finite resource. The limiting factor is how much data the equipment can handle, AT ANY INSTANT. Unlike oil, or other 'physical' resources, the limit on an internet connection is not 'how much' (i.e. if you're not using 100% of your bandwidth, it's lost) but how much per user. If I travel 100 miles, my car uses about 3 gallons of gas. So, I'm out about $7.50. However, if I download 100GB, my 'pipe' didn't consume any 'resources', but I DID use a percentage of the total pipe. Huh???? If you download 100 GB, you are most definitely consuming resources.said by karlmarx:To put it in numbers, if a particular node can handle 100mb/sec, in a perfect world, that node would move about 30TB of data every month. In a typical 500 user node, that means every person could download about 60GB per month. And, if every user DID download 60GB/month, the incremental cost to the ISP would be, umm, ZERO. Actually, it's 62 TB/mth...don't forget duplex That 100 Mbps connection needs to be paid for somehow. And in reality, to pay for that connection, the ISP most likely requires a lot more than 500 paying customers. Hypothetically, let's use 5000 customers to cover the ISP's expenses, so now you're talking about 6 GB/mth (12 GB full duplex) of transfer. Now, a large majority of customers won't use anywhere near 6 GB/mth, so the ISP is able to over-subscribe their network to lower the costs to the customers across the board. But what happens if only 10% of the customers transfer 100 GB/mth? That right, the network reaches a choke point. So now the question becomes, how do you pay for network upgrades without charging an exorbitant amount of money for your high margin customers (simple web surfing and e-mail)? Simple, charge the customers that drove the need for network upgrades more money.said by karlmarx:We don't live in a perfect world, so some users do 500GB/month, and others do 1GB/month. If the ISP's were to charge 'by the byte', then 500 people at 65.00/month, would mean that the ISP would charge you $1.00 per GB/month. Now, I have NO PROBLEM paying $5.00 for a 5GB/month plan, but the ISP would never do that. You're right, an ISP can't afford to do that. But ISPs could charge for a connection (e.g. $19.95/mth) which includes a specified amount of data transfer per month (e.g. 5 GB), and then bill per MB or GB (e.g. $2.95/GB) above and beyond the initial service offering. Very similar to cell phone and long distances plans |
|
| reply to karlmarx
First: Time is not an issue with a per bi/yte charging. You first point is meaningless.
Second: The model would look more like the current cellular model with a minimum plan for up to XXXX bytes then then YY for each additional bi/yte. Along with all of the other pricing variations that are out there and probably some new ones.
The reason it probably wont happen is the operational logistics of counting the total "used" bytes because of issues such as overhead, computer generated traffic, viruses, spam, etc. It would just be a complete mess at the operational and customer support level.
Imagine calling in and arguing about how many bites and bytes you actually consume with tech support....ah! |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | said by truocchio:logistics of counting the total "used" bytes because of issues such as overhead, computer generated traffic, viruses, spam, etc. That's part of doing business on the Internet. Do you really want to distinguish between requested packets and acks to your TCP packets? Customer education could be a concern, but over time it would transition into a non-issue. Additionally, if a customer's connection is generating that much random traffic, viruses, spam, etc., then the ISP should block and/or remove them from their network.said by truocchio:Imagine calling in and arguing about how many bites and bytes you actually consume with tech support....ah! Why would it be any different than complaining about minutes used on your cell phone plan? Granted, you aren't going to list every bit transferred on the internet service bill, but numerous tools exist that can be implemented with statistics made available to the customer to enable them to monitor their traffic usage. Look at all of the data centers around the globe and how customers are billed and enabled to self-monitor their usage (exclude 95% billing mechanisms, although that could be another mechanism to bill customers vice per byte). Customers can log into their account and view up to the minute stats on various relevant information at anytime they choose, including data transferred. |
|
 RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | reply to openbox9
said by karlmarx:We don't live in a perfect world, so some users do 500GB/month, and others do 1GB/month. If the ISP's were to charge 'by the byte', then 500 people at 65.00/month, would mean that the ISP would charge you $1.00 per GB/month. Now, I have NO PROBLEM paying $5.00 for a 5GB/month plan, but the ISP would never do that. You're right, an ISP can't afford to do that. But ISPs could charge for a connection (e.g. $19.95/mth) which includes a specified amount of data transfer per month (e.g. 5 GB), and then bill per MB or GB (e.g. $2.95/GB) above and beyond the initial service offering. Very similar to cell phone and long distances plans
Having a flat limit and a stated cost when you exceed it is not IMO a far method to charge for the network usage UNLESS you use a CONGESTION PRICING model. This is based on the concept that the network is a time limited resource (ie: There is only so much available at any time and not using some of it NOW will not increase how much you have LATER) and you should set your charge rates so that they are lower when you have less usage and higher when the usage is higher (ie: When there is not enough resources to service all the demand). If you look at the referenced Phone Rates, they count not only actual usage but WHEN the usage occurs (ie: Unlimited/Untimed usage on Weekends/Evenings) so that you only charge against the Limits when the resources are scarce.
