openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| reply to Chiyo
Re: We need caps again why?
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. |
|
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
| 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. |
|
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] |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to kamm
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
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. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| 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. |
|
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) |
|
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...
|
|
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 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 |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| said by joako :But if I buy a port from a wholesale provider are you implying that it does not connect anywhere? Of course the port connects somewhere. What did I write that led you to believe otherwise? Maybe the misunderstanding is due to the fact that I only implied "backbone" instead of stating such.said by joako : That wholesale provider needs an infrastructure, which at least financially, will look very similar to what an ISP needs For a backbone, yes...if the ISP owns their backbone. |
|
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| reply to halfband
said by halfband :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. Bandwidth costs / usage are not a linear function. It is a step function. You add capacity for a fixed cost, and you can use all the way up to that capacity for no additional charge. So not only are people using a bit more traffic, but the cable companies have been increasing speeds and adding customers. If bandwidth is really an issue, then don't oversell it so badly. This means managing congestion if a node is full, and splitting it to reduce the oversubscription rate. These costs should be covered by the additional subscribers that are being added. If the average usage goes up, then it's time to upgrade. But as the cable co's have stated, their mean usage is 3GB per month, so where's the big crunch?
cw |
|
