how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
2915 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
1 edit | If bandwidth is expensive, low prices require rationing As usual, we see several commenters in this thread acting as if bandwidth were free -- and as if ISPs who did not provide infinite amounts of it for nothing were greedy.
The fact is that bandwidth costs a lot in many places. Here in Laramie, Wyoming, the typical wholesale price is $100 per Mbps per month. That means that a connection that uses an average of 768Kbps, 24x7, costs the ISP $76.87 just for the bandwidth (and then there are more costs for delivery to the customer, tech support, billing, maintenance, etc). So, to give a customer a connection that costs $20 or $30 per month without making Web pages painfully slow to load, one must indeed shape traffic, rationing the bandwidth in ways that are sensitive to usage patterns and the type of usage.
There's just no other way to manage it. To prohibit such management would, in fact, make it impossible to provide affordable high speed Internet and would very much harm consumers. | |
|  | | Re: If bandwidth is expensive, low prices require rationing Spoken like a true ISP.
You have ways of managing your bandwidth and the user's of your bandwidth that do not include you selling a 3mb service and then throttling it down to 1mb during "peak times" that you get to define.
If you can't provide the service that you offer your customers (1mb, 100mb, whatever it may be) then don't offer that service to your customers. If you can't afford more bandwidth to support more customers, then don't take on more customers. Simply put, If you can't make money selling your service as it should be sold (you are a dumbpipe, nothing more nothing less) then stop selling your service.
One thing is for sure. Without you doing a single thing to interfere with the network you are selling, it will work itself out. If people get sick of the slowness of your network through natural causes of people using the network, then people will leave freeing up more bandwidth for those that stay. If 1% of your users are causing people to leave, then YOU need to find a way to deal with that 1% without effecting the other 99%. OR you increase the capacity of your network to deal with the additional traffic. If you can't do that, then you have no business providing service to all 100% of your customers. | |
| | | | Re: If bandwidth is expensive, low prices require rationing Well spoken Skippy25.
I hear all this crap about the 1% of abusers but damn, you never see an ISP cut off that 1% of abusers. The ISP seem to want to punish everyone because it allows them to provide less service to everyone for the same price, which intrinsically lines managements pockets with $$$$.
I'm a network engineer by trade and we are always at odds with Marketing or Management. It's not that we engineers don't want to make money. We would just rather make money the honest way.
Honesty and business just don't seem to go together anymore. At least not with the type of marketers and managers that colleges are turning out lately. | |
| | | | | Re: If bandwidth is expensive, low prices require rationing As someone else later on pointed out: "According to research, about 25% all of broadband users in Holland use P2P or usenet."
UPC has never been forced to reveal their internal network data, so no one can actually confirm the validity of their 1% claim.
Ok, I'll just say it straight out: they're lying. | |
| | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| said by axiomatic:Honesty and business just don't seem to go together anymore. At least not with the type of marketers and managers that colleges are turning out lately. It's that "Greed is Good" mentality. The "Trickle-Down" mentality. It's selfishness and pride and greed all wrapped up in one; The love of money is the root of all evil, and all.
There are still SOME businesses that feel they want to provide their customers with good service and products and make a fair margin to live on and grow. This is not the norm, anymore. Most companies are solely focused on the $$$ and how much they get, and things like service and quality are treated as COSTS that must be cut at every turn.
This mentality can only thrive in a market where there is a lack of competition and a lack of regulation, allowing such factors such as a high barrier to entry and geographical non-compete agreements, price-fixing, anti-competitiveness etc to thrive.
This way, the consumers have inadequate choices to merely move or quit doing businesses with a company as much as they would like too.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
|
1 edit | said by Skippy25:If you can't provide the service that you offer your customers (1mb, 100mb, whatever it may be) then don't offer that service to your customers. We detail to customers exactly what they are going to get. So is this Dutch ISP. This is the ironic thing: here's a provider that's being open and honest about its network management practices, and you are attacking it rather than praising it. Not exactly the way to encourage honesty and transparency. | |
| | | | | Re: If bandwidth is expensive, low prices require rationing I disagree SuperWISP. It's exactly the opposite. This provider is in no way being open and honest. They are in fact punishing everyone they service for the transgressions of 1% of their (I might add PAYING) install base.
It doesn't get any more shady than that. | |
| | | | | | Re: If bandwidth is expensive, low prices require rationing said by axiomatic:This provider is in no way being open and honest. Certainly they are. They're revealing how they manage their network, so that consumers can make an informed decision about whether or not to patronize them.