IOW: Why should I be charged for doing more than my 5GB/m "allocation" if I only do it at times when my usage has no impact on the network? |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | reply to fAcEtIOUs
It won't make the provider happy, because the majority of customers don't use many bytes. It's better for them to get $40 from 1000 people, than $10 from 900 and $100 from 100. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to RARPSL
Because if you are going to bill bytes per month, then bill bytes per month. The ISP's costs aren't reduced during minimal times of use why should yours be? If you want that model, then expect your "connection" charge to be higher than my guesstimate of $19.95 and closer to the $40 or $50 that a lot of people pay now. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to axus
Except when those 100 people cause more detriment to the network than what they are worth. As an ISP, I would much rather make $20/customer and not have to spend multiple millions of dollars on network upgrades than $40/user and have to lay out the cash for network upgrades because of a small percentage of my users. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by openbox9:Except when those 100 people cause more detriment to the network than what they are worth. As an ISP, I would much rather make $20/customer and not have to spend multiple millions of dollars on network upgrades than $40/user and have to lay out the cash for network upgrades because of a small percentage of my users. Are you purposefully avoiding my post?
»Re: You can't build networks to satisfy the hogs, ...
--
Use the OS tool for the job. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Are you talking to me? |
|
 gatorkramKaBOOM BabyPremium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:2
 ·Suddenlink
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:...you build them for the average user and you throttle the hogs or boot them off. No matter how fast you make your network or how much bandwidth you provide, the abusers will always find a way to eat up all available bandwidth. Unless, of course, you move to the pay-by-byte model. Then everyone, except the non-rich hogs, will be happy with speeds. I am more than willing to pay by the gig (not the bit or byte) but they better include a fair amount in my normal flat fee, and they also better make my pipe one hell of a lot faster. If I am going to pay by the gig, I don't expect to have to wait a month to get what I want.
The funny thing is, in most data centers, they don't even count your downstream amounts, only outbound. For $50 a month, I bet I could get a web hosting account that includes a ton more of bandwidth than I get now.
Boy do I wish my isp had as many competitors, as web hosts do. Just think of the broadband utopia we'd live in.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death! |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to openbox9
Yeah. Did you notice the "Said by" thingy.
That means I'm talking to you.
--
Use the OS tool for the job. |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to openbox9
If you charge by the byte, then the provider is guaranteed to not lose money on the heavy users. But then, they will lower their bandwidth use if it gets too high (>$100). People will use less bytes. With lower demand, I don't think providers can get much profit per byte.
Compare that to when providers are charging very profitable rates on 90% of the people, the 10% have to use a LOT of bandwidth to erase the advantage.
I think per/byte charges could lower the bill for a lot of people, so someone could do it to build up their customer base from the $40/mo providers, and hope to make it up in volume, but the system isn't competitive enough right now for that to happen. The status quo is more profitable for cable and phone companies than the per byte model. |
|
