mikef1
Mike
join:2004-10-28
Littlestown, PA
| reply to Ignite
Re: This is terrible!
said by Ignite  :said by insomniac84 :it probably was oc192, I couldn't remember all I remember was that when dividing the cost up so each person has 100mbit, the cost is 100 a month. I did this like 5 years ago. So prices are definitely cheaper now. So how do we deliver this bandwidth to each user, magic? Oh wait, unless all these 100 people live in a datacentre someone has to pay for an access network. There's a lot more to it than just bandwidth.  OC192 gives you 9621.504 Mb of usable bandwith.
If each customer is getting 100Mb of speed this works out to about 96 customers. Heck lets oversell just a little and make it an even 100 customers. If they each pay $100 a month then the oc192 can’t cost anymore than $10,000 a month. What does an oc192 line go for these days? Broadband.com advertises oc3 (155 Mb) starting at $7,500 a month, I’m sure an oc192 would be much higher.
For argument sake lets say these customers are in an apartment complex. Technically it can be done with fiber runs to each apartment from where the oc192 comes into the building. But it would just be too expensive at least here in the US. What about the cost of the ISPs internet connection itself. If every customer has 100Mb, with thousands of customers the ISP will need multiple oc192s to multiple peers, who is going to pay for that? You also have to consider other businesses expenses and yeah they want to make a profit too.
--
mike
HouseOfMike |
|
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs:
 ·BlueYonder Interne..
 ·Be There
| reply to insomniac84
said by insomniac84 :it probably was oc192, I couldn't remember all I remember was that when dividing the cost up so each person has 100mbit, the cost is 100 a month. I did this like 5 years ago. So prices are definitely cheaper now. So how do we deliver this bandwidth to each user, magic?
Oh wait, unless all these 100 people live in a datacentre someone has to pay for an access network.
There's a lot more to it than just bandwidth. |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN | reply to mikef1
it probably was oc192, I couldn't remember all I remember was that when dividing the cost up so each person has 100mbit, the cost is 100 a month. I did this like 5 years ago. So prices are definitely cheaper now. |
|
mikef1
Mike
join:2004-10-28
Littlestown, PA
| reply to LilYoda
said by LilYoda :an't find OC128, but Wikipedia knows about the one above and below 128: Which was my point.
$100 for 100Mb doesn't work, at least not yet.
--
mike
HouseOfMike |
|
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
| reply to insomniac84
On top of the circuit itself, you have to pay for your actual bandwidth with your internet backbone connection provider. That ain't cheap.
If you don't oversubscribe, you also have to pay for the same amount of circuit and bandwidth on the other side, to go to your subscribers (via lots of DSL circuits, cable distributions, etc...)
That ain't cheap either
As other said, to run such a distribution layer, you'd probably have to invest a lot in hardware (you don't run those speeds on a linksys. It's Cisco or *maybe* Juniper hardware, mandatory)
That ain't cheap either
Then you have to pay your employees, the lease of the white room where all this equipment is stored, maintenance, fancy offices, call center in Cairo or Bangalore for angry users, CEO's golden parachutes, etc...
That ain't cheap either.
All but the last one are mandatory 
--
"the two most abundant things in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity." (Harlan Ellison) |
|
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
| reply to mikef1
an't find OC128, but Wikipedia knows about the one above and below 128:
quote:
OC-96
OC-96 is a network line with transmission speeds of up to 4976.64 Mbit/s (payload: 4810.752 Mbit/s; overhead: 165.888 Mbit/s). Implementations of OC-96 in commercial deployments are rare, if ever used at all.
[edit]
OC-192
OC-192 is a network line with transmission speeds of up to 9953.28 Mbit/s (payload: 9621.504 Mbit/s; overhead: 331.776 Mbit/s). This is the fastest connection commonly available to the Internet.
--
"the two most abundant things in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity." (Harlan Ellison) |
|
Zaber
When all are gone, there shall be none
join:2000-06-08
Cleveland, OH
clubs:
·Expedient
·XO COMMUNICATIONS
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to superdog
Re: This is terrible!se
said by superdog :Hmmmm..........Then I guess You would rather pay the actual cost for 6Mb down and 1Mb up?. If You do that?, You would need 12 bonded T1's just to get the 6Mb down part(A fractional DS3 would be a little cheaper). The bonded T1's would give You that bandwidth You paid for, AND they wouldn't throttle Your bit torrent traffic. So lets see, If it is the ISP's fault for not charging enough, than I guess You would be really happy if they stopped throttling Your bandwidth and sent You a bill in the mail for the actual cost of the bandwidth?. Hey, what the hell?, my bill is $4800 a month, but they're not choking any traffic?.  Actually I would. Just for the record 12 bonded T1s would yield 18M not 6M. While the $725 for 5M quote we just received is a little high for my home use, it is nowhere near the $4800 you mentioned. Consumer ISPs are using the fact that it is a "best effort" service with no SLA as an excuse to avoid the costs of upgrading their networks. While I understand that there will be slowdowns on their networks, the ISPs need to upgrade them instead of just telling people that they are not allowed to use the connection they are paying for only part of the time.
--
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he will feed himself for a lifetime |
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·surpasshosting
 ·ViaTalk
| reply to insomniac84
Re: This is terrible!
A new take on the spurious arguments about "fair" bandwidth practices.
Did your calculations cover the cost of hardware to hook that circuit to? Don't forget maintenance on the hardware, plus UPSes, plus customer-side equipment, plus a few qualified people to manage all that stuff.
Of course they didn't... |
|
mikef1
Mike
join:2004-10-28
Littlestown, PA | reply to insomniac84
Exactly how fast is this oc128?
I'm not familiar with that beast.
--
mike
HouseOfMike |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to superdog
said by superdog :....Then I guess You would rather pay the actual cost for 6Mb down and 1Mb up?. ... Well, I'd rather at least KNOW what the cost is, so that I could make a rational decision, rather than having to guess because the ISP is playing some sort of deceptive bait-n-switch game on what they "offer" and what they "provide".
If the ISPs can't provision their "all you can consume" pricing strategies, they should admit it and start charging more for people who use huge amounts of the data capacity they buy. Pretending that there are no usage fees and then throttling certain types of traffic is like advertising an "all you can eat" buffet and then deliberately running out of food.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| reply to superdog
I think I looked up the price of a oc128 before and if you divide the bandwidth up so all users have a full 100mbit up and down it's only $100 a month. So a 10mbit up and down line should only be $10 a month. And that's guaranteed, no sharing involved. Since the cable and dsl companies don't have enough bandwidth for every line they are basically stealing from us. Not to mention all bandwidth is symmetrical at some point, so all the upload your paying for and aren't getting is being sold off for hosting. So the ISPs are making a crap load of money on something they shouldn't be able to. |
|
superdog
I Need A Drink
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-13
Lebanon, PA
| reply to Zaber
said by Zaber :If the ISPs are incurring too many losses that is their fault for selling it below costs Hmmmm..........Then I guess You would rather pay the actual cost for 6Mb down and 1Mb up?. If You do that?, You would need 12 bonded T1's just to get the 6Mb down part(A fractional DS3 would be a little cheaper). The bonded T1's would give You that bandwidth You paid for, AND they wouldn't throttle Your bit torrent traffic. So lets see, If it is the ISP's fault for not charging enough, than I guess You would be really happy if they stopped throttling Your bandwidth and sent You a bill in the mail for the actual cost of the bandwidth?. Hey, what the hell?, my bill is $4800 a month, but they're not choking any traffic?.
--
»www.wavecrazy.net Join WISPA today! »www.wispa.org/ |
|
