| reply to rebus9
Re: All that money yet a 400 GB cap said by rebus9:So you max out this shiny new 100 Mbps connection for 8-1/2 hours, and you're done for the month. Just more proof, as if any was really needed, that broadband should be sold on a bytes transferred basis and not on speed. The speed should always be the highest available for a specific locale depending on available infrastructure. And price paid should be based on how MUCH you use the connection and not on the speed of the connection. It is a much more logical way to bill for a service. And it makes the biggest users pay the biggest fees.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
|
|
 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | Huh?!? Proof?
You want to make us all datacenters? |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
It's just more proof that the big players are really taking advantage of the little guy... ...and the little guy is allowing it to happen. No need to switch the billing method. They're effectively billing by the byte anyway if there's a cap. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
1 edit | reply to fAcEtIOUs
GOLFnSUN
The reason ISPs charge for more speed is becuase that is what costs them money and not GB/month. Both hardware costs and transit costs are based solely upon peak Mbps. Any GBs downloaded during non peak hours costs the isps nothing (zero, $0.00) extra.
Which costs the ISPs more, 400 GB download via a 100Mbps line or a 5Mbps line (both during peak hours)? The 100Mbps download is likely to cost them 20X as much. The 5Mbps line can only increase the peak Mbps by 5Mbps, which is unlikely to significantly increase the aggregate peak Mbps(no significant increase in transit costs or hardware cost). Now flip that around with a 100Mbps line, 100Mbps is quite likely to saturate a channel (or channels, remember each channel only supports 38Mbps, leading to node splits, increased hardware costs) and is also much more likely to increase the aggregate peak Mbps(increasing transit costs). |
|
rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by Lazlow:Which costs the ISPs more, 400 GB download via a 100Mbps line or a 5Mbps line (both during peak hours)? The 100Mbps download is likely to cost them 20X as much. The 5Mbps line can only increase the peak Mbps by 5Mbps, which is unlikely to significantly increase the aggregate peak Mbps(no significant increase in transit costs or hardware cost). That's only applicable when they're buying ports with a partial commit. That is not the case with ISPs of any decent size.
A Gig-E or 10Gig-E port at full commit costs them a fixed amount no matter if their utilization is 20% or 100%. The ISP isn't going to dramatically increase their transit because a new speed tier is introduced, until adoption crosses a particular threshold.
Why?
Because most people will consume about the same at 20 Mbps as they would 100 Mbps. (abusers and pirates not included) That CNN webpage or Netflix stream contains the same number of bytes either way.
I surf the same websites at 25 Mbps on my FIOS circuit as I did on my 7 Mbps Road Runner circuit. Just with FIOS, load times are shorter.
Said another way, on a faster connection, the bursts go higher but the duration is shorter. On a well-engineered network, a few users on faster connections aren't going to be noticed under normal use.
And let's not forget that the ISPs are charging a LOT more money for these shiny new 100 Mbps tiers, so they can AFFORD to properly add transit capacity.
Take a look at the bottom line. The big ISPs (cable, telco) are making a small fortune on their internet services. They only cry poor-mouth to keep the regulators off their backs. |
|
