KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
1 edit | reply to elvey
Re: Remedial unit information.
This was my point all along with the comment about comparing apples to oranges. The thread started out at first talking about what the costs of traffic are. It was quickly derailed into what prices someone could in theory pay for some XX speed connection, which it was NEVER about.
So, the "current context" as you put it never was the issue, and no one ever explained why pay-per-byte processing was needed. Basically, nobody answered what it really costs to transfer a 1 meg file.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
elvey
Spamassassin
join:2001-02-17
San Francisco, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
·Comcast
·SONIC.NET
1 edit | reply to KrK
Mbps != MB != MBps.
Mbps is megabits per second. In the current context, $100 / Mbps means a basic 10Mbps Ethernet connection would run $1000/month.
Over a month, this could transfer »www.google.com/search?&q=10Mbps%···%20month 3 TB of data. Google is your friend; it understands these units; use it if you don't.
--
AT&T is the world's second-largest SpamHaus and leads an
Organized Crime Syndicate. Also see TURN.org or UCAN. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
1 edit | reply to bicker
Re: Give Me A Break
Sounds to me like you just always want to get in that one last shot, no matter what it's about. I forgive you though, you can't help it. Thanks for adding nothing to the discussion.
2 thumbs up! |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to KrK
Sounds to me that you're unhappy you're not getting an unrebutted soap-box to project your own perspective. If you really want that, you really want to get a blog; it's not what a discussion forum is for. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to bicker
I'm not interested in arguing with anyone over more off-topic issues. People keep trying to compare Apples and Oranges here, and then insist that's why the results end up with Watermelons. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to KrK
If you want to argue with me, at least argue against something I actually said. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to bicker
This whole topic has been derailed. Care to offer evidence of what a 1MB file actually costs an ISP? |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
| reply to devnuller
Yeah, yeah. When you fail to support your allegations, just result to insults.
Sorry, but your claims of $100 a meg are proven hogwash. Even your concession of maybe $20 a meg is still completely off, and you know it. Under your pricing, every ISP, even dialup, would of been bankrupted long ago.
So throw out some more insults, I don't care. Just admit it, you have no idea what it really costs to transfer a meg of traffic... but I'm sure you'll insist otherwise.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
devnuller
join:2006-06-10
Hollis, NH
| reply to Ahrenl
said by Ahrenl  :More capital will be needed to add capacity, but I'm talking about the long haul resellers. They'll be earning greater revenue before more capital will be needed, thus providing the capital through retained earnings. Maintenance costs should only materially increase if you expanding the size of the network. It is true that more bandwidth=more revenue=reinvest portions into capacity growth for the first mile and middlemen ISPs (who charge based on peek usage).
I think that is the point of a need to charge based on usage tiers (not bill-by-the-byte). If there is a drastic increase in demand, the revenue will follow to address the capital demands. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to devnuller
said by devnuller :Greater utilization = more capital to add capacity = more maintenence costs for warentee's of that capital More capital will be needed to add capacity, but I'm talking about the long haul resellers. They'll be earning greater revenue before more capital will be needed, thus providing the capital through retained earnings. Maintenance costs should only materially increase if you expanding the size of the network.
said by devnuller :Significantly greater utilization = lighting more fiber = significantly more capital = major router upgrades = more facility space = more power = more maintenence costs There's nothing new here from your last point. Again, we're not talking about last mile operators here. |
|
devnuller
join:2006-06-10
Hollis, NH
| reply to Ahrenl
said by Ahrenl :Greater utilization of the network shouldn't materially increase the maintenance costs for the carrier's, but will substantially increase revenue available to increase the second two buckets. Greater utilization = more capital to add capacity = more maintenence costs for warentee's of that capital
Significantly greater utilization = lighting more fiber = significantly more capital = major router upgrades = more facility space = more power = more maintenence costs |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
·Verizon FIOS
2 edits | reply to devnuller
said by devnuller :
I feel like I am talking to a 3 year old. Some concepts like this may be to advanced for Krk to understand. While I wouldn't care to speculate which is the case, if either, keep in mind that it is as likely, if not more likely, for someone to deliberately refuse to acknowledge something than to not understand it. |
|
devnuller
join:2006-06-10
Hollis, NH
1 edit | reply to KrK
I feel like I am talking to a 3 year old. Some concepts like this may be to advanced for Krk to understand. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to KrK
There is a relationship between peak traffic and traffic, especially on the local level. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to devnuller
Then there's no problem, as there's no need to go to pay-by-byte billing. |
|
devnuller
join:2006-06-10
Hollis, NH
1 edit | reply to KrK
"Meg transfered" is not what dictates the cost of a network. An analogy would be how wide you build a highway. You don't build it for how many cars pass over it a day, you build it for how many at rush hour.
300Gb at 1Meg / second cost less than 300Gb at 6 Meg / second for 1/6th of the time. One has to build the infrastructure and pay the costs to sustain the 6Mb. Networks are built for peek usage, not total consumption. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | reply to espaeth
These rate charges are essentially setup to cover maintenance, profit margin, and future build-outs. Greater utilization of the network shouldn't materially increase the maintenance costs for the carrier's, but will substantially increase revenue available to increase the second two buckets. Therefore, in a competitve environment, rates should come down as utilization ticks up, at the same time as greater build-out revenue is generated.
I guess I don't see the problem. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to devnuller
You're still talking about charging based of line capacity, however, not what transferring 1meg actually costs. And even $20 a meg is way, way too much. |
|
