how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
501 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| Metered bandwidth will never work For the final time. THERE IS NO UNIT COST to move a byte. PERIOD. If you copy a byte from one computer on your network to another computer, the total cost is you CAPITAL COST (i.e. network card, cable, switch). It doesn't matter if you move 1 byte or 1TB, the cost is exactly the same.
When you are dealing with an ISP, they pay for a certain PIPE SIZE to the internet. If they only use 1% of that pipe, they STILL PAY the same amount as if they used 90%. If you buy a T-1, there will never be (and there ISN'T in Australia), a 'per-byte charge'. You pay for the pipe, and whether you use it or not, the price remains the same.
The problem is, that the megacorps want you to believe there is a higher cost if you use more bandwidth. THERE ISN'T, except for the capital costs to build the network. If they are SELLING EVERYONE 10mb/sec, then they need to spend enough capital to provide everyone with 10mb/sec. Overselling is the way the spread the capital costs over many people. BUT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN COST IF YOU USE 1GB/month or 1TB/month. The problem occurs when too many people attempt to use what they were sold.
For the final time. Bandwidth itself is FREE. Bytes are FREE. CAPITAL COSTS are EXPENSIVE.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | | |
|
 gatorkramKaBOOM BabyPremium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:2
 ·Suddenlink
| If you look at the commercial market, for dedicated servers, webhosting, etc etc, you will find most of the market includes caps, and then a cost for going over those caps. Very few of these services are offered in an unlimited manner.
Why should the residential side of this coin be any different?
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 | |
| said by gatorkram:If you look at the commercial market, for dedicated servers, webhosting, etc etc, you will find most of the market includes caps, and then a cost for going over those caps. Very few of these services are offered in an unlimited manner. Why should the residential side of this coin be any different? But just because they are sold as metered doesn't mean that the metering was implemented due to direct correlation to cost. Quotas like metering are similar to long distance calling. while in the small scheme it may seem as if it could cost more to make long distance calls but if the network is already built and in use then directing a call to the neighbor across the street becomes the same as across the country.
Marketers are good at getting people to believe that there "are differences" and thats why we "should" pay more. | |
 IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
2 edits | reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:For the final time. THERE IS NO UNIT COST to move a byte. PERIOD. For the final time. Bandwidth itself is FREE. Bytes are FREE. CAPITAL COSTS are EXPENSIVE. You are wrong. ISPs are charged by their transit providers per Mbit per month on a 95th percentile basis usually, their bandwidth is not unmetered.
While your ISP may not charge you they are paying their providers for at least part of your proud provision of 100Mbit of upstream for people's TV, movie and MP3 wants.
Suggest you look at »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_(internet) and then consider how much your service would be costing you if you were paying per Mbit/s per month as your ISP is.
quote:
IP transit is a form by which wholesale Internet bandwidth is sold to Internet service providers (ISPs) and content providers. Pricing is typically offered on a megabit per second per month basis (Mbit/s/Month)
| |
gatorkramKaBOOM BabyPremium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Suddenlink
| reply to frost203
The problem with unlimited service, like we sort of have now in the residential sector, is just what we are seeing now. The networks can't handle what the users are trying to do. There is no penalty for abusing the network. If you make people pay for what they use, they won't be for free for all about how much they use.
Some say there is no cost, for the bandwidth, so there shouldn't be a pay-for-what-you-use model. Well, the pipe is only so big, and if there is no drawback to everyone using it 24/7/365 they will.
Much like why long distance calling wasn't sold as unlimited, it was because the lines to make those calls were not an unlimited resource.
Sure, I wish we could all have 100mbit pipes, and use them at full utilization 24/7, but the money has to come from someplace, to buy all the equipment and the lines to support all that usage.
I realize, this is the usage model the ISPs chose, and I realize they should be spending more money to upgrade their networks, but I also understand everyone is in the game to make money, and if they started to charge more, to the people who use more, we could hope they'd use that money to support the users who are paying for it.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 | |
| The only reason to "upgrade" is if their user base grow duh...
if you have a 100mbs pipe, give 10 users 10mbs each then of course you will need to upgrade the network if you acquire 5 more users, otherwise now you got certain user using "their" allotted bandwidth but this now slows down a few of the others because the pipe is small. so either upgrade the network to accommodate new users or do not over sell the pipe. DON'T say i got 10mbs of a 100mbs pipe that is shared by 20 others who you promised 10mbs as well.
with this type of thinking i should sell my car multiple times to bob, joe, and Ernie and tell all of them the are sole owners. | |
 jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·voip.ms
| You clearly have no clue about how residential bandwidth markets work. So called "oversubscribing" is how they're able to offer 10Mbps for $40 (or whatever low prices we've become used to). It's based on statisically how much aggregate bandwidth is needed to support X number of typical subscribers.
Under your scenario I assure you, you wouldn't be paying less than $50 a month. Price out a dedicated 10Mbps business class circuit sometime and you'll see what "fair" pricing is. | |
| "business class" exactly a term coined by marketers to imply that the service is somehow more special. its a pipe, a pipe just like any other. their statistical analysis is to maximize users and bandwidth, this model obviously has flaws they gotta use a new model. ISPs gotta realize that people will having their PCs up day and night, their network "the network we pay for" should accommodate that. | |
| reply to Ignite
What are you smoking. As I SAID, they pay based on the SIZE of the pipe, of course, they DON'T pay based on the amount of bandwidth they used. Sure, they can pay the 95% percentile, hell, that's how my T-3 was billed. But that's NOT A BYTE CHARGE, that's a UTILIZATION CHARGE. If they use 1%, the will pay EXACTLY the same as if they used 95%. That's how 95% billing works. If comcast suddenly dropped 90% of their traffic, their BILL wouldn't be any lower, but they WOULD be overpaying for a pipe much bigger than they needed.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
 calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | karlmarx, you're ignoring the bottom line of consumer behavior. While there may be no incremental cost to move a particular packet, overall there is a "per packet" cost because if a full network experiences a doubling of demand, then the ISP must buy twice the pipe to support it.
(To some degree, capacity is "lumpy" in the sense that utility electric plants and water treatment plants are--small increments are near free, but sooner or later you hit that 101% of capacity when you have to incur the cost of acquiring the next step in capacity. It's not that the extra movie you download incurs a definite cost--it's that if your 10,000 neighbors also download an extra movie, there may be a capacity upgrade required by your ISP, and THAT is what costs.)
To put it another way, your "no incremental cost" argument would mean it's pointless for me to install an efficient light bulb as the 45 watt savings is so small as to be undetectable by the electric utility. In reality, however, if my neighbors and I ALL install efficient light bulbs, then the utility may be able to avoid the cost of a new level of capacity--and THAT is where the savings is. When you pay by the kWh for electricity, you're paying for the fixed cost of the plant as well as fuel--and with plant costs escalating wildly, it makes sense to roll that cost into a usage sensitive charge.
And clearly, this analysis applies only to SHARED capacity, where there are increasing capacity needs based on usage. No, this doesn't include the cost of the drop to your house, but it does include the cost of everything "upstream" of the first network hub, whether that is a telco CO or DSLAM, or a cable neighborhood box. It's when usage starts to cause (or threaten) congestion on these upstream facilities and capacity expansion is necessary.
And no, there's no possible justification for claiming that you are paying for a totally clear connection to every peering point--that would be prohibitively expensive in a residential market.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
