openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| reply to kamm
Re: We need caps again why?
Read the thread. Since you are typically quick to jump to conclusions, call people names, and rant nonsense, I'll give you a quick run-down.
Chiyo  started the thread asking why caps are required if GigE ports and backbone bandwidth are declining in cost.
I responded by stating that bandwidth is relatively low cost and that the transport and support costs are really the factors driving ISP costs. I added that if costs for support and transit are included in the $10-14/Mbps cost estimates (which they aren't BTW), then Chiyo 's argument about the need for caps may be valid.
pspcrazy added that the cables already exist and that support costs are a minor factor. pspcrazy then attempted to restate that caps aren't needed.
I responded by stating that the cable doesn't exist and that transport and support costs are indeed key cost factors for ISPs.
Then you popped off in your typical fashion. So, that's the relation to capping. |
|
fcisler
Premium
join:2004-06-14
Riverhead, NY
| reply to kamm
Uhhh not sure what your arguing with.
My response was to the previous poster who said "Yes, bandwidth is cheap - but it's the delivery that costs the money"
I was providing a real world example in agreement of that previous statement.
I never said we pay any other transport fee than the $2,500 from the city to us.... "you supposed" - you who? You don't know me or my job. I'm not supposed to do anything.
It would cost exponentially more expensive to move all of our webservers and DB's to a colo than host them on site...and due to what is on them, the legality is a very gray area. Besides, have you ever seen an EMC Symmetrix? 200A of power along with dual UPS redundancy, on site generator and backup generator is extremely expensive to replicate. Why move if we are invested in our location?
Yes...we do pay less. I still don't get any of your post?
I'm not sure what you were hinting at or expecting me to agree with? |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to halfband
Re: We need caps again why?
said by halfband :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. Their Bay Networks equipment was amortized over 30 years and it must generate revenue for 30 years before being permitted to be removed. |
|
I pos rep
join:2008-08-22
| reply to Chiyo
said by Chiyo :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. Because those 25 million bonus checks are not enough. It is not like they are upgrading their network and they are certainly not hiring more competent and qualified employees.
Employee cost-down
Bandwidth cost-down
Infrastructure-0 as it is never being upgraded
CEO checks-Up 2500%
I think that it is obvious why there need to be higher prices and bandwidth caps. More profit for the CEO to shove up his ass and waste on nothing. It is called a monopoly. It can do whatever the hell it wants when not regulated. Duopolies are hardly more competition.
Find me suburb or major city with more than 3 providers for all customers and I will retract my statement. With HSI markets being heavy monopolies or duopolies in 95% of places you see:
-No price drop
-No service upgrades
-No innovation
-No incentives for companies who run the area to do anything except raise prices.
Comcast powerboost and speed increases are not upgrades when they cannot be used to their full potential. It is the same as selling me a car with 6000 more horsepower that can only do it for 5 secs. Hardly an upgrade, in fact, it is nothing more than an illusion.
Proof recently: »AT&T Kills Off $20 Unlimited Pre-Paid Data
They use false advertising and get away with it. When people use the advertised service the price either goes up or the service is discontinued.
Cable connections and other HSI was also advertised as unlimited. As soon as people started using it more than 3 hrs a month it all of sudden has problems. Other ignorant posters like ninjatutle who live below a rock just buy the corporate BS. Please, a unregulated monopoly is not going to be making massive profit? Seriously, get off your lazy asses and go take basic economics at a community college. Maybe you will learn that monopolies make good profit, more than enough to sign thousands of multi million dollar BONUS checks. This is not counting the massive salary. Damn I feel sorry they might have to spend another 5 million dollars on upgrading their infrastructure and a dang CEO might see a couple million drop on his check. Whatever will the poor baby do? 
Yeah, massive crisis is that people are now using the broadband technology more once they understand it more and the CEOs are crying their check got smaller by 3% so they need to cap to make that up. Ninjatutle and others will come in saying that P2P is killing broadband. LMFAO.
P2P has lead to much more innovation than the CEO wiping his massive checks with his ass. |
|
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| said by I pos rep :P2P has lead to much more innovation than the CEO wiping his massive checks with his ass. Innovations? I guess finding better ways to steal movies is an innovation. But in the wrong direction. |
|
jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
| reply to ninjatutle
said by ninjatutle :Who the heck is gigom? Another blogger? And they got their data by surveying a small software co? Who the heck is the company? Someone who lies and makes up false data to appease their stockholders at the expense of the consumer?
I have seen many companies over the years lie or provide false data to shore up support for their ever-dwindling idea of fair use.
