| reply to redxii
Re: 5GB is TOO LOW said by redxii:5GB is TOO LOW. Is that really hard to understand!? Actually a 0GB limit might be preferable--a very low monthly access charge plus a small charge for each GB used.
There is no reason very light users should subsidize heavy users. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
1 edit | PastTense5
Here is the flaw in that line of thinking. ISPs do not pay by the GB they pay by the peak (per month)Mbps. So no matter how many GBs one downloads during non peak hours it costs the ISP exactly nothing(0) extra. Now consider the number of people sharing the same Docsis channel(often 100 or more) which is 38Mbps has a transit cost of $10-$12 per Mbps per month. If the entire 38Mbps was used for the entire month it would cost the ISP less than $460 in transit costs(actually a lot less). With 100 users on that channel that would be $4.60 per user per month in transit costs. So the transit costs are not the issue.
So lets look at hardware. Well once again it is not dependent on GB/month but by peak Mbps. The system has to have high enough capacity hardware present to handle the PEAK Mbps (4pm-11pm usually). The rest of the time that hardware is essentially running at idle. So the hardware costs are not the issue either.
What is at issue is the rapid growth of online video. Even M$ has now said that online video is the future. The MSOs are terrified that online video will significantly hurt their video products. |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to PastTense5
This is the "most fair" way to do it, and the reason companies will never do it. If 50% only check email and post on forums, that is almost half the revenue gone. The rest will moderate their usage to +/- the original price they were paying, not enough to offset what was lost.
Ideally, charges would reflect what it costs the provider to do. Pay a fixed rate for the line to your house ($20?), then a la carte TV and cheap internet bytes after that. |
|
| reply to PastTense5
said by PastTense5:Actually a 0GB limit might be preferable--a very low monthly access charge plus a small charge for each GB used. Even better than that... 95th percentile billing.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| said by NetAdmin1:Even better than that... 95th percentile billing. That would be, hands down, the fairest method of billing for access.
Unfortunately it's also the most easily misunderstood billing method out there. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | While it would probably be the fairest, it would not solve the ISPs' issues. Billing by the 95th percentile method (the way ISPs pay) would not address the congestion issues. It might actually increase the congestion. Why would high GB users schedule their downloads during off peak hours (an inconvenience) when it cost them the same amount (in money and in hassle factor)? Before the capping issue became widespread, there was an unwritten agreement between the high GB users and the ISPs, users stick to off peak hours and ISPs do not bother them (no harm, no foul). |
|
|
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by Lazlow:While it would probably be the fairest, it would not solve the ISPs' issues. Billing by the 95th percentile method (the way ISPs pay) would not address the congestion issues. It might actually increase the congestion. It creates the same incentive option that has been driving expansion at the carrier level -- the more customers use, the more revenue that can be generated. Right now ISPs get $40-something from you whether you subscribe to an RSS feed of bittorrent releases or you leave your modem unplugged for the month. Keep in mind that 95th percentile billing only yields 36 hours (2160 minutes) of "free" burst. If over the month you run your 20mbps connection flat out for 433 5-minute polling cycles, your 95th percentile rate is going to be for 20mbps.
said by Lazlow:Before the capping issue became widespread, there was an unwritten agreement between the high GB users and the ISPs, users stick to off peak hours and ISPs do not bother them (no harm, no foul). That all went out the window as soon as applications became popular that consume network bandwidth in the background as part of their design.
The push is for longer duration transfers, be it in P2P-like applications or video streaming. This is going to create a shift in oversubscription models, which is going to increase costs.
Anyone who believes that a majority of broadband subscribers can drastically change the rate and frequency with which they use their HSI subscription and not have it affect the pricing is simply fooling themselves. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Espaeth
You are forgetting that the 95th percentile is a double edged sword. IF I limit my speed to 5Mbps but maintain it constantly for the entire month, I can download a lot of data (1500GB+) but still keep the costs down(5Mbps rate) (and yes there is a lot of software out there that will allow one to limit ones speed). Just as a side note 5Mbps here on Charter is $60(for stand alone, off any specials).
Actually many ISPs are still honoring that agreement. Charter and Comcast are just a couple that do. Basically, do not cause any trouble for us and we will not cause any trouble for you. Since the major costs(transit or hardware) (that are changing) are defined by peak Mbps the game has really not changed(as far as transfer type).
