Re: well... in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20628312 en Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:25:28 EDT Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:25:28 EDT Re: well... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20633896 anon : Great so what you're saying is that is has nothing to do with the wholesale cost of traffic to their upstream providers and more to do with them not being able to offer the speeds and services they advertise to more and more customers without charging overages under the guise of collecting more money for "upgrades" (As if somehow what users currently pay does not allow a cable provider to do anything more than scrape by). If it truly is not related to the extremely cheap cost of wholesale bandwidth, then i suppose they will just implement a "free nights and weekends" sort of deal where they are unmetered, or unrestricted during periods of non peak usage right?

OR

Being somewhat knowledgeable in the way corporate america operates what is the more logical conclusion?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20633896 Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:16:17 EDT Re: Very Interesting ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20633872 JamesPC : Agreed Skeedatl.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20633872 Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:09:14 EDT Re: well... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20631851 Dogfather :
said by markopoleo See Profile :

said by espaeth See Profile :

said by Jerm See Profile :

And DOCSIS 3 will take care of the last mile.
DOCSIS 3.0 will help the last mile, but only once they upgrade every installed CMTS and replace every single subscriber cable modem with a DOCSIS 3.0 model.
Will you people stop thinking DOCSIS 3.0 is the answer to all.

It means NOTHING to the end user currently, it just helps the cable provider.

Let me say it again..current cable customers have NOT REACHED THE BANDWIDTH OF CURRENT DOCSIS MODEMS. Had to yell it cause some people are not listening. :)
Huh? DOCSIS 3 absolutely is the answer to increasing speeds to end users. The biggest benefit is channel bonding.

And yes, there are cable systems where channel capacity is saturated. The bandwidth capacity of the modem is IRRELEVANT in cable topology. Those modems share bandwidth to the head end and without more dedicated channels, you aren't going to get any more speed, no matter what the modem's capacity is. And without channel bonding you will NEVER see the speeds to the end user that a competitor like Verizon is capable of delivering.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20631851 Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:59:00 EDT Re: well... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20631503 tiger72 :
said by Rob See Profile :

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.
That was their argument for Docsis... Anyone remember @home in the pre-docsis days? THAT's when people really shared and fought for bandwidth. Docsis allows everyone an equal share.

Caps are a "solution" to oversubscription.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20631503 Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:49:18 EDT Re: Very Interesting ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20630879 KrK :
said by Dogfather See Profile :

Backbone connectivity is scalable and bandwidth is cheap and evidentally getting cheaper.
Silence! Everyone knows there's a bandwidth crisis and we NEED $5 per GB overage charges to prevent total global collapse! (Of payTV revenue streams...)

:D
--
"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!)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20630879 Thu, 12 Jun 2008 05:55:34 EDT Re: well... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20630811 markopoleo :
said by Lazlow See Profile :

Markopoleo

You forget about the shared part of the Docsis. We all (on the same node) have to share the bandwidth on the channel(38 down and 10 up for Docsis 1.1, most markets). You start splitting up 10 (up) with a bunch of guys running 16/2 and the brakes go on in a hurry.
That really is not a DOSIS problem though, thats just a problem in deployment. They should not even be oversubscribing nodes in the first place. Nothing saying they won't use 3.0 and oversubscribe it anyways even if they have more bandwidth at headend.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20630811 Thu, 12 Jun 2008 04:24:46 EDT Re: well... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20630771 Lazlow : Markopoleo

You forget about the shared part of the Docsis. We all (on the same node) have to share the bandwidth on the channel(38 down and 10 up for Docsis 1.1, most markets). You start splitting up 10 (up) with a bunch of guys running 16/2 and the brakes go on in a hurry.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20630771 Thu, 12 Jun 2008 03:44:37 EDT Re: well... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20630368 markopoleo :
said by espaeth See Profile :

said by Jerm See Profile :

And DOCSIS 3 will take care of the last mile.
DOCSIS 3.0 will help the last mile, but only once they upgrade every installed CMTS and replace every single subscriber cable modem with a DOCSIS 3.0 model.
Will you people stop thinking DOCSIS 3.0 is the answer to all.

It means NOTHING to the end user currently, it just helps the cable provider.

Let me say it again..current cable customers have NOT REACHED THE BANDWIDTH OF CURRENT DOCSIS MODEMS. Had to yell it cause some people are not listening. :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20630368 Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:32:30 EDT Re: Very Interesting ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20629950 Dogfather : That's true. I'm watching a South Park episode via the Internet based DirecTV On Demand while I'm downloading Semi-Pro in 720P on my AppleTV. These services were once exclusive domain of cable companies.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20629950 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:56:28 EDT Re: Very Interesting ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20629933 Dogfather : But it is going down, in terms of the same $/Mb.

When I first got Cox in 1997 it was 3Mb for $30. Now it's 7Mb for $42.

