Chiyo
Save Me Konata-Chan
Premium
join:2003-02-20
Minneapolis, MN
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| We need caps again why?
So my argument has a point YAY! Why are companies capping their users when bandwidth as a whole which they say is very costly is DROPPING.
also good to hear for companies that have lines like DS3's and such.
--
My Blog:
»abanzai.animeblogger.net/ |
|
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | Because P2P is eating up all of their bandwidth. But still, I'd rather them can P2P and leave everyone uncapped. |
|
JasonOD
@comcast.net
| reply to Chiyo
Bandwidth is a very small item (and growing smaller) in the list of ISP expedetures. Hardware and human costs are the real costs. Caps in fact, are only thing that will keep ISP's ahead of the bandwidth demand growth curve. Without it, we'd all be faced with an overloaded infrastructure 24/7. Unless you want to lose your cheap internet. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| reply to Chiyo
You still need to pay for the transit and support. Bandwidth has always been relatively low cost. Once you figure out how to get a cable from that GigE port in the exchange to your house for $10-14/Mbps, then you can argue that ISP costs are dropping and therefore caps aren't required. |
|
pspcrazy
Anime Freak
join:2008-02-06
San Diego, CA | The cables are already set, and the support doesn't cost much per customer, so honestly they don't need caps. Caps are just another way of controlling their customer when the push there video services. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to ninjatutle
said by ninjatutle  :Because P2P is eating up all of their bandwidth. But still, I'd rather them can P2P and leave everyone uncapped. BZZZZZZT! WRONG!
»gigaom.com/2008/04/22/shocking-n···d-usage/
quote:
The P2P stats are the ones that came as a complete surprise. Like you, I have read many reports that suggest P2P applications account for the majority of the traffic on high-speed networks. But McPherson’s data suggests otherwise:
* 20 percent of traffic is P2P applications
* During peak-load times, 70 percent of subscribers use http while 20 percent are using P2P
* Http still makes up the majority of the total traffic, of which 45 percent is traditional web content that includes text and images. Streaming video and audio content from services like YouTube accounts for nearly 50 percent of the http traffic. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone — streaming TV shows from Hulu and videos from YouTube have been on a major upswing, as noted by our colleagues over on NewTeeVee.
also, please note this article is from April, so P2P is probably has even less of a share now. |
|
SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17 | reply to ninjatutle
The P2P broken record spins again... |
|
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | reply to nasadude
Who the heck is gigom? Another blogger? And they got their data by surveying a small software co?  |
|
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
·Comcast
| reply to pspcrazy
said by pspcrazy :The cables are already set, and the support doesn't cost much per customer, so honestly they don't need caps. Caps are just another way of controlling their customer when the push there video services. So you and your neighbors are not using any more bandwidth this year than last year? I know that mine has increased significantly due to video/streaming. For cable companies the issue is in the last mile until DOCSIS 3 gets rolled out. I am not sure why telco's seem to see the need promote caps.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to pspcrazy
Where is the cable from an exchange to my house. The closest "real" exchange to me is Atlanta, and I guarantee that transit costs from Atlanta to the Panhandle for 1 Gbps isn't cheap. Support doesn't cost much per customer? I'd wager that support costs are probably the largest expense that established ISPs have. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to Chiyo
$$$$ |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to ninjatutle
said by ninjatutle :Because P2P is eating up all of their bandwidth. BS. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | reply to ninjatutle
why don't you click the damn link and decide for yourself - that's why I put it there. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| reply to pspcrazy
said by pspcrazy :The cables are already set, and the support doesn't cost much per customer, so honestly they don't need caps. Caps are just another way of controlling their customer when the push there video services. And to make sure they don't have to invest billions into their fucked-up crappy old arcchitecture anytime soon in order to be able to compete ever-faster competing solutions like FIOS...
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] |
|
fcisler
Premium
join:2004-06-14
Riverhead, NY
| reply to openbox9
Correct.
My job pays around $2,000 for 100mb from Savvis. We pay around $2,500 for the transit from NYC to us through a DWDM ring of a large "delivery company". If you live on LI, you most likely pay them for electricity and gas. Most people don't know that they actually have a huge and very well designed fiber network  |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :Where is the cable from an exchange to my house. The closest "real" exchange to me is Atlanta, and I guarantee that transit costs from Atlanta to the Panhandle for 1 Gbps isn't cheap. Support doesn't cost much per customer? I'd wager that support costs are probably the largest expense that established ISPs have. And this has WTF to do with capping?
You guys are pathetic - and BTW this is another BS spread by companies; I don't know anyone in my circles (6-8 ppl) who called their cable companies in the past year or so. Some of us actually NEVER called them since it's been installed.
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| reply to fcisler
said by fcisler :Correct. My job pays around $2,000 for 100mb from Savvis. We pay around $2,500 for the transit from NYC to us through a DWDM ring of a large "delivery company". If you live on LI, you most likely pay them for electricity and gas. Most people don't know that they actually have a huge and very well designed fiber network Yeah but you get an SLA-backed, top-tiered, dedicated, low-latency 100Mbit SYNC connection.
The transport fee doesn't really exist when you are in the city - you supposed to save it on your cheap rental fees.
If you calculate it you pay LESS than home users if you factor in your excellent upload, killer service level and the fact that it's not shared.
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] |
|
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | reply to Chiyo
Re: We need caps again why?
This is no different than water. The cost of the product it's self is very cheap. It's the cost of treating it and getting it to your house that cost a lot of money. |
|
