dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1404
share rss forum feed

nauru

join:2011-02-02

1 recommendation

Could be worse.

20 cents per GB is not so bad... here in Canada it's anywhere from $2 to $5 per GB when you reach the cap. Horrible.



cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7

said by nauru:

20 cents per GB is not so bad... here in Canada it's anywhere from $2 to $5 per GB when you reach the cap. Horrible.

No cap would be better than no cap. But $.20/GB sounds entirely fair to me.


ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA

$.20/GB is outragous. Exactly how much do you think it costs to provide a GB of service? I'm just spitballing here but I don't think it is even possible to calculate that.


iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast

They're amortizing last-mile plant upgrade costs, backbone upgrade costs, etc. into a single number. Many data centers have overages of 10 cents per GB...and they don't have a last mile coax plant o keep up. Honestly, 20¢ per GB is entirely reasonable.



ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
Reviews:
·RCN CABLE
·Comcast

plant upgrade costs, backbone upgrade costs, etc do no have anything to do with how much usage goes through them. you can pay for all of that with the monthly fees. If they really want to make this reasonable they will stop jacking the monthly access fees up every 6 months. Heck, maybe even lower it every so often.



cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7
reply to ArrayList

said by ArrayList:

$.20/GB is outragous. Exactly how much do you think it costs to provide a GB of service? I'm just spitballing here but I don't think it is even possible to calculate that.

Go price web hosting per GB charges/overages, or go look at what cloud hosting providers charge per GB. Google, Amazon, Microsoft, they are all $.10-.15.

And I never said that $.20 was reasonable compared to what they pay wholesale for their bandwidth. It's reasonable compared to what other commercial companies charge for overages, and far less then what just about every ISP that charges for overages actually charge. I don't keep up what all ISPs charge, but I know I've seen fees of at least $2/GB for some plans.


ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA

you cannot compared overages on a vps/webhost against a residential internet account. they are not even close to the same type of usage. if I could live in a data center then, yes, it would be reasonable to compare the two.



cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7

said by ArrayList:

you cannot compared overages on a vps/webhost against a residential internet account. they are not even close to the same type of usage. if I could live in a data center then, yes, it would be reasonable to compare the two.

You're right. I would expect a datacenter's per GB pricing to be far cheaper. They don't have nearly the same buildout and physical plant costs.

Since you obviously are so much wiser then everyone here, please educate us what a commercial gigabit or 10gbit internet connection would cost an ISP and we can go from there...


ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
Reviews:
·RCN CABLE
·Comcast

I just don't see how using so much data has any relation with the cost of upgrading the plant. those costs should be spread across all the customers instead of the "top 5%" if the costs were spread across more customers the ISP would be able to upgrade far more often. maybe that is why they have such insanely low caps.


rahvin112

join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT
reply to cdru

said by cdru:

You're right. I would expect a datacenter's per GB pricing to be far cheaper. They don't have nearly the same buildout and physical plant costs.

That's because you don't know anything about datacenter pricing. Personally I don't know which is cheaper of even if either is cheaper. It would be foolish to assume that a data center is cheaper to run than a cable plant without the actual knowledge of the costs of each. I can personally see the power, cooling, rack and equipment costs of a data center far exceeding those of a cable plant. So once you factor in the additional maintenance, and capital expenditures on the cable plant the comparison could be anywhere in the world but I doubt you have a single idea what either costs just like me and drawing a conclusion is foolish.
said by cdru:

Since you obviously are so much wiser then everyone here, please educate us what a commercial gigabit or 10gbit internet connection would cost an ISP and we can go from there...

Leased line or owned? Location? Provider restrictions? Term commitment? SLA? You've got so many variables in there that no reasonable price could be provided. Not to mention actual speed of the connection is only one factor because much like the person you are responding to you assume that the bandwidth purchased is fixed and it's not. You might order a DS-3 and only put in an agreement for T1 bandwidth with a burst capacity 3 times that for a certain period of time or you could order the same DS-3 with constant bandwidth but restricted to a certain backbone for national travel. All options have costs and even site location can affect pricing. What bandwidth costs for one provider is entirely different for another.


cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7
reply to ArrayList

said by ArrayList:

I just don't see how using so much data has any relation with the cost of upgrading the plant. those costs should be spread across all the customers instead of the "top 5%" if the costs were spread across more customers the ISP would be able to upgrade far more often. maybe that is why they have such insanely low caps.

