WTF in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22533041 en Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:47:27 EDT Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:47:27 EDT Re: Costs not dropping faster than use is rising - crunch is com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22539275 digitalfreak : You have become a victim of TK Redirection!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22539275 Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:43:44 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22539131 ImoBeJoAss : You made a big mistake in the first quote. "They're in the business of providing Internet access." They are actually in the business of making money.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22539131 Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:13:40 EDT Re: Costs not dropping faster than use is rising - crunch is com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22538242 DataRiker :
said by OverModded See Profile :

Anyone who wants to read a literate account of how ISPs costs aren't dropping fast enough to handle the increasing bandwidth tsunami without increasing prices, should see this:

»venturebeat.com/2009/06/10/how-v···-ground/
Except for it does not, it refers to the cost pushing bandwidth through T-1 based antiquated wireless hubs.

Not even close to relevant for this story.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22538242 Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:58:25 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22535440 Killa200 : i know a single content provider doesn't occupy a whole data center. They are lucky if they even need a 1/2 or full racks worth space and a gbe drop to a switch to get the job done for the big single location guys.

I'm just poking fun at the group, aka incumbents]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22535440 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:43:42 EDT Costs not dropping faster than use is rising - crunch is coming http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22535783 OverModded : Anyone who wants to read a literate account of how ISPs costs aren't dropping fast enough to handle the increasing bandwidth tsunami without increasing prices, should see this:

»venturebeat.com/2009/06/10/how-v···-ground/
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22535783 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:54:52 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22535141 espaeth :
said by ISurfTooMuch See Profile :

Indeed. And ISPs have been advertising unlimited access for over a decade now. If they didn't mean it, then why did they say it?
For the same reason that "All you can eat" buffets advertise that way -- there are physical limits to what humans can consume. The problem comes in with content hording well in excess of what can be consumed in real time.

said by ISurfTooMuch See Profile :

And if ISPs want to go metered or impose caps, then where is it in their advertising?
Where are the fitness infomercials that tell you that you really won't have 6-pack abs in 3 weeks? Or the commercials that say you really can't grow/shrink/reshape any specific body part just by purchasing a bottle of pills?

I'm not saying this is the way it should be, but come on -- everybody knows that there are large leaps of logic in advertising. To act shocked about it now is laughable; next you're going to tell me that you didn't know that politicians lie?

said by ISurfTooMuch See Profile :

Yet I challenge you to find an ad for Internet access from any of the major providers that clearly tells you that, for a certain price, you get a capped plan with a certain amount of data.

If you can't keep the promises you make, then don't make them. That's called false advertising.
You'll notice most broadband companies haven't had "unlimited" in their descriptions for a long time. They simply omit details about how much you can use. It's deceptive, to be sure, but unfortunately it's not false advertising so you can't make them stop.

I really do wish the industry would clean up and start accurately representing their product. The problem with this, of course, is people here aren't going to be happy with those results. The folks here don't want the fitness commercials to advertise that you really can't get 6-pack abs in 3 weeks, however, they want the companies to somehow develop a product that will really give you the 6-pack abs. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22535141 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:14:23 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534981 Kearnstd : ISPs really hate google not because of bandwidth used by people viewing from their Youtube site. but because people choose Google over the overly ad laden ISP portals where even your ISP Webmail has banner and flash ads.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534981 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:48:11 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534831 danclan : huh? of course a tax deduction doesnt = capital capture/recoup but it does allow them to reduce their tax burden and keep the cash they would otherwise have to pay with no amoritization]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534831 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:23:01 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534774 ISurfTooMuch : I'm aware of those. I used to sell them, and they could go for up to $1,500/mo. in 2000. Notice how that bandwidth has gotten significantly cheaper since then?

My point in the previous post was that many ISPs have been touting their plans as unlimited for over a decade. And my other point is that, if they want to impose caps and/or metered access, then they have an obligation to state that in the large print of their advertisements, not buried at the bottom of the page in print that requires an electron microscope to read. To state one thing while placing an asterisk there that points to a line that essentially guts your first statement is sneaky at best and false advertising at worst.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534774 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:12:10 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534476 kontos : That's called a T-1. It's about $400/month for 1.5 Mbps symmetrical. Comes with a SLA, though.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534476 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:26:58 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534464 kontos : The landlord gets new tenants to put in the new apartments. The new tenants pay rent increasing his revenue. It's not like the landlord builds a new building, and then gives all of his existing tenants a room in it without increasing their rent.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534464 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:25:14 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534236 Desdinova : "What happens when the capacity of the installed routers and fiber is 'used up'?"

I'd expect the ISP that oversold their capacity to increase it on their dime. It's like asking what a landlord is supposed to do when he's rented all the apartments in his building: he builds another or raises the rent and replaces the tenants that don't want to pay the new rate with those that do. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534236 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:54:49 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534234 iansltx : P2P!!!1!