You have to remember that at the exact same time people are using more bandwidth, the technology is getting drastically cheaper. One of the US cable executives just stated that converting over to Docsis 3 (in the US) was under $100 per home passed(which included the modem change). Split that over time (say 36 months) and you see how cheap it really is. The same applies to backbone costs(just look at the 170 Gbps development from the front page: »gigaom.com/2009/04/14/optics-res···50-gbps/ ). If you need further proof just look around the world. Many countries have 100/100Mbps service for under $50/month. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by Lazlow:You are forgetting that the 95th percentile is a double edged sword. IF I limit my speed to 5Mbps but maintain it constantly for the entire month, I can download a lot of data (1500GB+) but still keep the costs down(5Mbps rate) (and yes there is a lot of software out there that will allow one to limit ones speed). Just as a side note 5Mbps here on Charter is $60(for stand alone, off any specials). You're not buying 5mbps of 95th percentile for $60 though. In actuality it would work out to something like 640-768kbps @95th is what the broadband ISPs are budgeting for, and that's the top end.
said by Lazlow:You have to remember that at the exact same time people are using more bandwidth, the technology is getting drastically cheaper. One of the US cable executives just stated that converting over to Docsis 3 (in the US) was under $100 per home passed(which included the modem change). That pricing isn't correct -- the modems themselves are $75-100. It's somewhere in the $200-$500 range per sub, give or take.
If you think building that out is cheap, you clearly haven't priced an expansion for a Cisco CRS-1 chassis. Yes, you get a boatload of bandwidth for your dollar, but we're talking upgrade prices starting at $250k just for a single interface add with the current MSC and SIP/SPA combinations.
170Gbps is being developed, but it's still a long way out. Currently 40/100G Ethernet is still pre-cert, with the final standard not expected until Q2/Q3 of 2010. The principle issue they are still working out is interop within 64-lambda DWDM frequency spacing, since a vast many carriers have a significant amount of capital investment in existing DWDM systems.
For interop today, the limits are growth by 10GigE interfaces. The pre-cert 40/100G solutions are still being tweaked, and cross-vendor compatibility is still not worked out. If a single entity like Comcast or Verizon wanted to build a 40/100G span within the confines of their network, then the pre-standard interfaces can be a solution; if they need to interconnect, then all bets are off unless they are running the exact same hardware at both companies. Sure, there is an OC768 standard for 40G, but with its rigid timing requirements due to it being a channelized interface (ie, you can mux OC192, OC48s, etc into the circuit) the costs are a vast amount more than "fire and forget" Ethernet.
said by Lazlow:If you need further proof just look around the world. Many countries have 100/100Mbps service for under $50/month. Sure, with Japan being one of those countries.
I love these slides because it illustrates the point beautifully:
»www.caida.org/workshops/wide/080···ffic.pdf
When your average utilization on 100/100 FTTH broadband is less than 26GB/mo, it's cost effective to offer the service for $50. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
3 edits | You are right that I was a little off on the D3 upgrade costs:
"The deployment should cost Cablevision between $70 and $120 per customer"
From: »Cablevision Begins Beta Testing 100Mbps?
As far as the utilization; you are forgetting that US cable companies are claiming the less than 5% are using more than 2GB per month (figures are ball park off the top of my head).
Edit: "Currently, the median monthly data usage by our residential customers is approximately 2 - 3 GB."
From: »www.comcast.net/terms/network/amendment/
EditII: If you take a look at the Japanese data you will also see that they allow well over a TB of download on a significant number of systems. Your PDF page 11. |
|
| reply to Lazlow
said by Lazlow:Billing by the 95th percentile method (the way ISPs pay) would not address the congestion issues. It might actually increase the congestion. Most large circuits are billed that way and have been billed that way for years and no one has ever shown that congestion has increased because of 95th percentile billing.
In fact, 95th percentile billing is better than per/GB billing because customers actually pay for their impact on the network but at a reasonable cost. Per GB billing is usage based pricing, for all intents and purposes, ends up costing the users more than 95th percentile would. $1 per GB is much more expensive than the same level of traffic billed at 95th percentile.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" |
|
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:Unfortunately it's also the most easily misunderstood billing method out there. That's true, but if a marketing department and engineering department sit down and work on it, it could be dumbed down to the average user's level.
The basic concept is very simple, it is the explanation that is difficult.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" |
|
| reply to Lazlow
I've heard from more than two sources now that both India and Japan have 1 TBPS internet speeds available. Needless to say, the price in India is amazingly low, but it would be interesting to know how much it costs in Japan.
In the meantime, I'm paying ATT for 5 mbps, and actually getting only 2.6 for downloads and less than .5 for uploads.
What a deal. On TOP of that, ATT didn't like me running Windows Server 2008 and made me shut it down under the threat of cancelling my service completely. The land of the free, home of the brave. |
|
