Some Metered Broadband Myths That Need Clearing Up > Duh.

reply to mod_wastrel

Re: Duh.

Tolls pay for road repairs from deterioration of the road surface due to traffic & weather--something you don't see with network hardware. The only deterioration of network hardware is caused by electricity--heat--when it's on (which it always is), and that's negligible; plus, hardware will more often than not be replaced (upgraded) before it fails. Once circuits move to all-optical, then you won't even have that issue.

Disagree. It does deteriorate. Does it matter if it breaks before it's upgraded? It still costs money to keep it running.

Except in Minneapolis and San Francisco, bridges are repaired/replaced before they fail. But you still haven't answered the original question. Why do we have toll roads? And, on top of that question, I'll add another: Do folks ever restrain travel or choose a slower route to avoid tolls?

Let's not also forget the fact that a lot of gas taxes pay for road maintenance so even without toll roads, it's still a consumption based model, not fixed-fee, free-for-all regardless of how much you drive. Nevertheless, it's still interesting to ponder the question as to how toll roads surface in a model that is already consumption-based.

I really don't care about toll roads or any analogy you might be trying to make between toll roads and networks--any such analogy will be faulty at best. I've never worked on toll roads, only used them. I have worked on networks. A network is either up (everything powered on) or down (everything powered down). The cost difference between a network that is up and fully utilized and one that is up but little utilized is negligible. Heavy traffic affects the MTBF of network devices hardly at all. Heavy use doesn't cost the ISP more, so there's no additional cost to pass on to users because of how many bytes they send and receive.

I agree that there's no cost difference between an idle or fully-utilized network. There is a difference between one flat-rate customer consuming all the bandwidth and thousands of flat-rate customers consuming all the bandwidth. There's no incentive to conserve. That's all I'm trying to discuss. Similar analogies can be made with any transportation or utility. They are all consumption models because supply is finite.

Early on I conceded that this wouldn't be a problem if we had unlimited bandwidth. For practicle purposes, unlimited would be defined as all devices on the network communicating at the same time, at speed limited by the endpoints, not the network.

Unless we want to socialize the network, we need to create a competitive environment and allow the network owners to craft their own reimbursement strategies. Competition decides what wins.

I don't believe there needs to be any incentive to conserve. It isn't even possible for one customer to "consume" all of the bandwidth, presuming an ISP hasn't screwed up its limiting mechanisms. Networks have traditionally been first-come, first-serve--each user has the same right to use it as every other user at any given point in time. ISPs don't sell bandwidth; they sell access. Speed tiers are a marketing gimmick. Customers would be better served if the ISPs would stop selling speed tiers altogether (but that's not why ISPs are in business so that's not going to happen). ISPs gain more and more customers, but they don't upgrade their network to support the growth. They raise the speeds for the tiers that they sell without having upgraded their network... all for marketing. Networks do get upgraded eventually, but not in sync with those things that increase usage of the network, so customers get squeezed with respect to how much "bandwidth" they can get for their use. We don't need to conserve... we just need ISPs to stop selling 50mbps connections that can only support 15mbps use based on the number of customers using it and the current state of the network.

Bad planning on the part of the ISP does not constitute any need for conservation on my part. (FYI, typical usage for me doesn't exceed 15GB/month.) I'm not going to pay an ISP more money for something that doesn't cost them more money to deliver. If they want to punish/restrict "heavy" users during times of congestion by reducing the priority of those users' traffic (except for any possible VoIP traffic), then I'm fine with that. Metering isn't about conservation; it's about increasing revenue for the ISPs (without doing anything to justify it).

Don't take my statement of one customer using all of the bandwidth literally. My intent was to refer to the few that use a lot of bandwidth compared to rest who don't.

Regarding ISPs selling access vs. bandwidth, why do the classic telco carriers have all these designations that are associated with bandwidth?

»www.lageman.com/bandwidth.htm

It seems much more than selling access. It seems a speed has always been associated with "access" and the more you pay, the more speed you get. Of course I believe classic telco connections are not capped whereas these days almost all consumer high speed packages have caps. However, the price consumers pay is quite a bit cheaper than even a classic telco T1 ~(1.5mbps).

I guess the thing to do is buy stock in the ISPs. That way you can share in the profits as they "unfairly" milk consumers.

Yeah, but does it matter at all how much anyone uses when there's no congestion on the network [segment]? I say "no". When ISPs started up many years ago, it was assumed that most, or even all, customers wouldn't be using their connection most of the time, and I'd say that was the case. That just isn't true anymore. Many, perhaps even most, customers use their connection a very significant amount of the time, and I just don't think ISPs have caught up with that for the most part--they still "over-sell" as much as they ever did. Speed tiers have been just as much of a marketing tool by ISPs to say "hey, we're better than they are" than any real association with bandwidth; speed tiers have been more about saving time--for the customer--than about using bandwidth. Every customer should have a reasonable expectation of reaching that best speed any time they use their connection, but that's probably not the case most evenings. However, if you're getting anywhere near 10mbps it's unlikely you'll ever notice you're not getting your paid for 20mbps no matter what you're doing, except for those relatively few that always pay attention to the speeds they're getting.

Fixed monthly fees have been about sharing the cost of having the network at all... and ISPs have made more and more profit with that fee structure--just look at the recent quarterly reports for Comcast et al. They should make a profit, but not a "killing". They already keep raising prices for something that keeps getting cheaper. I'm just not willing to pay them extra for something that I've already paid them for. That monthly fee I pay is my investment.