dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
10
share rss forum feed


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

Re: Could be worse.

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.


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


GeekJedi
RF is Good For You
Premium
join:2001-06-21
Mukwonago, WI
Wow. Intelligent reply. You win the internet.