K Patterson
Premium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | There's more than transit
I agree that seven cents is a reasonable price to purchase transit, but there are other costs to maintain the bandwidth to the peering point.
The pricing model which electric companies use for commercial and industrial customers is a way this has traditionally been handled. The meter measures two things - demand and consumption. The demand is averaged over a 30 minute interval, and in Columbus is $6.80 per kilowatt The electricity used is billed at $.0936. As you become a larger customer, the demand charge goes up and the KWH charge goes down.
Maybe this is the model that cable companies should use. Actually, it kinda is. One could view the monthly fee as the demand charge, and the new fees as the KWH charge. That doesn't make the present number reasonable, however. |
|
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA | NO, because it does not cost anything to create data. Just like there is a unit cost for electricity, the same does not apply to data. This is why broadband is not a utility. |
|
K Patterson
Premium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH | Actually, there is a very real cost to create data, but that is not the issue. Since the ISP's don't create it, the only issue is what it costs to transport it, and that is the issue. |
|
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA
| The electricity that powers the servers and routers (switches,hubs,etc). Which is paid for, what are the costs of the transit? The only cost is investment and maintenance, see teh way it works is TWC builds the network with big capital investment for a certain amount and that network is made to handle a certain load. There is no difference in cost if you are not using the network or are maxed out 24/7. Everything is still powered the same weather using 1mbps or 20mbps. And if we talk about POP transit then we are talking .4 cents or close of gig transit cost. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
 ·Embarq
| said by JamesPC  :The electricity that powers the servers and routers (switches,hubs,etc). Which is paid for, what are the costs of the transit? All of the helpdesk call center agents, field techs, network engineers. This increases the base cost of providing the service.
said by JamesPC :The only cost is investment and maintenance, see teh way it works is TWC builds the network with big capital investment for a certain amount and that network is made to handle a certain load. There is no difference in cost if you are not using the network or are maxed out 24/7. Ok, so where does the money come from if you need to upgrade capacity on the network? Under flat rate billing if usage is low there is sufficient margin to fund expansion efforts like node splits. The situation is coming about where demand is outpacing supply, and dollars aren't following to increase the supply. |
|
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA
| maintenance = "All of the helpdesk call center agents, field techs, network engineers."
The money comes from investors and you are acting like it is cheaper to run the network when usages is low rather than high. This is not true, you still have to "maintain"(see above) the network, electricity costs the same. Its very simple they are taking us for fools, if they are having supply demand problems then don't offer 25mbps connections. HELLO! The ISP(for competing video services) need to get over the fact that people are actually using the network. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| said by JamesPC :maintenance = "All of the helpdesk call center agents, field techs, network engineers." The money comes from investors People invest money because they expect a return. Maintenance is a cost, not a profit center.
said by JamesPC :you are acting like it is cheaper to run the network when usages is low rather than high. No, I'm saying it's cheaper to run the network when you have capacity on your existing plant to meet the demand. As soon as demand requires you to start to perform another round of upgrades, then you need capital to fund that infrastructure. I'm also saying the cost you pay today only goes to cover the infrastructure that exists today; if broadband is going to continue to grow and advance, that situation needs to be corrected.
said by JamesPC :Its very simple they are taking us for fools, if they are having supply demand problems then don't offer 25mbps connections. The reason they are supplying high *RATE* connections is that the networks are statistically muxed. Say you're going to download a Linux ISO; the size of that content is fixed. If downloading that at 5mbps takes you 50 minutes, then by bumping the speed to 25mbps you should be able ot get the same content in about 10 minutes. The benefit here is that demand is random - you and your neighbor aren't likely to go retrieve content at exactly the same time. By shortening the duration of transfers you reduce the likelihood that multiple large transfers will be hitting at the same time.
Of course this model doesn't work for P2P or streaming, as both applications are based around a constant flow of data.
That's where the disconnect is. |
|
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA
| Agreed, longer transfers are worse for networks but when you are talking about capacity. More people want to use there connections at the same time.. They cannot rely on "statistically muxed networks" even tho they do, the whole internet does (MONEY). The people that don't use there internet are money in the pocket. They see the future of internet driven media (HD video, video phone, crazy games, etc), this is just the traditionalist at TWC wanting to cash in as long as they can on there cable "TV" network. After all that what it was built for. |
|