The Netherlands have lots of competing ISPs. Each one has the right to manage its network as it sees fit, and they all can compete on the basis of price, quality of service, and quality of network management. The market will pick the winners. This is how innovation happens. | |
| | | |
1 edit | said by axiomatic:They are in fact punishing everyone they service for the transgressions of 1% of their (I might add PAYING) install base. Oh, and by the bye: In what way is devoting more bandwidth to Web browsing (which is what legitimate users do), and less to the abusive downloaders, "punishing" the legitimate users? | |
| | | | |  sivranBack to Opera againPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 | Re: If bandwidth is expensive, low prices require rationing So web browsing is the only legitimate use of the internet? 
Your troll colors are showing.
--
In dadkins' memory, Think outside the Fox... | |
| | | | |
1 edit | What?!?!?! Huh?!?!?! HTTP Traffic is the only legitimate traffic? You have got to be kidding. So you are basically saying that streaming video, video games, and VOIP are all illegal uses? And you are claiming to be a WISP? You clearly have no clue what is happening on the networks you run/manage as a WISP.
I was taking you seriously until that comment. I'm starting to agree with sivran above me here. Your troll colors are in fact showing.
When you come to your senses we can talk again. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: If bandwidth is expensive, low prices require rationing said by axiomatic:What?!?!?! Huh?!?!?! HTTP Traffic is the only legitimate traffic? I didn't say that. What I did say is that all but a negligible percentage of P2P is illegitimate. And this is backed up by real statistics. | |
|
| | | | I would agree with you under 1 condition and 1 condition only: If your users have multiple carriers that they can get service from.
If there is not TRUE competition in your market then you have not right to put any restrictions on 100% of your users because you can't deal with 1% of them.
You are a dumbpipe. You provide the service you say your are going to provide by taking packets and sending packets as fast as you possibly can or you dont provide service at all. Using a TOS or fine print to cover you inability to do such when your customers truly can't go anywhere else is deception at the least. | |
|
Reviews:
·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
2 edits | said by SuperWISP:As usual, we see several commenters in this thread acting as if bandwidth were free -- and as if ISPs who did not provide infinite amounts of it for nothing were greedy. The fact is that bandwidth costs a lot in many places. Here in Laramie, Wyoming, the typical wholesale price is $100 per Mbps per month. That means that a connection that uses an average of 768Kbps, 24x7, costs the ISP $76.87 just for the bandwidth (and then there are more costs for delivery to the customer, tech support, billing, maintenance, etc). So, to give a customer a connection that costs $20 or $30 per month without making Web pages painfully slow to load, one must indeed shape traffic, rationing the bandwidth in ways that are sensitive to usage patterns and the type of usage. There's just no other way to manage it. To prohibit such management would, in fact, make it impossible to provide affordable high speed Internet and would very much harm consumers. I have NO CLUE where you get those numbers, but they are flat out WRONG!
Amazon RETAILS bandwidth for about 16 cents per GIGABYTE. They pay 4-6 cents. I'm willing to bet that you can find similar prices in Laramie. What you are talking about is the expense for TRANSPORTING that bandwidth. Yes, if you are on a connection like satellite, that can be expensive. but let me assure you, Hughes and Wildblue pay for bandwidth in the 5-10 cent per gB range-their MARKUP is about a million percent.
Let's get real-if bandwidth REALLY was marked up that much in Wyoming, there'd be HUNDREDS of ISPs there. | |
| | | | Re: If bandwidth is expensive, low prices require rationing You obviously don't know what you're talking about. I am an ISP, and $100 per Mbps per month is typical of the wholesale prices I am being quoted today by all available providers.
Amazon, Hughes, and Wild Blue are not located where I am. Bandwidth is cheaper in major cities. But due to the cost of the middle mile (also called "special access"), the net cost of bandwidth, as delivered to an ISP, is absurdly high in many locations throughout the country and the world. Want it to be cheaper? Don't blame the ISP. Ask the FCC to act on the issue of "special access." It has had a docket open on the issue, and has done nothing, since 2005. | |
|
 IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
1 edit | said by SuperWISP:As usual, we see several commenters in this thread acting as if bandwidth were free -- and as if ISPs who did not provide infinite amounts of it for nothing were greedy. The fact is that bandwidth costs a lot in many places. Here in Laramie, Wyoming, the typical wholesale price is $100 per Mbps per month. That means that a connection that uses an average of 768Kbps, 24x7, costs the ISP $76.87 just for the bandwidth (and then there are more costs for delivery to the customer, tech support, billing, maintenance, etc). So, to give a customer a connection that costs $20 or $30 per month without making Web pages painfully slow to load, one must indeed shape traffic, rationing the bandwidth in ways that are sensitive to usage patterns and the type of usage. There's just no other way to manage it. To prohibit such management would, in fact, make it impossible to provide affordable high speed Internet and would very much harm consumers. That you get totally ripped for bandwidth is really your prerogative.
