dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
12

Thaler
Premium Member
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA

Thaler to r81984

Premium Member

to r81984

Re: A UBB plan can be designed to be revenue neutral

So, no source to the "insignificant" costs involved, okay.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

1 edit

sonicmerlin

Member

said by Thaler:

So, no source to the "insignificant" costs involved, okay.

»dslprime.com/dslprime/42 ··· andwidth

»dslprime.com/dslprime/42 ··· and-caps

»dslprime.com/policy/177- ··· th-costs

And from this website:
»Arris: Cable's Cost Per Bit Plummeting [26] comments

»Price Per MB Continues to Drop [42] comments

»The 'Bandwidth Hog' is a Myth [115] comments

Thaler
Premium Member
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA

1 edit

Thaler

Premium Member


I'm not the one claiming that bandwidth costs are insignificant. I just want to know where they got their source for the information so that it's not just one person's hearsay.

And from the sources quoted there, bandwidth costs aren't free, but they are cheap - ranging form $0.05 per GB to $1 per MB (seems a bit high), depending on the customer/client involved. That's still a range of $50-$1000+ per TB.

So, even from those sources, a heavy-use broadband customer has a more-than-significant broadband cost as compared to a light-use customer.

Thanks for the clarification.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

2 edits

r81984 to Thaler

Premium Member

to Thaler
said by Thaler:

So, no source to the "insignificant" costs involved, okay.

Do you not understand what it cost to build a network and how a network works?? Silly you.
Costs are based on your physical connection not usage so it makes no sense to charge by usage.

Thaler
Premium Member
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA

Thaler

Premium Member

Pretty sure the costs/operation involved in running a major DSL/Cable ISP are a lot different than the CAT5 network you've got in your house. If you wish to prove otherwise, again, please state some sources.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

r81984

Premium Member

If you know how a network works then it is common sense knowledge. Plus the huge profits ISPs had from 1995 to 2011 shows you how usage does not matter in their costs.
Usage Base Billing is 100% only to prevent internet competition with TV services, I thought this was also common knowledge by now.

Please stop playing dumb. It does not make you look intelligent.
said by »www.pcpro.co.uk/news/bro ··· -of-data :
"Traffic-related costs are a small percentage of the total connectivity revenue, and despite traffic growth, this percentage is expected to stay constant or decline," claims the report, written by telecoms experts Plum Consulting.
Even when experts talk about the cost per GB all they are doing is taking the fixed costs of the network and dividing it by the bandwidth of the network.
You cannot build a network by paying by the byte as costs are not based on usage.

The only ISPs that could argue usage based biling are the ones that are "internet resellers" where they are forced to unfairly pay for usage to their backbone providers and then must pass on BS usage costs to their customers when they resell internet access. Tier 1 ISPs like ATT have absolutely no justification for UBB as their equipment is the internet.

Thaler
Premium Member
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA

Thaler

Premium Member

said by r81984:

If you know how a network works then it is common sense knowledge.

So you believe a cable/DSL ISP operates exactly like the CAT5 & WiFi network running at my house. Neat.
said by r81984:

Plus the huge profits ISPs had from 1995 to 2011 shows you how usage does not matter in their costs.

Profit != Decreasing Costs

These companies have been asking for more money & providing less service. Simply being profitable doesn't explain/prove your point at all.
said by r81984:

Usage Base Billing is 100% only to prevent internet competition with TV services, I thought this was also common knowledge by now.

It is. What I'm looking for is your source that heavy data users are no different (or negligibly so) from their light data use counterparts.
said by r81984:

Even when experts talk about the cost per GB all they are doing is taking the fixed costs of the network and dividing it by the bandwidth of the network.

Every "expert" source I've seen writes off these costs as "small" or "negligible"...but provides no actual numbers as to compare scales. One person's "small" is another person's "significant". The sources I've seen in this thread actually provide numbers to the reader indicate that a heavy user's costs to the ISP are noticeable (at least to me) compared to a light user.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

r81984

Premium Member

There is no source that says someone who uses their connection more costs an ISP more money.
ISP use caps only to prevent internet video competition.

If you use your 20mbps connection less, your connection does not magically get cheaper. It cost the same as someone who uses their same tiered connection more.
If you pay less because you use your connection less than everyone else will have to subsidize your connection which is not fair.

You should really do some reading on how networks work.
FYI, the way an ISP works is the same as if you ran a CAT5 network in your house. They use tranceivers, switches, routers. The only difference is their network is much larger and uses different equipment and protocols for very long runs. They have to balance their network just like if you built your own network in your house, office building, or across your town.

If their network can only handle 6 mbps per subscriber and they lie and sell 20 mbps then they screwed up. In cases like that they need to be selling 6 mbps with up to 20 mbps speed boost at non peak times. Caps will not fix them offering too fast speeds that they know their network can't handle.

You really need to stop playing the stupid troll game.

Thaler
Premium Member
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA

Thaler

Premium Member

I'm just trying to clarify your position by reading whatever documentation you have that explains your position. However, the more we discuss, the more your "facts" seem to be a matter of your own opinion.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

r81984

Premium Member

I am simply talking facts. Monthly usage is insignificant for your costs.
All that matters is what tier of speeds they give you and what equipment they need to buy and operator to support it.

They take those costs and divide them by the # of years they want to have a return on investment. Your usage is insignificant compared to what everything costs to give you your connection. If you never use your connection it still costs the same as someone downloading 500GB a month.
If usage really mattered at the backbone, then you would see companies not counting in-network usage against you and only external internet traffic against you. ATT even counts modem to CO overhead against you which makes no sense. Usage is irrelevant and only capped to prevent internet video competition.

If you take the time to understand how a network works then you will understand this.