dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
863

JasonOD
@comcast.net

JasonOD

Anon

No surprise.....

Hey, you want to be able to pay one price to fill up your car an unlimited amount every month? Better expect to pay more for that privilege.
smhpro123
join:2010-02-07
canada

smhpro123

Member

You show a fundamental misunderstanding of how much a gigabyte costs to deliver. Oil is a scarce resource whose price is set by wholesalers on a world market.

It costs less than 1 cent for a gig to be delivered to a customer.

Do your research next time please.

nothing00
join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY

nothing00 to JasonOD

Member

to JasonOD
Uh, right. Because data is just like gasoline.

jgkolt
Premium Member
join:2004-02-21
Avon, OH

jgkolt

Premium Member

both are pretty much a commodity but one has a more efficient marketplace.

JasonOD
@comcast.net

JasonOD to smhpro123

Anon

to smhpro123
Look I know bits does not equal gasoline, but that doesn't get around the fundamental infrastructure costs with delivering more bits. Kind of like filling stations having to install more pumps to meet unlimited demand.

nothing00
join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY

nothing00 to jgkolt

Member

to jgkolt
Data is free. A gallon of gas is an actual thing. Gas has a more efficient marketplace because there's competition.

In both cases the consumer pays the distribution cost.

Cost of gasoline in my tank: (price of unit * quantity) + (distribution cost per unit * quantity)
Cost of data to my house: (distribution cost per unit * quantity)

It's people who equate data with an actual thing that are dangerous. They're the ones that say, "Well, Netflix is PREMIUM unleaded so you pay more".

andyb
Premium Member
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario

andyb to jgkolt

Premium Member

to jgkolt
Doesnt matter how you slice it 22k for a gigE is just plain idiotic
EdmundGerber
join:2010-01-04

EdmundGerber to JasonOD

Member

to JasonOD
said by JasonOD :

Hey, you want to be able to pay one price to fill up your car an unlimited amount every month? Better expect to pay more for that privilege.

So, bits are from ancient forests, trapped fro millions of years underground - very rare and hard to 'mine'? Is that the gist of it?

Idiot.
prairiesky
join:2008-12-08
canada

prairiesky to nothing00

Member

to nothing00
said by nothing00:

Data is free. A gallon of gas is an actual thing. Gas has a more efficient marketplace because there's competition.

In both cases the consumer pays the distribution cost.

Cost of gasoline in my tank: (price of unit * quantity) + (distribution cost per unit * quantity)
Cost of data to my house: (distribution cost per unit * quantity)

It's people who equate data with an actual thing that are dangerous. They're the ones that say, "Well, Netflix is PREMIUM unleaded so you pay more".

but if data is free, then why are you paying for it? oh right, it's not free
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to JasonOD

Member

to JasonOD
You are attempting to state that there is a bandwidth crisis and thus they wont be able to serve the customer's needs and thus will have to install more equipment to meet those needs.

The above is not true and if it was, it can be accomplished through regular updates at the current price points (or even less) considering that 1.) Prices for equipment / capacity are constantly falling 2.) They were able to do it after the last upgrade which probably cost a lot more and has probably already pretty much been fully depreciated or seen 100+% return on investment.
Skippy25

Skippy25 to prairiesky

Member

to prairiesky
Either your an idiot or you fully understand his point and are just trolling.

Which is it?
prairiesky
join:2008-12-08
canada

prairiesky

Member

said by Skippy25:

Either your an idiot or you fully understand his point and are just trolling.

Which is it?

he's arguing it's not like gas because it's not limited.... that simply doesn't make it free...... similarly, the price of gas isn't based solely on the cost of crude oil.

@ your other point, there may not be a crisis per say, but it's been shown time and time again that the current equipment is starting to fall behind and hence upgrades are needed. That's not even arguable.

the 2nd part of your argument is that the equipment based on price/capacity is falling. That may be true, but that's an invalid metric.

I still have to pay $70 for a docsis 3 modem whether i get 100 mbps down or 50 mbps down. My capital outlay does not vary based on the speeds pertaining to the equipment. However, the equipment cannot support all users @ 100mpbs. Combine that with more households using the system than the last time and more infrastructure costs (more head ends (dslams or cmts) to feed the customers (installation, maintiance, etc). Combine that again with the fact that the equipment cannot keep up with demand as long as the last set did, therefore it has to be amortized over a shorter life span increasing costs.

Any idea what a commercial grade 24 port DSLAM costs? $10,000. Assuming a 5 year life span, that's $8 per month per customer solely for the dslam. factor in bandwidth costs, peering costs, support staff, maintenance staff, accounting staff, outside plant, modems,

CMTS can easily be $100,000 + plus the rest of that although they can handle more users.

ChucksTruck
@teksavvy.com

ChucksTruck

Anon

Part of the fees you pay each month are supposed to go to the upgrade of the infrastructure like in the rest of the world. Unfortunately in Canada they go into people's pocket for brand new cars, trips and vacations instead.
arahman56
join:2011-08-11
Etobicoke, ON

arahman56 to nothing00

Member

to nothing00
Like how it's very flammable and puts out greenhouse gases, right?
tyciol
join:2007-01-29
Richmond Hill, ON

tyciol to prairiesky

Member

to prairiesky
Prairie, data is something inherently free unless it is limited by the people who create it.

The data on YouTube, for example, is provided free to us by Google.