UPC, a part of Liberty Global, own and operate the Europe-wide backbone network aorta.net. They are also operating this control in the Netherlands, around the Amsterdam area infact, home of the largest settlement free peering exchange in the world.
You really can't compare yourself and your incredibly high costs to those of UPC Netherlands. Their main costs are the access network given that transit will be costing them next to nothing.
Stuff paying that price to begin with, I'd consider perhaps a PtP wireless link to somewhere where prices drop somewhat rather than paying that ridiculous price. That's 3rd world prices.
EDIT: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPC_Broadband
Can't really compare that to a wISP in middle of nowhere, Wyoming, sorry. | |
| sivranBack to Opera againPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 | Your anti-consumer bias is showing. | |
| | | | Re: If bandwidth is expensive, low prices require rationing Your anti-business bias is showing. It is unreasonable to expect a business to lose money just because you are greedy and want to obtain its products below cost. | |
| | | | | Re: If bandwidth is expensive, low prices require rationing said by SuperWISP:Your anti-business bias is showing. It is unreasonable to expect a business to lose money just because you are greedy and want to obtain its products below cost. Putting words in people's mouths is hardly a legitimate debate tactic. No one has said they "expect a business to lose money". That's your crazy and bewildering interpretation of this situation. | |
| | | | sivranBack to Opera againPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: If bandwidth is expensive, low prices require rationing That's SuperWISP  's MO. It complements his heavily anti-consumer, anti-neutrality agenda quite well, don't you think?
--
In dadkins' memory, Think outside the Fox... | |
|
| | said by SuperWISP:As usual, we see several commenters in this thread acting as if bandwidth were free -- and as if ISPs who did not provide infinite amounts of it for nothing were greedy. The fact is that bandwidth costs a lot in many places. Here in Laramie, Wyoming, the typical wholesale price is $100 per Mbps per month. That means that a connection that uses an average of 768Kbps, 24x7, costs the ISP $76.87 just for the bandwidth (and then there are more costs for delivery to the customer, tech support, billing, maintenance, etc). So, to give a customer a connection that costs $20 or $30 per month without making Web pages painfully slow to load, one must indeed shape traffic, rationing the bandwidth in ways that are sensitive to usage patterns and the type of usage. There's just no other way to manage it. To prohibit such management would, in fact, make it impossible to provide affordable high speed Internet and would very much harm consumers. GigE port prices in major U.S. cities fell 30-40 percent between Q2 2007 and Q2 2008. Median monthly IP transit prices for 1,000 Mbps Gigabit Ethernet (GigE) ports in major U.S. and European cities ranged from $10-$14 per Mbps in Q2 2008.
That's from over a year ago. Now go away. | |
| | | | Re: If bandwidth is expensive, low prices require rationing said by sonicmerlin:GigE port prices in major U.S. cities fell 30-40 percent between Q2 2007 and Q2 2008. They did not fall nearly that much. And wholesale bandwidth costs in my area increased, from about $90 per Mbps to $100 per Mbps.
You're out of touch with reality. | |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| The problem is that whoever is providing the broadband to Laramie Wyoming are criminals who need some competition or hardcore Government regulation, and they need it yesterday.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
| |
1 edit | Re: If bandwidth is expensive, low prices require rationing said by KrK:The problem is that whoever is providing the broadband to Laramie Wyoming are criminals Well, in fact several Qwest executives were recently indicted for cooking the books. But be that as it may, we just received a quote on a DS-3 today for $4600 per month. The provider told us that it can't get better "middle mile" pricing out of Qwest.
Want to do something about this? Ask the FCC to do something about the issue of "special access" (see »bennett.com/blog/2009/06/whats-t···al-axes/). You can file comments in the FCC docket; it is 05-25. | |
|
| |
|
