 TwiztedZeroNine Zero Burp Nine SixPremium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:3
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to brad
Re: CNOC speed matching decision due next week said by brad:said by InvalidError:With the much more efficient "packing" by aggregating everything on 10G links instead of individual 1Gbps virtual circuits, TSI would likely be able to get away with somewhat fewer 10G links than what their projected total of 1G links would dictate. They only need to aim for equal or more if most of their 1G links happen to frequently hit their peaks at the same time, which should be very uncommon.
There is no point in reducing the amount of capacity between TSI and Rogers when they'll end up just going up to that level of required capacity very quickly anyway, especially with the increased coverage and the new speed tiers. I'm inclined to concurr on this assessment. 
--
----|- From the mind located in the shadows of infinity -|----
Nine.Zero.Burp.Nine.Six
Twitter = Twizted Zero
Chat = irc.teksavvy.ca |
|
| reply to brad
said by brad:Last time I checked $8k/Gbps is much cheaper than $26k/$22k/Gbps... Cheaper, yes. But still nowhere near as cheap as the 1-2k$/Gbps many people here are hoping for and 8k$/Gbps is near the optimistic end of my guess range. |
|
|
|
 Dones
join:2008-02-14
Toronto, ON | said by InvalidError:said by brad:Last time I checked $8k/Gbps is much cheaper than $26k/$22k/Gbps... Cheaper, yes. But still nowhere near as cheap as the 1-2k$/Gbps many people here are hoping for and 8k$/Gbps is near the optimistic end of my guess range. Holy shit! Makes you wonder how Google is offering 1Gb for $70. That Google fibre sounds sexy. |
|
| said by Dones:Holy shit! Makes you wonder how Google is offering 1Gb for $70. That Google fibre sounds sexy. Google Fiber is 1Gbps only between the subscriber and Google's edge equipment. Beyond that, speeds vary wildly and even more so if you go beyond Google's own network.
Not quite the same provisioning burden as aggregated or dedicated links where ISPs and clients usually expect to be able to push links to full speed at any time of day for however long they need.
High speeds are much cheaper to offer when they come with minimal (if any) performance guarantees. |
|
 jmckformerly 'shaded'
join:2010-10-02
Ottawa, ON
 ·TekSavvy DSL
·Start Communicat..
| reply to Dones
while this isn't really the thread for it, Google is selling it at a loss and generally all their products at a loss too as long as it enables them to collect data off you and sell it or feed you ads.
they also are very interested in disrupting current broadband markets in the US and likely just using it as a scare tactic. |
|
 GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20 | Google is on the record as saying it's not being sold at a loss.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org |
|
TypeS
join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| Unless they reveal all the costs associated with rolling out fiber on poles, running the into homes, installing in home, building their edge ip network, etc., it is simply just their word saying its not being sold at a loss.
And like other companies, they just reveal total profits for the company in financial reports, so those don't indicate much. Google's primary business is mining data, selling that data to advertisers and selling space to advertisers.
Look no further then Google's Android OS, they developed it and then just give it away to OEMs.
Comparing Google's fibre project in Kansas city to convential ISPs is not really is like comparing apples to oranges. I predict the Google's fibre rolling out to the masses to fizzle like Verizon's FIOS did when it first arrived in the States many, many years ago.
--
[img] »/im/103954564/64554.png [/img] |
|
jmckformerly 'shaded'
join:2010-10-02
Ottawa, ON Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·Start Communicat..
| reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:Google is on the record as saying it's not being sold at a loss.
again it's benefitting them to say it's not being sold at a loss. assuming it is then it's likely being sold at an even cost which isn't proving anything.
the big cost from fiber to the home is the installation/last mile infrastructure (not the actual bandwidth) and the install fee cannot cover that. it could be that city of KC or some other org is funding it and Google isn't counting that as their 'cost'. |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to mlerner
The city owns all the right of ways, and has allowed Google access to all the poles and such for free.
They're essentially giving Google Carte Blanche.
Those who want google fiber installed pay for it. for the free 5mbps, you pay $300 to install. If you go on a monthly plan, they waive the install fee.