Rogers is not selling us YouTube, they do not own it. They are being paid to transport the data, that is all.

Some people do charge for data. For example, the software updates we get from antivirus programs that come packaged with Rogers, that's actual data they sell us. Netflix charges for data, as does Crunchyroll, as to people who sell E-books.

Rogers is a conveyance service, they are being paid to link us up with other web sites, to upload and download from them. So no, they are not selling the data, they are selling the usage of their hardware to convey that data. Except for the data they own (or have agreements to distribute, aka our Antivirus) they are not charging for the actual data content because they can't.

The problem here is that they're charging based on the size of the data as opposed to the amount it actually costs to send it.

If they were gauging us in a competetive marketplace, people could compete and charge more realistic rates. But since they are anti-competetive, they can't.
prairiesky
join:2008-12-08
canada

prairiesky

Member

said by tyciol:

Prairie, data is something inherently free unless it is limited by the people who create it.

The data on YouTube, for example, is provided free to us by Google.

Rogers is not selling us YouTube, they do not own it. They are being paid to transport the data, that is all.

Some people do charge for data. For example, the software updates we get from antivirus programs that come packaged with Rogers, that's actual data they sell us. Netflix charges for data, as does Crunchyroll, as to people who sell E-books.

Rogers is a conveyance service, they are being paid to link us up with other web sites, to upload and download from them. So no, they are not selling the data, they are selling the usage of their hardware to convey that data. Except for the data they own (or have agreements to distribute, aka our Antivirus) they are not charging for the actual data content because they can't.

The problem here is that they're charging based on the size of the data as opposed to the amount it actually costs to send it.

If they were gauging us in a competetive marketplace, people could compete and charge more realistic rates. But since they are anti-competetive, they can't.

free to the end user does not make it free! major misconception.
data has a cost. The only reason youtube is free to the end user is because someone else is paying for the bandwidth, servers, electricity, staff. b) computer data does not exist without a server. Someone has to create and maintain that server. It costs money to do so. allowing people to access it at no charge does not make it inherently free.

You are 100% correct in that it's a convince service. They are providing a product that you would like to purchase in the location you would like to use it. They just happen to have the equipment to make it do so. Maintaining that equipment isn't free.
where you make your mistake is that you assume that no matter how much data they transfer to and from their network, their costs are the same. They are not
hescominsoon
join:2003-02-18
Brunswick, MD

hescominsoon to nothing00

Member

to nothing00
said by nothing00:

Data is free. A gallon of gas is an actual thing. Gas has a more efficient marketplace because there's competition.

In both cases the consumer pays the distribution cost.

Cost of gasoline in my tank: (price of unit * quantity) + (distribution cost per unit * quantity)
Cost of data to my house: (distribution cost per unit * quantity)

It's people who equate data with an actual thing that are dangerous. They're the ones that say, "Well, Netflix is PREMIUM unleaded so you pay more".

actually data ISN'T free. You have the cost of the electricity to generate that packet. There's the costs for each routers electricity to transit that hop and then the power required to get that data packet through your isp network back to you. There's people required to maintain all of this. Data most assuredly is NOT free by any means at all. I'm not even getting into the costs of procurement and maintenance of the infrastructure that generates and transits that packet.
smhpro123
join:2010-02-07
canada

smhpro123

Member

it costs them 1 cent to deliver a gig of bandwidth. that's the facts.
hescominsoon
join:2003-02-18
Brunswick, MD

hescominsoon

Member

said by smhpro123:

it costs them 1 cent to deliver a gig of bandwidth. that's the facts.

care to show a copy of those facts? It most assuredly costs more than 1 cent to power a crs-1 which is what class of routers many large isps have at their cores. That doesn't include the related infrastructure costs. It's simply a matter of logic that while packets aren't expensive..they most assuredly aren't free. it is simply ignorance or willfull stupidity to suggest otherwise. I've worked at a couple of isp's. packets most assuredly aren't free...if i can figure this out working for a local isp...it's isn't hard to figure out the costs for a much larger place.
smhpro123
join:2010-02-07
canada

smhpro123

Member

I'm sure your google search validated these facts....what?... you didn't do one yet....why not?

"Wired ISPs have large fixed costs of building and maintaining their last mile network of residential cable and fiber. The ISPs costs, however, to deliver a marginal gigabyte, which is about an hour of viewing, from one of our regional interchange points over their last mile wired network to the consumer is less than a penny, and falling, so there is no reason that pay-per-gigabyte is economically necessary. Moreover, at $1 per gigabyte over wired networks, it would be grossly overpriced."

Do you honestly believe that this is about costs spiralling out of control due to heavy downloaders? These anti-downloading companies are concerned that they will lose their cable subscriber cash cows to unlimited internet downloading. This is why these companies are doing streaming (capped of course) models via xbox, their own sites, hbo to go, etc....

Geak
@teksavvy.com

Geak to hescominsoon

Anon

to hescominsoon
Are you suggesting that the infrastructure gets replaced every time a gig is downloaded????? Get real. If Bell installs a router it will sit there until it fails. Perhaps it sits there for 10 years. How many gigs of data can be downloaded in 10 years? Multiply that by the price they charge per gigabyte - which of course will increase on a regular basis for no reason whatsoever other than to make some exec rich. Now subtract the cost of hydro (negligible), maintenence (negligible & decreasing), support (negligible & decreasing) etc. etc. The bottom line is that Bell is going to make a crapstorm of cash for very little initial investment.