how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
258 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
kd6caeP2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
join:2001-08-27
Palmdale, CA Reviews:
 ·Vitelity VOIP
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| data centers can do it, why not ISPs? If you lease a dedicated server box from a data center, you're usually given so many gigs of bandwidth per month, above which point, you pay overage fees.
Your server's network connectivity speed is a symmetrical amount, usually 10 or 100mbits/sec, and if you stay within your allotted bandwidth limit, which is usually in a good facility plenty for even the highest end average usage such as streaming audio/video, that kind of plan seems to work, and you get the full capability of the network.
Why can't or won't cable/DSL provider offer similar tiers of service, where users could enjoy the full upstream/downstream possibilities of the network they're on? I'd think doing something like that would be a neat thing to try. | |
zincPremium
join:2004-02-17
Kitchener, ON | Because in this day and age, you can market speeds, but you can't market transfer limits. It's a matter of what the consumer will respond to. By saying "speed" the consumer feels like they're getting more, by saying "limit" the average consumer will think they're somehow getting a "lesser service". Some companies have tried to get around their own marketing by saying "well, by unlimited we mean unlimited time online, not unlimited transfer or access" (which as other posters have noted, is a gimmick since online time doesn't really cost anything).
As for datacenters, they've only "recently" (last 10 years or so?) started tracking by byte usage, they used to only do 95th percentile... which is easier to calculate for infrastructure/growth improvment requirements.
My (DSL) ISP doesn't throttle anything and sells services based on a myriad of factors.
Speed: basic or fast
Transit quality vs transfer limit: multi-homed transit + cap vs single-homed transit + unlimited | | |
|
 Vchat20Landing is the REAL challengePremium
join:2003-09-16
Columbus, OH | Not to mention your comparing 'average joe' consumer to a knowledgeable datacenter customer. average joe couldn't care how much total bits/bytes they were transferring in an allotment of time let alone would they know how to track down such a thing on their own. Then you have your average datacenter customer who knows what kind of transfer usage their data is going to use and are more than capable and knowledgeable to keep track of this.
--
I swear, some people should have pace-makers installed to free up the resources. Breathing and heart beat taxes their whole system, all of their brain cells wasted on life support.-two bit brains, and the second bit is wasted on parity! ~head_spaz | |
| reply to kd6cae
Completely different market. You are comparing apples and oranges. However, that is another option available to anyone that wants choice. You need to figure out the logistics to connect your location to the dedicated server. Last I checked, you can't hang out in the data center and download until you've "reached your limit".
I know the telco based DSL provider already offer that type of service. They market them as private lines (56k up to gigE).
said by kd6cae:If you lease a dedicated server box from a data center, you're usually given so many gigs of bandwidth per month, above which point, you pay overage fees. Your server's network connectivity speed is a symmetrical amount, usually 10 or 100mbits/sec, and if you stay within your allotted bandwidth limit, which is usually in a good facility plenty for even the highest end average usage such as streaming audio/video, that kind of plan seems to work, and you get the full capability of the network. Why can't or won't cable/DSL provider offer similar tiers of service, where users could enjoy the full upstream/downstream possibilities of the network they're on? I'd think doing something like that would be a neat thing to try. | |
Kdee
join:2005-08-26
Etobicoke, ON | I'd love to say vote with your dollars.... ... But that's not always possible. In Toronto, your choices are Rogers, Bell, and a bunch of smaller ISP's. In my case when Rogers pi**ed me off, I went to Bell because DSL in my area is WAY FASTER with Rogers plus my remote access stuff works fine on their network (it went to hell in a handbasket on Rogers because of the packet shaping). Sadly that may not be an option for a lot of Canadians. What I think Canadians need is some of the big U.S. telcos to come up here and scare Rogers, Bell, Telus, and Shaw into playing nice. Then this B.S. would go away (or at least I hope it would). | |
|