They're also getting money from the neighbourhood 'rallies' (people vote on which neighbourhood gets it next). To sign up to vote costs $10.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
| reply to jmck
said by jmck:again it's benefitting them to say it's not being sold at a loss. assuming it is then it's likely being sold at an even cost which isn't proving anything. At $70/month with no speed guarantees, I think it is pretty safe to conclude that they will eventually be making a fair profit on it. Similar service in Hong Kong costs as little as $35/month and in Japan you can have it for ~$50/month in some areas.
As far as KC "funding" Google Fiber, the only conditions Google had were free access to easements and the city generally staying out of Google's way. Local incumbents did try to have GF shut down by saying free easement was an unfair advantage. |
|
| reply to mlerner
As a public company, Google can't just claim it's not being sold at a loss when it is. There are securities regulations that would cause them big problems for doing such a thing. I know the tinfoil hatters would like to believe their own nonsense that it's a giant conspiracy to steal your information, the reality is they're very likely not losing money. |
|
| said by travisc:the reality is they're very likely not losing money. Like any infrastructure investment of this nature, it does take ~15 years to get a return on investment so I'm guessing people who say Google is selling "at a loss" are forgetting about that.
Infrastructure is a labor-intensive long-term investment. There will be profit (unless Google screw themselves), it is just 10-15 years down the road.
If someone considers only the early months of infrastructure investments then every significant infrastructure investment ever made will look like colossal "losses" since the rewards are out of the time frame being looked at. |
|
| reply to TSI Marc
When is this decision expected?
Would you have a link to the CRTC website on the open 'issue' |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| said by londoner1:When is this decision expected?
Would you have a link to the CRTC website on the open 'issue'
Its out already.
Denied.
The only good thing is that Rogers (and now all incumbents) have to file download and upload speeds in Tariffs, and Rogers has to file tariffs for all optional speed packages - ie 45/7 they weren't offering TPIA in already upgraded areas.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
| Sorry I should have read my post prior to posting...I replied to a post from Marc stating that the CBB decision that is outstanding is one that they and other independent ISP's are eagerly awaiting |
|
| reply to TSI Marc
I don't understand the speed changes after aggregate, who currently has 32, or 75 download with teksavvy, i thought their highest package is 28/1 which is what i have. How does one get access to the 32 or 75 service? |
|
Kewjoe
join:2002-04-14
North York, ON | My understanding is Teksavvy gained access to the 32 and 75 profiles recently but it's not worth upgrading the infrastructure to offer those speeds. Reason being the move to aggregate would make that investment mostly wasted. |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| said by Kewjoe:My understanding is Teksavvy gained access to the 32 and 75 profiles recently but it's not worth upgrading the infrastructure to offer those speeds. Reason being the move to aggregate would make that investment mostly wasted.
This. Teksavvy is already in process of figuring the schedule with Rogers to convert everything to Aggregated, and following the new Capacity Based Billing rates which should be out sometime this month, Teksavvy may be more able to afford to offer the higher speeds without going broke.
As it is now, if someone were to purchase the 150/10 package on aggregated, Teksavvy wouldn't be able to come close to matching Rogers' price for it due to the ~$1200/100mbps price on capacity.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·Bell Sympatico
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to mlerner
Not surprised about the decision. The speed-matching rules, as I understood them, were pretty clear, and as much as some/most people will hate it, this ruling was the correct ruling.
I'm glad Teksavvy and Rogers are working towards getting the aggregated POI's set up. November 15 2013 is still a fair ways away (10 months), and while many people will hang tight and stay with Teksavvy, lots will be leaving for iISP's using aggregated POI's to get the faster speeds sooner. Hopefully it happens sooner. |
|
TwiztedZeroNine Zero Burp Nine SixPremium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:3 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| - (9 months), and ATPIA transitions is allready underway, Feb/March according to Marc's statements in the other thread; though it'll be a while before we start seeing things on the customer end; plus we're waiting still for the CBB decision on the tariffs later this month or early next month. I'm confident we'll all be shunted over to ATPIA long before we're anywheres near November.
--
----|- From the mind located in the shadows of infinity -|----
Nine.Zero.Burp.Nine.Six
Twitter = Twizted Zero
Chat = irc.teksavvy.ca |
|
