said by Karl Bode :

But are carriers like AT&T and Comcast really struggling so badly under the current pricing model, that they can afford multi-million-dollar CEO bonuses and fantastic profits but can't upgrade their infrastructure?

said by devnuller :

The above statement is nothing more than agenda based rhetoric.

....

said by nasadude :

you don't appear to actually understand the statement you are characterizing.

Karl's point is simple:

various entities with vested interests have been warning of the coming "bandwidth crunch" for well over a year now - h/w vendors hype it to sell network management gear; investors and ISPs hype it as an excuse to charge more or get regulatory relief (these definitely sound like agenda based rhetoric). One sure-fire way to solve the "bandwidth crunch" IS TO ADD MORE BANDWIDTH. If these companies profits are above normal and they are paying their CEOs and other executives tens of millions of $$, one would certainly think they could afford to ADD MORE BANDWIDTH.

unfortunately, their agenda is to scare politicians and regulators into giving them more power to milk consumers of even more money.

said by Bellundo :

charging about one million percent extra for bandwidth over and above the cost to the provider.

said by devnuller :

What people pay is far lower than wholesale market rates for bandwidth. This is due the ISPs ability to share the cost among average and heavy users.

said by KrK :

$100 a meg. Why do I find that number to be way, way off.

said by KrK :

I'm positive it's not $100 a meg.

said by KrK :

Your number is simply INSANE. I am positive you're talking about the PIPE not the USAGE.

If we take your argument that 1MB costs $100, that means if you download say SP2 that you just cost your ISP $4k. There's no way.

Bandwidth is cheap.

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.

said by devnuller :

usage of 6Mbps running full out for only 5% of the month (95%ile billing that commercial uses today)

said by Ulmo :

Could you clarify that? What is 95 percentile billing? Here's what I found in Google so far:

»www.epidirect.com/Bandwidth/Unde···tile.htm

Are those representative?

So, in other words, they ignore 99.999% of your use? That seems dumb. Why not count it? I've created metrics that do stuff like this, but what help is this particular metric (that ignores most of your use)? Is it outdated or overapplied?

Reading their example, I see that:

1. (Top) 5% is ignored. Ignorance is bad.
2. (Bottom) approaching 95% is ignored after that. More ignorance is worse.

Almost 100% of your use is ignored; only one essoteric sliver of your use is considered. That is insane. I would never consent to a charge plan like that!

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.

said by devnuller :

Greater utilization = more capital to add capacity = more maintenence costs for warentee's of that capital

said by devnuller :

Significantly greater utilization = lighting more fiber = significantly more capital = major router upgrades = more facility space = more power = more maintenence costs

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.