I don't understand why when I drive a semi I should have to pay more to use the roads then a passenger. Or if I drive farther on a toll road I should have to pay more. If they just spread the costs across all motorists equally instead of the heaviest vehicles that use the roads the most, they would be able to make and repair roads far more often.

Those top 5% pay more for their connection because the ISP has deemed that they have used their connection in excess of what their monthly fee allocates for. The 5% of the heaviest users causes the peak capacity needs to go up. That requires faster connections to not impact other customers and greater bandwidth costs. Instead of passing on the costs to everyone, they go after those that use the most instead of requiring everyone to subsidize the users that use the most.

I'm not saying they are completely right in their thinking, and I'm not saying they are completely in the wrong either. I definitely understand where they are coming from a logic standpoint. And I'm also sure just plain old desire to make more is at play as well.


cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7
reply to rahvin112

said by rahvin112:

That's because you don't know anything about datacenter pricing. Personally I don't know which is cheaper of even if either is cheaper. It would be foolish to assume that a data center is cheaper to run than a cable plant without the actual knowledge of the costs of each. I can personally see the power, cooling, rack and equipment costs of a data center far exceeding those of a cable plant. So once you factor in the additional maintenance, and capital expenditures on the cable plant the comparison could be anywhere in the world but I doubt you have a single idea what either costs just like me and drawing a conclusion is foolish.

The power and cooling component for a data center to provide the network connection is a drop in the bucket compared to what the servers require. A Extreme Network Black Diamond is ~5w per gigabit port and with 768 ports, it's just under 4000 watts. A fully loaded Dell M1000e enclosure is 3500+ watts and that's just 16 blades. The racks, power, cooling, etc of a datacenter is directly related to the servers that run in it. Any cost to run those should be attributed to the server rental or operation cost, not the bandwidth cost.

Regardless, I guess I wasn't trying to draw a direct comparison between the two environments. I'm guessing the network distribution physical plant within a datacenter is far less expensive then the cable plant for a cableco although I'm not exactly in a position to know.

I still stand behind what I originally said that $.20/GB is far more reasonable than $2 or $3 per GB that other ISPs charge. Even if I had to pay that for every GB that I downloaded, I bet most users would come out about the same as what they already pay. Last month I downloaded 300GB+, and my plan lists at $56 where my bandwidth charge would be $60.


ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
Reviews:
·RCN CABLE
·Comcast
reply to cdru

If they only charged overages for peak usage then your analogy would be accurate but alas they don't. They meter your connection 24/7 and if I use my quota up only during non-peak hours I still would get charged for an overage even though I had no impact on the ISPs performance.

I am all for caps if and only if they have peak and off-peak limits.



Augustus III
If Only Rome Could See Us Now....

join:2001-01-25
Gainesville, GA
reply to cdru

said by cdru:

said by ArrayList:

I just don't see how using so much data has any relation with the cost of upgrading the plant. those costs should be spread across all the customers instead of the "top 5%" if the costs were spread across more customers the ISP would be able to upgrade far more often. maybe that is why they have such insanely low caps.

I don't understand why when I drive a semi I should have to pay more to use the roads then a passenger. Or if I drive farther on a toll road I should have to pay more. If they just spread the costs across all motorists equally instead of the heaviest vehicles that use the roads the most, they would be able to make and repair roads far more often.

Those top 5% pay more for their connection because the ISP has deemed that they have used their connection in excess of what their monthly fee allocates for. The 5% of the heaviest users causes the peak capacity needs to go up. That requires faster connections to not impact other customers and greater bandwidth costs. Instead of passing on the costs to everyone, they go after those that use the most instead of requiring everyone to subsidize the users that use the most.

I'm not saying they are completely right in their thinking, and I'm not saying they are completely in the wrong either. I definitely understand where they are coming from a logic standpoint. And I'm also sure just plain old desire to make more is at play as well.

And another company troll arises.

Because bandwidth is created out of thin air. Roads are not

It costs you nothing to maintain a line at 90% load vs one at 5%.