So I was paying $10/Mb in 1997 and now I'm paying only $6/Mb. A decrease of 40%.

My 30Mb Verizon service will be less than $5/Mb, when with 768Kbps DSL many years ago I started at $50 or a whopping $65 per Mb. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20629933 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:53:41 EDT Re: Very Interesting ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20629772 raccettura :
said by Jerm See Profile :

So much for cable and their whining/caps.

Just means more profit. Cable providers connect to upstream provider like Cogent. If they lower the cost, and cable companies cap their service (hence cap their costs)... that results in higher profit margins.

Just more reason to go ahead.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20629772 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:24:09 EDT Re: Very Interesting ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20629649 anon : But, but, but doesn't it run on magic beams? You just "activate the lasers" and it all knows what to do by itself? There's no silly upkeep or maintenance contracts, or anything like that!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20629649 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:04:59 EDT Re: Very Interesting ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20629566 dvd536 :
said by Dogfather See Profile :

said by jc100 See Profile :

However, aren't all ISPS hooked into the backbones and simply resetting the bandwidth that level 3 providers sell?
Backbone connectivity is scalable and bandwidth is cheap and evidentally getting cheaper.
However i don't see my HSI bill going down.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20629566 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:51:30 EDT Re: well... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20629043 espaeth :
said by djrobx See Profile :

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.
Back then it was also very common to share the same downstream channel across a half dozen nodes or more. Over the last decade the MSOs have been pretty active in getting the number of nodes per downstream channel reduced, down to 1 DS in many cases. They've also added multiple upstream channels and performed physical node splits to get the number of homes per node down.

said by djrobx See Profile :

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.
That infrastructure is in place for many carriers.

Look at Comcast's network:

The CMTS hardware is connected to user/utility routers with GigE connections. The user routers connect to the aggregation routers with multiple 10GigE connections, and the area/aggregation routers connect to the core with multiple 10GigE connections.

Comcast's network is extremely fat in the middle, with Internet access circuits provisioned by demand (at significantly less capacity than what is available in the core) and the CMTS routers can't generate enough traffic to come even remotely close to choking the GigE uplink connections they have into the network.

For MSOs the congestion is in the last mile that connects the subscribers, followed by a distant chokepoint at the Internet access points.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20629043 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:08:38 EDT Re: well... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628985 espaeth :
said by Jerm See Profile :

And DOCSIS 3 will take care of the last mile.
DOCSIS 3.0 will help the last mile, but only once they upgrade every installed CMTS and replace every single subscriber cable modem with a DOCSIS 3.0 model.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628985 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:54:47 EDT Re: Very Interesting ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628881 Dogfather : A beeeeeelion dollars.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628881 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:33:53 EDT Re: Very Interesting ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628845 espaeth :
said by Jerm See Profile :

Yep you're right about the Cogent facility part, but in my area for example I know my Cable Co has their own regional fiber network. Then they have one massive telco circuit to Seattle where they hit the peers (and other one to Portland for backup).

You can't tell me that one or two telco circuits just upped the price per GB 125X from $0.012 to $1.50 ...
So what do you suppose it costs to operate your own regional fiber network?

Before you say that's a fixed buildout cost, don't forget about the people that are employed specifically to maintain that regional network.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628845 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:24:54 EDT Re: Very Interesting ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628743 Dogfather :
said by patcat88 See Profile :

said by espaeth See Profile :

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.
So how does FIOS, let alone copper POTS exist? $20K-$40K is the installation cost, not the monthly fee. Telcos laugh all the way to the bank with outrageous business customer prices since they know there is no way around them.
Exactly...why do they charge business what they do? 'Cause they can. It's what the market will bear.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628743 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:07:51 EDT Re: Very Interesting ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628738 Dogfather : It doesn't matter how many nodes a cable system has. Nodes themselves can handle a boatload of traffic.

The capacity crunch is solely how many channels a cable operator dedicates for traffic between that node and the headend. You can handle hundreds and hundreds of customers on a node, if you dedicate the channels to do it.

Backbone capacity is easily scaleable and because the pool of customers is so much larger, the backbone capacity isn't suceptible to overselling issues like nodal capacity is. It only takes a few seeding customers to saturate the upstream channels of a node.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628738 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:07:09 EDT Re: Very Interesting ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628733 patcat88 :
said by espaeth See Profile :

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.
So how does FIOS, let alone copper POTS exist? $20K-$40K is the installation cost, not the monthly fee. Telcos laugh all the way to the bank with outrageous business customer prices since they know there is no way around them.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628733 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:06:49 EDT Re: well... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628719 Dogfather : Cable operators don't have problems if they dedicate enough channels to their HSI offerings.

It doesn't matter how many nodes cover a city, it's how many customers they're trying to serve with a node and how many channels they're dedicating to get that done.

