how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
1 edit | reply to DarkLogix
Re: He said, she said said by DarkLogix:If the tier 1 ISP's would light up all the dark fiber and upgrade existing transivers to OC768(40Gbit) then buy routers that are far beyond what is needed then the internet would be faster and we could totaly laugh at the ExaFlood crap (we can now but the laugh would be even better) This is a misread of the situation.
1) IP/Internet carriers aren't going OC768 because of the ungodly expense of gear that meets SONET framing/channelization requirements. The push is for 40/100gigabit Ethernet; even though the final standards for 40/100 won't be out until Q2 next year at the earliest, many carriers are building on pre-standard gear simply because of the cost efficiency of it.
2) The backbone carriers won't be a problem for capacity. They already have a pricing schedule based on peak mbps consumption. When people use more bandwidth, the backbone providers make more money.
The problem with the residential broadband market is that the ISPs have engineered themselves into a corner. Normally if you were operating a service where your demand exceeded your annual planline growth budget, you would correct for it by increasing prices to boost revenue to facilitate the additional growth. The problem in the broadband market is that the price increase will tend to drive customers away, specifically your low-use budget-conscious users who provide the balance to keep the high-use customers from toppling the system. As a bonus, any obvious solution to the problem (be it throttling, ejecting the high-use customers as "abusers", or usage-based billing) is an automatic PR nightmare, largely because sites like these have more of an interest in finding ways to point fingers instead of giving an honest investigation into the situation.
Overall, I'm glad I work in private enterprise and this isn't my problem to solve. | | |
|
 DarkLogixPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | Yes I realize that the problem isn't the backbone if anything its the last mile
I just think that it could be better | |
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
3 edits | reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:The problem with the residential broadband market is that the ISPs have engineered themselves into a corner. Normally if you were operating a service where your demand exceeded your annual planline growth budget, you would correct for it by increasing prices to boost revenue to facilitate the additional growth. The problem in the broadband market is that the price increase will tend to drive customers away, specifically your low-use budget-conscious users who provide the balance to keep the high-use customers from toppling the system. I used to have an 802.11(b) modem, the DI-614+, in the summer of 2002, it was "a lot for the price" at $150
I upgraded a couple of years later to the DGL-4300, an 802.11(g) modem, considered "expensive" and "twice the price" than other routers at $150.
And again I upgraded to 802.11(n), this time to the $180 DIR-655, again called "expensive" by the reviewers.
My point is, that speeds and capacity keep increasing at about the same price point. There is no sane reason this doesn't directly translate from the last 300 feet to the last mile!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL | |
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| The problem is that you're trying to relate manufacturing to deployment/integration, and they are really separate beasts.
How much do you think they needed to modify the production lines to manufacture different routers every year? They're still paying people roughly the same wages (with meager annual increases), they still have the same packaging costs and raw material costs, the only thing that makes a new device more expensive if that you are covering the R&D costs. It's not like 1.5TB drives cost more in terms of labor and materials than 250GB drives -- the price difference is to pay for the folks that figured out how to arrange the platter material and write methods to hit those densities.
Networks are a little more complicated in that you can't consider simple point solutions. The design and integration needs to look at the whole system, or you build yourself into problems like having two 4-lane highways try to merge into a single 2-lane highway.
The digital broadcast transition is another example of this. From a manufacturing standpoint we had this thing solved years ago -- the broadcasters have been pumping digital signals for the better part of this decade, and we've had hardware out on the market capable of receiving that signal for just as long. The logistics of deployment are the sticking point - you need everyone on the same page with compatible hardware or the system doesn't work the way it should.
In your AP example, you also have to be careful about what technologies you pick. You could have gone from 802.11b to 802.11a to get to 54mbps, but if you had made that move you would have stranded yourself from any backwards compatibility with 802.11b hardware due to the different frequency space. Not every upgrade path is a clear winner. | |
 fireflierCoffee. . .Need CoffeePremium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo | reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:Normally if you were operating a service where your demand exceeded your annual planline growth budget, you would correct for it by increasing prices to boost revenue to facilitate the additional growth. The problem in the broadband market is that the price increase will tend to drive customers away, specifically your low-use budget-conscious users who provide the balance to keep the high-use customers from toppling the system. Think so? If you're a utility with the same issue there are no price increases without the PSC/PUC approving those plans and that's after significant scrutiny. Does the PSC/PUC have to approve cable broadband price increases? Not that I'm aware of. They have the freedom to do it without nearly as many restrictions as a utility aside from some anemic local franchise boards that are often too uneducated to make reasonable decisions. It may drive customers away, but if they're customers like in many parts of the country, there aren't any reasonable alternatives. They swallow the increase and move on. If a utility can't make their case to the PSC, they cut costs internally to compensate since they don't have the ability to just hike rates on a whim. Haven't seen much evidence that ISPs are doing that aside from outsourcing tech support to India.
said by espaeth: As a bonus, any obvious solution to the problem (be it throttling, ejecting the high-use customers as "abusers", or usage-based billing) is an automatic PR nightmare, largely because sites like these have more of an interest in finding ways to point fingers instead of giving an honest investigation into the situation. I don't recall many cases on DSLReports where there have been major uproars (aside from a few individuals who got booted and threw a fit--which is not representative of the collective DSLReports audience) over customers getting booted for severe abuse of bandwidth. The uproar is over booting customers without telling them what amount of bandwidth will get them booted. Comcast got reamed for it early on but they've made some pretty good strides toward balancing equitable internet use with customer expectations.
Further, many members here have stated they don't have serious concerns about throttling perpetually high-bandwidth users during peak periods to keep things equitable for all their customers. But throttling implemented improperly results in useless tech upgrades. What good is DOCSIS 3.0 if your ISP throttles you to 2Mb/s all the time?
This is about people who know many ISPs are shoveling sh!t when it comes to bandwidth, upgrades, and costs and ISP execs are getting upset because it's threatening their bloated salaries and stock options and pissing off their investors. They're apparently forgetting what their customer base provides them.
It's also been said in many threads on many occasions that something more reasonable on caps would be better accepted. TWC's proposal was ridiculous and many people here and in the general public know that.
I think "sites like these" would provide a more honest investigation if the industry would share their firm numbers proving that the problem the claim exists actually does. Of course they always cite trade secrets or competetive advantage for sitting on that information. Only an idiot is going to blindly accept what a profit-motivated company tells them without evidence to back it up. Paid think tanks and firms who produce "research" to support whatever their client specifies ain't gonna do it.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com | |
|