But yah, nice try there buddy. Now go back to work at the telco call center

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
reply to ArrayList

Really? So a link being at 90% capacity has nothing to do with how much usage goes through it...



ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
Reviews:
·RCN CABLE
·Comcast

said by iansltx:

Really? So a link being at 90% capacity has nothing to do with how much usage goes through it...

don't think I said that.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast

So, because upgrades are a step function you can't smooth out the steps and charge people for their contribution to the need to upgrade? Because while one user at 300GB isn't a big deal on a DOCSIS 3 system, one hundred users at 300GB, plus other people on the node, would probably merit turning on some more DOCSIS QAMs, making a node split, or increasing backhaul...



espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
reply to ArrayList

said by ArrayList:

I just don't see how using so much data has any relation with the cost of upgrading the plant. those costs should be spread across all the customers instead of the "top 5%" if the costs were spread across more customers the ISP would be able to upgrade far more often.

The problem is the usage distribution is so horribly skewed that you can't easily spread the costs around without making everyone's pricing skyrocket.

The top 1 percent of broadband connections is responsible for more than 20 percent of total Internet traffic. The top 10 percent of connections is responsible for over 60 percent of broadband Internet traffic, worldwide.
Source: »www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/co···_WP.html

Part of the challenge is that technology upgrades are cheap, but capacity upgrades tend to be expensive.

What I mean by that is if you had to build out a 6TB storage array 6-7 years ago, you would have spent a ridiculous amount of money on 750GB or maybe 1TB drives and had to get a special chassis and controller to handle all the drives and some type of RAID5/6 solution. Today you can build a screaming fast RAID10 array using basic motherboard interfaces, a standard chassis that typically supports 4 drives, and 3TB drives that are available dirt cheap at most retailers. If you can keep your demand somewhat in line with upgrades in technology that bring expansion of capacity, you can get the best "bang for your buck" as your grow your infrastructure.

If ISPs can defer capacity upgrades to line up with their technology refresh cycles, they can keep infrastructure costs reasonable as they expand capacity. Examples of this include Comcast, which is a company that has been able to bump the base package offering from 3m/128k in 2001 to 12m/2m today without altering the base price of the package much. (in fact, adjusting for inflation the price has actually gone down)


GeekJedi
RF is Good For You
Premium
join:2001-06-21
Mukwonago, WI
reply to Augustus III

Wow. Intelligent reply. You win the internet.



ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
Reviews:
·RCN CABLE
·Comcast
reply to espaeth

said by espaeth:

The top 1 percent of broadband connections is responsible for more than 20 percent of total Internet traffic. The top 10 percent of connections is responsible for over 60 percent of broadband Internet traffic, worldwide.
Source: »www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/co···_WP.html

Of course this is true. The majority of internet connections out there sit idle and hardly get used. This is why I feel there needs to be peak/off-peak limits.

said by espaeth:

If ISPs can defer capacity upgrades to line up with their technology refresh cycles, they can keep infrastructure costs reasonable as they expand capacity. Examples of this include Comcast, which is a company that has been able to bump the base package offering from 3m/128k in 2001 to 12m/2m today without altering the base price of the package much. (in fact, adjusting for inflation the price has actually gone down)

If inflation were to go down you would most certainly not see any change in the price.

I have to ask though, what kind of technology upgrades other than networking equipment does an ISP need? I would imagine that networking equipment/plant equipment and capacity would be the largest expenses other than labor costs.


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000
reply to iansltx

said by iansltx:

They're amortizing last-mile plant upgrade costs, backbone upgrade costs, etc. into a single number. Many data centers have overages of 10 cents per GB...and they don't have a last mile coax plant o keep up. Honestly, 20¢ per GB is entirely reasonable.

I have an unlimited seed box for 18 bucks a month. ( just changed providers )

I transferred about 20 TB's last month. My connection does fluctuate, which I guess you could consider a throttle, although its more a matter of running out of capacity I think. Besides even when my connection slows down, its still faster than my old provider.

Way too much competition to go with a data center that has overages.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2

Very few people use OVH for anything other than seedboxes from what I've seen. It's also not in the US. Also, as you said, they'll run out of peak capacity at times.