It's no secret that there are markets with saturated channels otherwise you wouldn't see evening slowdowns in some parts of a city while the other parts run fine. And not every market has problems which is why I said they have problems on occasion.

I was a TWC 15/2 customer up until a couple of weeks ago and never had an issue, but I know people served by the same head end that did during the evening, particularly in upstream speeds and and occasionally latency.

And while cable systems for the most part are handling current traffic demands, cable operators can't continue ramping up speeds without providing an increase in node to headend capacity.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628719 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:03:45 EDT Re: Very Interesting ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628718 Jerm :
said by espaeth See ProfileKeep 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.
...
It's getting the connections from these places of mass aggregation out to your location that drives up the costs.
:

Yep you're right about the Cogent facility part, but in my area for example I know my Cable Co has their own regional fiber network. Then they have one massive telco circuit to Seattle where they hit the peers (and other one to Portland for backup).

You can't tell me that one or two telco circuits just upped the price per GB 125X from $0.012 to $1.50 ...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628718 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:03:40 EDT Re: Very Interesting ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628706 djrobx :
quote:
The capacity is there, just the fact an ISP doesnt have enough nodes in the area
Don't forget about the intermediate connections between the cable plant and the backbone peering point. Such connections need to be able to handle the traffic from every node. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628706 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:01:57 EDT Re: well... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628701 patcat88 :
said by Jerm See Profile :

... at least someone gets it ...

It's like Verizon charging $0.15 per text msg. Or TWC and their proposed $1.50/GB fee.
Remember a cellular phone call is 7 to 11 text messages PER SECOND bandwidth wise. Nothing like getting payed half a million $ to move 1 CD worth of text messages. $930K per GB of texts. They must be laughing all the way to the bank.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628701 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:01:33 EDT Re: Very Interesting ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628636 Jerm :
said by Dogfather See Profile :

Any caps are simply about increasing revenue, not because caps are necessary to maintain network stability.
Bingo. And don't forget preventing comptition from online video - after all the cable co's are terrified of becomming a "dumb pipe" provider and having their cash cow drift away like VOIP is doing to the telcos...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628636 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:52:11 EDT Re: well... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628631 Rob :
said by Jerm See Profile :

said by Rob See Profile :

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...
It's not about the backbone. It's about the last mile, and yes it's about money. But it's not about the Cogent lowering their pricing.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628631 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:51:13 EDT Re: well... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628610 Jerm :
said by Rob See Profile :

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...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628610 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:48:03 EDT Re: well... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628561 Jerm :
said by BF69 See Profile :

said by Rob See Profile :

said by Jerm See Profile :

hmm so much for Cable and their caps...
What does this have to do with cable providers and their caps?
:o :huh: :uhh:
... at least someone gets it ...

It's like Verizon charging $0.15 per text msg. Or TWC and their proposed $1.50/GB fee.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628561 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:41:36 EDT Re: well... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628540 djrobx :
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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628540 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:36:41 EDT Re: well... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628517 Jodokast96 : True, but that is the reason some (not me) have put forth as a need for caps. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628517 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:33:00 EDT Re: Very Interesting ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628400 espaeth :
said by Jerm See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628400 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:08:52 EDT Re: well... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628363 en102 :
said by Rob See Profile :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628363 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:01:13 EDT Re: Very Interesting ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628361 Dogfather : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628361 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:00:53 EDT Re: well... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628337 Rob :
said by Dogfather See Profile :

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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628337 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:55:46 EDT Re: well... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628333 Dogfather : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628333 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:54:40 EDT Re: well... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628323 Rob :
said by Jodokast96 See Profile :

said by Rob See Profile :

said by Jerm See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628323 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:52:34 EDT Re: well... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628312 Jodokast96 :
said by Rob See Profile :

said by Jerm See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628312 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:50:25 EDT Re: well... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628301 BF69 :
said by Rob See Profile :

said by Jerm See Profile :

hmm so much for Cable and their caps...
What does this have to do with cable providers and their caps?
:o :huh: :uhh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628301 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:48:35 EDT Re: Very Interesting ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628245 Dogfather :
said by jc100 See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628245 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:38:43 EDT Re: Very Interesting ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628229 jc100 : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628229 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:36:42 EDT Re: Very Interesting ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628222 HEDP : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628222 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:35:26 EDT Re: Very Interesting ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628223 Dogfather : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628223 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:35:26 EDT Re: Very Interesting ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628192 EPS : There's also talk about backbone... though that seemed to be more from at&t than the cablecos.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628192 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:30:51 EDT Re: Very Interesting ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628182 Dogfather : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628182 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:28:50 EDT Re: well... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628135 Rob :
said by Jerm See Profile :

hmm so much for Cable and their caps...
What does this have to do with cable providers and their caps? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628135 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:20:38 EDT Very Interesting ... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628107 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).

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!"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20628107 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:17:03 EDT