Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
1 edit | Very Interesting ...
So much for cable and their whining/caps.
Thats about $0.012 (or 1.2 cents) per GB of transfer when I do the math (@$4/mbps fully utilized).
Just proves the caps and are a step backwards - the old mantra remains:
It is easier to add capacity to deal with a bandwidth problem than it is to mess with the alternatives
Can you imagine in 1998 if ISPs had said: "Well instead of providing faster pipes, we're gonna provide metered service because thats what our customers really want!" |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
 ·Comcast
| Re: well...
said by Jerm  :hmm so much for Cable and their caps... What does this have to do with cable providers and their caps? |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
2 edits | reply to Jerm
Re: Very Interesting ...
Cable's capacity problem isn't their backbone connectivity. It's between the node and the headend where they've dedicated too few channels to HSI, particularly in the upstream direction. That's why they're working on SDV, DOCSIS 3, ditching analog video and other bandwidth saving measures within the local cable systems. |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | There's also talk about backbone... though that seemed to be more from at&t than the cablecos. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
| Backbone connectivity savings (eg P4P and other projects) is just about saving money, not because there is an actual capacity problem.
Obviously the less data an ISP can get away with buying the better it is for them. But AT&T wouldn't be capping because of capacity...it's 'cause they're greedy scumbags following the cable whores down the price increase toilet.
In the short term cable has capacity issues within individual cable systems so in some circumstances the excess traffic is causing them capacity problems, but quickly deploying technologies like I mention above takes care of that.
Any caps are simply about increasing revenue, not because caps are necessary to maintain network stability. |
|
HEDP
join:2008-04-27
Miami, FL
1 edit | reply to Jerm
A T3 fully utilized at 45mbps up/down costs you around 4K-5K per month from Cogentco.
Ethernet can vary from 2K-4K with faster speeds, it also depends if you are on network or off network and how far you are from their POP, oh and that's per month.
A cable company asks for 150 dollars for a 18mbps line with I am sure but I think it was 45GB cap, I say from what Cogentco is charging you without a email account, without newsgroup access you are getting a bargain as a consumer for that pipe.
Also I am sure those prices are per data transferred, not the cost of speed.
If you don't believe me give Cogentco a call. I just did, to confirm my facts. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to Dogfather
However, aren't all ISPS hooked into the backbones and simply resetting the bandwidth that level 3 providers sell? My understanding, and I might very well be wrong, is that ISPS wire neighborhoods and business. However, the actual capacity is the backbone on which the ISP leases the bandwidth. So lets say X company has a backbone in LA. This backbone has 1 10 gigabits of speed for say 100,000 people. The slow downs come w here an ISP has too many people sharing a node, but not because of said backbone. The capacity is there, just the fact an ISP doesnt have enough nodes in the area. It'd be like a 6 lane highway being able to handle those 100,000 people until construction forces it down to 2 lanes a mile before the highway ends. The highway itself is sound up until the point of exit. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
4 edits | said by jc100 :However, aren't all ISPS hooked into the backbones and simply resetting the bandwidth that level 3 providers sell? Not always. The largest providers are tier 1s themselves like Verizon and AT&T. Time Warner also owns a massive network.
Backbone connectivity is scalable and bandwidth is cheap and evidentally getting cheaper. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to Rob
Re: well...
said by Rob :said by Jerm :hmm so much for Cable and their caps... What does this have to do with cable providers and their caps?    |
|
Jodokast96
R.I.P Bassman442
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Rob
said by Rob :said by Jerm :hmm so much for Cable and their caps... What does this have to do with cable providers and their caps? From the arguement that was made by some that a customer using their full bandwidth costs a cableco money, hence the need for caps. |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| said by Jodokast96 :said by Rob :said by Jerm :hmm so much for Cable and their caps... What does this have to do with cable providers and their caps? From the arguement that was made by some that a customer using their full bandwidth costs a cableco money, hence the need for caps. But that really isn't why caps exist. Caps exist because of the limited amount of bandwidth that a cable co can send to its customers. It's not about costing more money, it's about trying to give everyone an equal share. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
3 edits | Cable providers have no trouble providing an equal share at the backbone connectivity level just like telcos don't.
