how-to block ads
|
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| residential market
Talk of these higher speeds means nothing if Verizon can't bring faster speeds at affordable prices. Unless Verizon is able to break new price barriers such as 30/30 or 50/50 for $65 per month 200mbits will go nowhere fast. Right now, they're hard pressed to offer 20/20 for $65 per month. 200mbit would be Umm... $300, $400?
A 200mbit service would have to be under $250 to make sense to a residential customer in today's dollars. Right now they should be focused on offering Symmetrical Speeds to set themselves apart from everything else in their footprint. The main worry for Verizon is when customers REALLY start using that upload... the potential risk is not earning a profit due to isp data transfer cost at the backbone level.
Right now, IMO it's more talk than action because they are still in competitive pole position even though cable companies are beginning to test "BOOST" products in the market, they nowhere near able to compete with FTTP QOS in terms average bits per second especially at peak use hours. Few cable companies break 50mbits today.. and won't until docsis 3.0 rolls around (actual service offerings, new modems, the whole 9 yards).. Verizon knows this and so do cable companies. That's why it's more important to watch what these companies DO instead of what they SAY. | |
rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| SERIOUSLY-- what is the fuss about bandwidth utilization?
said by tmc8080  :The main worry for Verizon is when customers REALLY start using that upload... the potential risk is not earning a profit due to isp data transfer cost at the backbone level. (tmc8080, I'm just using your quote as a springboard, not picking on you personally)
OK, I've been silent on this issue but it's time to ask a VERY LOUD QUESTION.
**What is the big deal over higher bandwidth utilization?**
Look at fuel prices. Gasoline and diesel fuel are getting very expensive, so people are using less. DUH, right?
But bandwidth is getting cheaper. SUBSTANTIALLY CHEAPER and infinitely plentiful.
Verizon's field test a few months ago demonstrated they could upgrade existing 10 Gigabit (OC-192) long haul fiber to 100 Gigabits just by swapping out the optics at each end. NO changes to fiber. NO reconditioning of the lines. NO changes to the amplifiers/repeaters. An order of magnitude (10x) increase of bandwidth with a simple optics swap. »newscenter.verizon.com/press-rel···lly.html
Same should hold true for Cox, Comcast, Road Runner, and any other system running their own long haul networks. OC-192 backbones are "so 20th century". They need to be at OC-768 (40 Gbps) which as we already know is a simple drop-in on existing 10 Gig fiber.
For those of you asking "what about traffic to/from outside their networks?" If there's anyone here who believes the major players don't have SFI (settlement free interconnections, i.e. free peering) with most of the already-significant networks, raise your hand. Tier 1 networks such as Verizon do not pay anyone for transit-- they are 100% SFI (free peering).
So OK, there are some networks who will need to purchase transit from someone and that is not "Free". But prices of transit have plummeted. 10 Gig-E circuits from numerous carriers are under $10/mbit, and Cogent goes as low as $5/mbit. Other carriers are responding to this downward pricing pressure.
At the commit rates needed by ISPs, they'll get cheaper volume pricing than anyone elase. Available bandwidth will have commodity status-- cheap, plentiful. When 100 Gigabit links become common, and we all know this is in the near future, many industry veterans (who have seen prices drop with each new fiber technology) are predicting bandwidth pricing below $1 per megabit. And speaking as one of those veterans, I agree with them. Twelve years ago I paid nearly $3000/mo. for a T-1. Six years ago I paid $170/mbit on a 100 meg circuit. Today I pay less than 1/10th that. Does anyone really believe transit WON'T cost less than $1/megabit within the next few years, given sufficient commit rates?
SO -- seriously -- why all of the sudden are ISPs making such a ridiculously loud fuss over bandwidth usage??? | |
houkouonchi
join:2002-07-22
Corona, CA
clubs:
·AT&T U-Verse
 ·DSL EXTREME
·OCN
·Pacific Bell - SBC
·Charter Pipeline
| The big deal is with the cable companies. They have this big limitation called a node that a ton of customers are on which has a very limited amount of bandwidth. It think if nodes could handle 50x the amount of bandwidth they can now then cable companies wouldn't try to set bandwidth caps.
As you said above the actual cost in bandwidth should be very little and thus DSL/FIOS type technologies shouldn't ever have to cap their service like cable. If they did they are just being greedy bastards.
--
Chugging along on 2x 6016/768k DSL Extreme DSL lines and one 6016/768 ATT DSL DIrect line as well as one 10mb/1mb Charter cable line for a combined total of just over 26 meg download and 3 meg up (after overhead). yay! | |
rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay
·Verizon FIOS
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by houkouonchi :The big deal is with the cable companies. They have this big limitation called a node that a ton of customers are on With cable, I can understand that, except that the biggest (potential?) throttler of all may be Comcast and they're the ones bragging about their massive DOCSIS 3.0 upgrades underway. So they are deploying all this additional data capacity and speed, while at the same time REDUCING how much of it you'll be allowed to use. Bigger network, bigger bragging rights, but users will have to pay extra fees if they expect to USE it. Hmmmm.
DSL speeds are so low (compared to cable or FIOS) that huge data transfers aren't possible, so my guess is caps are unlikely.
Even though Verizon is not talking bandwidth caps on FIOS yet, they publicly stated they reserve that right should conditions warrant. With an all-fiber network and 100 Gigabit backbone links just around the corner, they should have no excuse for implementing caps-- other than "because we can" since "everyone else is doing it". (hint: another revenue stream)
said by houkouonchi :As you said above the actual cost in bandwidth should be very little and thus DSL/FIOS type technologies shouldn't ever have to cap their service like cable. If they did they are just being greedy bastards. Hah... I think you just gave the perfect description of the phone companies. | |
|
