baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
 ·Comcast
 ·magicjack.com
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
| Caps
Caps get rid of the internet gluttons. Good riddance to them, and hopefully nearind an end for piracy. Most people get mad about this, but its nice to see a corporation taking responsibility for the internet without directly controlling its content, and trying to make it enjoyable for EVERYONE; not just Mr.-sit-at-home-and-watch-movies-all-day |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA | Smokers, overeater, internet gluttons, up against the wall! Should we make a camp for all of the groups that do not meet your standards?
Good riddance to shills. Like that will ever happen. |
|
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | reply to baineschile
Now you know good and well these guys are not participating in any illegal activity. They are a small group of dedicated linux users who like to share rare and hard to find linux ISOs with each other. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | reply to baineschile
Or actually sell dedicated internet at a 100% markup of what they pay for the stuff. Wait...that's cheaper than what they're selling the stuff for now. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
 ·Embarq
| said by iansltx  :Or actually sell dedicated internet at a 100% markup of what they pay for the stuff. Wait...that's cheaper than what they're selling the stuff for now. Then you should stop buying from Comcast and buy directly from one of their upstream providers; cut out the middle man if they're marking it up that much. |
|
NetAdmin
CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile :Caps get rid of the internet gluttons. Good riddance to them, and hopefully nearind an end for piracy. The problem with that statement is that you equate high use with piracy and piracy alone. Fact is, that is not always the case. If the ISPs are going to start policing user behavior, looking at how much data they transfer is a $hit way of doing it.
--
---
Eleven years of carrying The Clue Bat... |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
·Comcast
·Qwest.net
·magicjack.com
·BeeCreek Communica..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to espaeth
They're marking up the bandwidth, not so much the transport from a peering facility to the home. The problem is that incumbents control the local loop and thus charge outrageous prices. Except it's the telcos instead of the cablecos that generaly control the local loop.
Buying bandwidth from a backbone provider is like buying food from Costco; you get a good deal but you have to buy a lot, and have a membership at the store (local loop cost or peering facility colo costs) in order to play.
Though I'm seriously thinking about starting an internet provider...a provider where a 3 Mbit connection (1 Mbit upload) could transfer a little over 1.25 TB of data in a month, limited only by the speed of the pipe.
IMO ISPs should choose what to cap on: speed or transfer. Not both. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| said by iansltx :They're marking up the bandwidth, not so much the transport from a peering facility to the home. The problem is that incumbents control the local loop and thus charge outrageous prices. Except it's the telcos instead of the cablecos that generaly control the local loop. Local loop tariffs are regulated by the Public Utilities Commission -- your government at work.
There's a significant cost to the infrastructure to take bits from those cheap pipes at the headend and deliver them to your house. Sure, there's a markup there because ISPs are for-profit entities, but it's nowhere near the numbers you are suggesting.
said by iansltx :Though I'm seriously thinking about starting an internet provider...a provider where a 3 Mbit connection (1 Mbit upload) could transfer a little over 1.25 TB of data in a month, limited only by the speed of the pipe. I think you should do that. It would get you some good perspective on the actual cost of operation. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
·Comcast
·Qwest.net
·magicjack.com
·BeeCreek Communica..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| $600 a month for 100 Mbit symmetric, maybe $100 x 2 for colocation at the meet me facility and the destination. Then the fixed costs of some high-performance wireless radios (expensive) and a computer or two for routing (cheap) and you're getting to the "node". From there, you use wireless radios at the base statin and customer levels, and you've got yourself a network. Oversubscribe 7.5:1 (not bad at all considering what people might be using, except for a select few, which the network can suppot anyway) and sell at $10 per Mbit. Assuming 250 customers @ $30/month, you've made back your high-performance-radio costs in under a year, and customer CPE equipment would follow shortly thereafter. All customers (though they wouldn't really) could use 250+ GB of data (130 up, 130 down) without slowing bandwidth down to anyone else. Yes, there will be labor costs, taxes and people who use more than 250 GB per month, but there will also be higher tiers, options to sell double\triple play with a referral discount (but it's fine if the user doesn't take it...the internet is freestanding and still a dumb pipe) and the "average" user who might only consume a few, or a few dozen, gigs per month. Not too bad of a deal there...
Also, I don't know about local loop rates, but around here T1's are cheapish ($360 a month) but back home they're over $1000, even in town. Why? Probably because Verizon (they don't sell even DSL back home) is the only telephone company with only one DSL reseller and that reseller (Windstream) only goes up to 1.5 Mbit/s the last tiem I checked. The only other entity bringing high-speed connectivity into town is the cable company, TWC. .. |
|