They do have trouble at the nodal level on occasion which requires traffic management or bandwidth saving measures that allow more channels to be assigned for transport between those saturated nodes and the head end.
It's this particular capacity problem that DOCSIS 3, SDV and other tricks will solve. |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| said by Dogfather :Cable providers have no trouble providing an equal share at the backbone connectivity level. They do have trouble at the nodal level on occasion which requires traffic management or bandwidth saving measures that allow more channels to be assigned for transport between those saturated nodes and the head end. Yea, that's what I meant. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
3 edits | reply to Jerm
Re: Very Interesting ...
Well it certainly shows that these overage charges are price gouging to the Nth degree.
Like Time Warner, certainly with their volume they get great prices while charging the customer $1.50/GB. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to Rob
Re: well...
said by Rob :But that really isn't why caps exist. Caps exist because of the limited amount of bandwidth that a cable co can send to its customers. That's only 'part' of the equation.
Why would Cable companies require a cap on a 512kbps connection then ? Its not entirely about having a limited amount of bandwidth, or they would not be selling 10-20Mbps plans with 95GB cap and a 512kbps plan with a 5GB cap. There's a profit margin they want to keep. By having a low bandwidth cap, they can push people off lower tiers. Many don't need +6Mbps, but they may want more than 25GB/month. Eg. I have a 3Mbps plan ... should I only be limited to 15GB?
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to Jerm
Re: Very Interesting ...
said by Jerm :So much for cable and their whining/caps. Thats about $0.012 (or 1.2 cents) per GB of transfer when I do the math (@$4/mbps fully utilized). Keep in mind that pricing is only valid in a Cogent meet-me facility -- you have to pay to get your own circuit to their handoff.
I've been going through the pricing exercise of getting OC192 connectivity between our data centers in Minneapolis, MN and Trumbull, CT. From the 511 building downtown (carrier neutral facility in Minneapolis) to a carrier neutral facility in Hartford, CT I can get 2 x OC192 circuits for $5k/mo each.
The carrier tail circuits, however, are about $20-35k/mo on the Minneapolis side (depending on private fiber or LEC circuit) and $25-45k/mo on the CT side for each circuit from Hartford to Trumbull.
They can sell cheap connectivity from major city to major city because the fiber is already in place, there's lots of it, and on top of it all they can "colorize" into DWDM bundles and get up to 64 connections on a single fiber pair pretty cheaply. It's getting the connections from these places of mass aggregation out to your location that drives up the costs. |
|
Jodokast96
R.I.P Bassman442
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ | reply to Rob
Re: well...
True, but that is the reason some (not me) have put forth as a need for caps. |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
·PHONE POWER
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
2 edits | reply to Dogfather
quote:
Cable providers have no trouble providing an equal share at the backbone connectivity level just like telcos don't.
They do have trouble at the nodal level
I don't buy it. I didn't buy it back when Pacific Bell was pushing the "webhog" ads, either. Back then this same argument was being made, when cable's caps were as low as 1500/128.
Cable companies are now offering 10x those speeds on pretty much the same DOCSIS 1 technology, and overall it's holding up quite well.
Think about how many nodes cover a city, and then think about how much backbone capacity it would require to fill all of those nodes, at 38mbps per node. And don't forget, you need a very big link from the cable plant TO the backbone provider that can handle all of that traffic.
Of course there will be some clogs at the node level in certian active neighborhoods. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. There's always going to be choke points in the network that require maintenance.
Time Warner's SoCal region seems to have more capacity problems at the city level than they do the node level, as made evident by the threads that crop up every few months.
-- Rob |
|
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
| reply to BF69
... at least someone gets it ...
It's like Verizon charging $0.15 per text msg. Or TWC and their proposed $1.50/GB fee. |
|
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
| reply to Rob
said by Rob : Caps exist because of the limited amount of bandwidth that a cable co can send to its customers. It's not about costing more money... "Limited amount of bandwidth"??? Then UPGRADE the dang backbone! Most cable co's own their own regional fiber networks, upgrade the friggin lasers!. And DOCSIS 3 will take care of the last mile.
On the contrary, it's all about the money. Oh and preventing online video from competing. After all what takes the most bandwidth? hmm... |
|