I don't trust the company itself anymore than you trust a random blogger to provide the information.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
Smith6612
Premium
join:2008-02-01
united state
 ·Dish Network
·Verizon Online DSL
·FrontierNet Intern..
| reply to ninjatutle
I don't see P2P lagging up my FPS games while I'm downloading large files on a 768kbps line now, do I? I honestly don't see FiOS slowing down in my area either. Many game download sites I use can max the 20Mbps connection right out. There's plenty of bandwidth and fiber out there waiting to be utilized on the backbones :P |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| reply to patcat88
said by patcat88 :Their Bay Networks equipment was amortized over 30 years and it must generate revenue for 30 years before being permitted to be removed. Can you say more about this? |
|
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | reply to kamm
"The transport fee doesn't really exist when you are in the city"
It most certainly does. Fiber isn't free in the city. I am about 2 miles from where we get our feed from and it still costs us a decent amount for the transport. |
|
cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA | reply to ninjatutle
oh hey! look! here is everybody's favorite anti-p2p troll at work! |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
1 edit | reply to funchords
said by funchords :said by patcat88 :Their Bay Networks equipment was amortized over 30 years and it must generate revenue for 30 years before being permitted to be removed. Can you say more about this? »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amortize
Its a financial/financing trick of some sort. I believe its loaning/financing equipment onto yourself (you remove the cost for the equipment each month rather than instantly, you can also finance it through outside parties, or your can finance your corporation's general activities (see commercial paper, etc)), or claiming the equipment is actually near liquid $ on the books, sort of like a car, and therefore no cost $ was actually spent to buy it.
There might be some tax tricks to this too, that you pay tax on the equipment only on the portion of the equipment you paid or wrote off that year.
Its something the bean counters invented, and bean counters aren't IT folks, so they get a loan/self finance/bond/etc to pay for the equipment for much longer than the real world life of the equipment, and fight tooth and nail when they are told this is an 386 and has to go by IT and that IT wants to buy new equipment. Usually execs will support the beancounters and stock holders on this one, not IT dept.
Then execs hire consultants to figure out how to not retire this equipment (and not screw up the books), and consultants recommend caps and throttling to keep the old equipment usable for much longer and not buy new routers, switches, and line cards every 2 years.
The phone company is famous for doing this. All the POTS switches are amortized to 20, 30, or 40 years. And thats sorta true, a POTS switch will last that long.
edit: I'm not sure if a market exists for used line cards, core routers, switches, HFC plant, telco switches. So if equipment is retired, your suddenly must write off the entire remaining value of the equipment in 1 shot, big drain on the finances, unless your can sell the equipment to cancel that out, which depends on a market for used carrier grade network hardware.
Another question is will the manufacturers (cisco, juniper, foundry, etc) offer replacement parts, or service contracts for non-orignal owners of the hardware? Financially they shouldn't since they are bastardizing themselves by supporting old equipment and not selling new equipment to pay off R&D on new equipment product lines. No carrier except the basement IT geek will then buy used carrier grade hardware (or they will steal from the dumpster at work  ), or maybe a 3rd world nation national telco for the president for life's villa. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
2 edits | reply to kamm
Upon reflection, I do not wish to post. Take me back! (brain fart) |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | reply to battleop
And even though we can't make more water, we do fine without caps on our water usage. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to patcat88
said by patcat88 :So if equipment is retired, your suddenly must write off the entire remaining value of the equipment in 1 shot, big drain on the finances, unless your can sell the equipment to cancel that out, which depends on a market for used carrier grade network hardware. Yes, and a company is, of course, allowed to upgrade even if it can't sell the used equipment (unless the equipment is collateral on a loan). Usually, it will be replaced by something, so the balance sheet will have a new asset -- and since it is technology, that replacement may be less expensive than the remaining depreciation of the capital item (now residing in the dumpster) or worth more than that in additional income capability.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| reply to ninjatutle
Om malik isn't just another blogger. He is a well respected tech and telecommunications journalist.
He has at least one book published, has worked for forbes, been published at places like the wall street journal. His analysis is taken seriously by serious people. |
|
DaMaGeINC
The Lan Man
Premium
join:2002-06-08
Greenville, SC
clubs: | reply to ninjatutle
Copy movies. Get it right. Stealing DEPRIVES the owner of something. |
|
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
| reply to kamm
said by kamm :The transport fee doesn't really exist when you are in the city Thats very far from the truth, and quite an incorrect statement. A good wholesale rate on a metro GigE circuit is around $3000 per month, and thats generally only between POPs. Furthermore, even a cross connect (in building loop used in a data center or colo facility) will run you $1000 per month.
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-
|
|
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to JasonOD
said by JasonOD :
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.
The trend in wholesale prices going down also indicates all the associated costs are going down. Wholesale providers must incur those same costs as retail ISPs.
--
09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0 |
|
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :I responded by stating that bandwidth is relatively low cost and that the transport and support costs are really the factors driving ISP costs. I added that if costs for support and transit are included in the $10-14/Mbps cost estimates (which they aren't BTW), then Chiyo 's argument about the need for caps may be valid. pspcrazy added that the cables already exist and that support costs are a minor factor. pspcrazy then attempted to restate that caps aren't needed. I responded by stating that the cable doesn't exist and that transport and support costs are indeed key cost factors for ISPs. But if I buy a port from a wholesale provider are you implying that it does not connect anywhere? That wholesale provider needs an infrastructure, which at least financially, will look very similar to what an ISP needs, there just isn't generally a last mile and where there is they are usually buying that from the ILEC and passing the costs along.
Also, all of this negates peering. If two ISPs pass an equal amount of traffic between each other they might enter into a peering agreement where the billed cost per Mbps is 0.
--
09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0 |
|