Oh wait...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534234 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:54:38 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534209 iansltx : Yeah there is. Everyone pays for a monthly DSL/FTTH line. The companies aren't giving 'em out for free!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534209 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:51:53 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534190 iansltx : Then BT should charge more to consumer...oh wait, then they wouldn't buy the connections. Scratch that.

BT is in the industry of providing last mile connectivity. If they don't like the profit margins they're seeing, they need to up their prices or go into another industry. Really.

Hey guys your paying customers want 100% of the internet delivered to them at a reasonable, unthrottled speed. They will pay for that. Your customers aren't the content providers. They are what make your customers (end users) want to use the internet.

If there was a "transport to pay for Gogle" fee added onto my internet bill, I'd switch providers. Or if Google had to charge money to pay for ISP extortion taxes, I'd switch providers.

More likely, Google could just say "Okay, your ISP is now no longer allowed to use our services" and see how long that lasts on BT's end. Granted, this is Cogent's style, not Google's, but I'd like to see that sort of brinkmanship happen. Should knock some sense into the ISPs.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534190 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:49:50 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534034 kontos :
said by danclan See Profile :

Still, these are capital costs that they get to deduct each year under most tax codes so...they pay out that cash year one and deduct it the next 2-7 or so....my sympathy level for maintaining your product is fairly low...
You do realize that a tax deduction doesn't re-capture all of the money that you put in to the upgrade, right. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22534034 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:22:54 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533887 danclan : They update the repeaters and swap out a few cards...depending out future proofed they made the fiber plant initially...and they really only have to update the long haul not the short so their costs are still fairly low comparatively.

Still, these are capital costs that they get to deduct each year under most tax codes so...they pay out that cash year one and deduct it the next 2-7 or so....my sympathy level for maintaining your product is fairly low...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533887 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:58:35 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533871 ISurfTooMuch : Then raise rates. I started out with 1.5/256 DSL for $39.99 in 2000, which went to $49.99 in 2001. Now I pay around $45 for 6/768. And I seriously doubt that any of this was or is sold at a loss. If they've had to do upgrades to give me more speed, then where is that cost reflected? My guess is that the drop in wholesale bandwidth and equipment prices have had a lot to do with it.

And, as far as upgrades go, remember that hardware is purchased with a set depreciation schedule. No one expects it to last forever, and the replacement cost is taken into consideration.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533871 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:54:33 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533831 ISurfTooMuch :
said by kontos See ProfileYou've seen what happens here when and ISP says 'unlimited' but only allows you to use 50 GB (or 5, or 250)?
Indeed. And ISPs have been advertising unlimited access for over a decade now. If they didn't mean it, then why did they say it? And if ISPs want to go metered or impose caps, then where is it in their advertising? At least an airline is upfront about how much a flight from Point A to Point B is going to cost. No one books a ticket thinking they can pay the lowest fare and take a transatlantic trip. Yet I challenge you to find an ad for Internet access from any of the major providers that clearly tells you that, for a certain price, you get a capped plan with a certain amount of data.

If you can't keep the promises you make, then don't make them. That's called false advertising.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533831 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:46:20 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533787 kontos : What happens when the capacity of the installed routers and fiber is 'used up'?
Those upgrades you mention don't come for free, and with fixed pricing/unlimited usage, there's no additional revenue to pay for the upgrades.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533787 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:37:48 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533777 ISurfTooMuch : And texts are also expensive because people are willing to pay that price. Ditto for designer clothes and accessories. They're made in China, just like the stuff on the shelves at Wal-Mart, but, once that label is attached, people want them and are willing to pay for them. If a counterfeiter can make a bag that looks like a $500 Prada and sell it for $35 on the streets of New York, then how much profit is Prada making off their real bag? Quite a lot, I'd wager. Even if the real thing is a better bag, I doubt the production costs are orders of magnitude higher than the counterfeit.

It's all about what price people are willing to pay. The cost of production has little to do with it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533777 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:36:53 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533732 kontos :
said by Skippy25 See Profile :

If flights cost less than a penny per person to run, then I would be willing to bet we would have monthly unlimited (by unlimited I mean 50 flights) per month subscription base service.
You've seen what happens here when and ISP says 'unlimited' but only allows you to use 50 GB (or 5, or 250)?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533732 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:30:34 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533718 ISurfTooMuch : Not to mention the fact that much of the cost is fixed cost related to equipment deployment. Once the fiber is laid and the routers installed, much of the cost is covered. Sure, there's maintenance and upgrades, but you don't have a big expense moving each packet around.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533718 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:28:14 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533697 Skippy25 : 'Course you also fail to mention that there is very high cost in every flight that justifies the cost per ticket.

If flights cost less than a penny per person to run, then I would be willing to bet we would have monthly unlimited (by unlimited I mean 50 flights) per month subscription base service. Because they would make more from that than actually charging you each time you use it. Just as the current telco's do with text messaging. It is ridiculously priced per text because they want the subscription service and that price makes logical people say..."well it would be cheaper to subscribe". They don't care how many you send, it cost them virtually nothing.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533697 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:25:14 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533689 kontos : A long-haul flight at 40% capacity gets canceled and people (packets) get delayed.
You've seen what happens here when and ISP advertises one speed, but delivers something lower?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533689 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:24:14 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533645 anon :
said by kontos See Profile :

Course that metaphor discounts the fact that airline customers basically pay for metered service. You have to buy a ticket for each flight, and the longer the flight, the more expensive the ticket.

