cdruGo Colts MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN |
to ArrayList
Re: Could be worse.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... |
|
ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
cdruGo Colts MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN |
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 |
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. |
|
ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
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 IIIIf Only Rome Could See Us Now.... join:2001-01-25 Gainesville, GA |
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 |
|
SpaethCoDigital Plumber MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN |
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/solu ··· _WP.htmlPart 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) |
|
GeekJediRF is Good For You Premium Member join:2001-06-21 Mukwonago, WI |
to Augustus III
Wow. Intelligent reply. You win the internet. |
|
ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to SpaethCo
said by SpaethCo: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/solu ··· _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 SpaethCo: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. |
|