dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
37
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

BlueC to Oh_No

Member

to Oh_No

Re: He forgot a level.

While I agree, I think it's still appropriate for residential ISPs to have the contract leverage to (passively) enforce "residential-use only".

I agree that UBB is simply for profit, as it doesn't take into consideration of peak/off-peak usage.

I would disagree that almost 100% are fixed costs. Outside of ILECs, most CLECs and other independent ISPs have significant recurring costs to supply capacity to their network (both WAN and MAN).
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

Skippy25

Member

You can disagree if you want, but a network whether it is running at 0% capacity or 90% capacity has little cost difference. Virtually everything in the network is purchased as a fixed cost.

The ONLY time it is not fixed is when you are dealing with a small provider that does not have good peering agreements and then you are talking about fractions of a penny for large amounts of data.

rchandra
Stargate Universe fan
Premium Member
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105
ARRIS ONT1000GJ4
EnGenius EAP1250

rchandra to BlueC

Premium Member

to BlueC
#include "why ISPs should not be utilities"

Let's just say for a moment I were on board with running an I[SA]P like a utility (with UBB). There are any number of models which could be applied, as there are a wide variety of ways utilities bill; it's not just limited to flat rate and pay-per-(prefix)byte-moved. For example, National Fuel, my gas provider, bills some fixed rate every month, which includes some (small) volume of gas. Then there is a charge per (volume, therm, something), which is further broken down into supply, delivery, etc., then taxes and such are added on. So to make an analogy to an IAP, there could be some flat rate charged per month which goes towards equipment and equipment maintenance, optionally including your first (prefix)bytes transferred, and then a hopefully reasonable charge per (prefix)bytes transferred.

I further really can't be on board with it though because it's my understanding there aren't companies which charge per-byte-moved anymore, just charge for some CIR. I also am very much opposed to this peak/off-peak notion, simply because I have yet to be shown how it costs the IAP anything more to move bytes during some peak period. Again, if this were the upstream policy, I could relate, and change my thinking on that. But as it is, the costs are relatively stable over the course of a day or week. The only minor variation on that which I can think of is local electrical providers and their darned peak/off-peak billing, and the fact that a non-idle processor (such as in a router) will draw more electric power than an idle one. But I doubt the difference is a large enough percentage of operating costs to even matter.

Again, I plead possible ignorance, and I'm thoroughly willing to be told by a credible source that my understandings are wrong.

Oh_No
Trogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL

Oh_No

Member

said by rchandra:

#include "why ISPs should not be utilities"

Let's just say for a moment I were on board with running an I[SA]P like a utility (with UBB). There are any number of models which could be applied, as there are a wide variety of ways utilities bill; it's not just limited to flat rate and pay-per-(prefix)byte-moved. For example, National Fuel, my gas provider, bills some fixed rate every month, which includes some (small) volume of gas. Then there is a charge per (volume, therm, something), which is further broken down into supply, delivery, etc., then taxes and such are added on. So to make an analogy to an IAP, there could be some flat rate charged per month which goes towards equipment and equipment maintenance, optionally including your first (prefix)bytes transferred, and then a hopefully reasonable charge per (prefix)bytes transferred.

I further really can't be on board with it though because it's my understanding there aren't companies which charge per-byte-moved anymore, just charge for some CIR. I also am very much opposed to this peak/off-peak notion, simply because I have yet to be shown how it costs the IAP anything more to move bytes during some peak period. Again, if this were the upstream policy, I could relate, and change my thinking on that. But as it is, the costs are relatively stable over the course of a day or week. The only minor variation on that which I can think of is local electrical providers and their darned peak/off-peak billing, and the fact that a non-idle processor (such as in a router) will draw more electric power than an idle one. But I doubt the difference is a large enough percentage of operating costs to even matter.

Again, I plead possible ignorance, and I'm thoroughly willing to be told by a credible source that my understandings are wrong.

I would say you keep thinking about it wrong by comparing unlike things.
Natural gas can be stored and used later. Nothing is lost when you are not using it. They charge you the fixed amount to pay their pipeline costs, everyone must pay this (even when they do not use gas) or their fixed costs are not covered for the money they spent on the 24/7 connection.
Then they charge you usage for what gas you use as it COST them money for the gas separately than their pipelines.

Bandwidth cannot be stored, it is use it or lose it. Most ISPs are not paying for bandwidth, they have paring agreements.
Your internet connection is basically just made of fixed costs and does not have usage costs.

So with internet you would be billed a fixed amount regardless of your usage and the company will be very profitable.

rchandra
Stargate Universe fan
Premium Member
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105
ARRIS ONT1000GJ4
EnGenius EAP1250

rchandra

Premium Member

One, you've confirmed my suspicions about IAP costs.

Two, I never said that was an exact analogy; it was just to make the point that many, many billing models have been devised. I apologize of you inferred gas service was anything like providing Internet service. I could have equally stated any one of a number of power company billing scenarios (which is arguably more apt since likewise the ability to store electricity on a large scale is rather limited) ranging from peak/off-peak, tiered KWh, and so on; or telephony which likewise on some plans (not mine) has a fixed per month charge, then adds either per call or per minute charges. The analogy (in terminology only, mind you) of the gas company having a base charge per month for installing and maintaining the pipeline is a good one in the sense of installing and maintaining the Internet pipeline.

Three, I'm not agreeing it's just at all. In fact, unless as stated my assumptions are proven wrong, I'm totally against UBB. See the linked BBR post. My main objection is lack of control.

I'm also against it because UBB doesn't magically come into existence. I oppose it, based on quite a potential for my bill to go up because the IAP needs to install and maintain yet another gadget (for billing purposes), and in general, it just complicates the whole mess.