You've seen what happens here when an ISP wants to charge more to people that use more?

But the long-haul flight (more data) generally costs the carrier less per mile (per bit).

A fiber (and routers) carrying 40% of its capacity cost the carrier more per bit than the same fiber/router carrying 70% capacity.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533645 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:17:18 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533586 kontos :
said by ISurfTooMuch See Profile :

BT and AT&T's position would be like an airline asking hotels to pay for them (the airline) to transport passengers on the rationale that the hotels make money from these passengers staying there, yet they bear no cost in getting them to their front doors. So why should these hotels get a free ride when it's the airlines that are incurring the expense of delivering all these people?
'Course that metaphor discounts the fact that airline customers basically pay for metered service. You have to buy a ticket for each flight, and the longer the flight, the more expensive the ticket. You've seen what happens here when an ISP wants to charge more to people that use more?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533586 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:07:01 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533523 wentlanc :
said by kontos See Profile :

The ISPs that cater to the eyeballs have a much bigger area with a lot more nodes to service. Think about how many hops that BT has to deal with...
Well then.... Why don't these ISP's stop competing with local municipalities for last mile delivery, and just offer their content delivery into a muni owned system? Oh, or is that just bullshit, and they are soaking their customers many times over for the same aging copper based system??

cw]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533523 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:56:50 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533398 buzz_4_20 : I know the ISP has a higher per bit cost than a datacenter that's not the issue. But they are making it sound like it's YouTube's fault for being something that customers are interested in.

Some upgrades would drop thier per bit cost and improve service to customers. :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533398 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:37:54 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533388 ISurfTooMuch :
said by kontos See Profile :

The ISPs that cater to the eyeballs have a much bigger area with a lot more nodes to service. Think about how many hops that BT has to deal with...

BT has the DSL connection form you modem to the DSLAM, then maybe a DS-3 from the DSLAM to the aggregation POP, then an OC-3 from the POP to the backbone POP, and then an OC-12 from the backbone POP to the IXP.

The BBC rents space in the IXP building, and makes a few GigE interconnects inside the building, and they're done.
All true, but the ISP's subscribers are paying for the ISP to build a network that can handle the data from the content providers. They're in the business of providing Internet access. If they can't do that, then they shouldn't be offering the service.

BT and AT&T's position would be like an airline asking hotels to pay for them (the airline) to transport passengers on the rationale that the hotels make money from these passengers staying there, yet they bear no cost in getting them to their front doors. So why should these hotels get a free ride when it's the airlines that are incurring the expense of delivering all these people?

If the ISPs want to charge the content providers for delivering their data, then what am I paying the ISP to do? It'd be like the USPS, UPS, or FedEx trying to charge both the sender and recipient of a package for its delivery.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533388 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:36:40 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533339 battleop : They don't spend anywhere near that much money on a single POP. They lease space in that type of facility you are talking about but do not occupy the entire datacenter.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533339 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:29:30 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533312 Killa200 : then perhaps they should get out of the isp business and into the datacenter business... You know, its only several hundred million dollars to get a good one up and running, ;)

Or they can actually make an effort to do good in the content business, and "give up" the "oh so hard" task of making sure the people have a way to view the content. That way later on when we have a few ISP's that actually do a fantastic job delivering connections to homes, they can charge them this fee they are trying to get content providers to pay, :p]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533312 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:24:19 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533239 Bit : And of course without content, why would anyone subscribe to an ISP?
--
POKE 65495,1]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533239 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:15:11 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533123 me1212 : Because they(the ISPs) could have their own product and it mat not be making as much money as it could. And the CT providers are making money and the ISPs are jealous. They are cheap and do not want to pay to upgrade their own network, they want the content providers and or the people to do so and still be kept under a cap.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533123 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:54:39 EDT Re: WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533121 kontos :
said by buzz_4_20 See Profile :

Why do ISP's claim the content providers are part of the problem. They pay for bandwidth they send out?
Content providers have the advantage of a small (physical distance) network. The build a data center (or a few) and they make sure they locate it where they have cheap and easy access to the 'Internet backbone.'

The ISPs that cater to the eyeballs have a much bigger area with a lot more nodes to service. Think about how many hops that BT has to deal with...

BT has the DSL connection form you modem to the DSLAM, then maybe a DS-3 from the DSLAM to the aggregation POP, then an OC-3 from the POP to the backbone POP, and then an OC-12 from the backbone POP to the IXP.

The BBC rents space in the IXP building, and makes a few GigE interconnects inside the building, and they're done.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533121 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:54:26 EDT WTF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533041 buzz_4_20 : Why do ISP's claim the content providers are part of the problem. They pay for bandwidth they send out?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22533041 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:34:32 EDT