how-to block ads
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit said by tsu9  :ISPs oversell their network because of the nature of bandwidth usage.Then perhaps they should not "oversell"? It would be nice, but then your DSL or cable connection would cost about $800 a month. I certainly don't want that.
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge | |
|  
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
1 edit | Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit How about some rational figures to back that assertion up?
To whit: if there is that much risk involved ($760 rough risk) per line, then I really have to wonder how the market stays afloat. Because, honestly, they seem to be making plenty of money. | |
| |
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit said by tsu9 :How about some rational figures to back that assertion up? To whit: if there is that much risk involved ($760 rough risk) per line, then I really have to wonder how the market stays afloat. Because, honestly, they seem to be making plenty of money. It's a number that roughly equates to 5Mb of commercial access with a Service Level Agreement. It may very well be incredibly inaccurate, as I do not work in the industry.
Consider that a dedicated T1 line costs around $400/mo for 1.5Mb up and down these days, my estimation for 5Mb might even be low.
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge | |
| | |
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit It's a bit lower than that, actually. And, regardless, that's still inflated quite heavily. Taking into account that most home users don't expect 99.9999(or more)% uptime, that lowers the cost rather dramatically. Even something like 98% would suffice, especially if the downtime were limited to notable off-peak hours. Business class lines pay for both uptime and QOS. Dedication of line isn't really all that expensive, in and of itself, as most DSL providers tend to showcase (yes, slightly flawed analogy, but that is "good enough" for the average/above-average home user)
All this fuss over people using the network that is "oversold" just means that 95% (random statistic: popular figure of 5% "heavy" users) of the users are getting fleeced.
--
"You do not secure the liberty of our country and value of our democracy by undermining them, that's the road to hell." - Lord Phillips of Sudbury. | |
| | | 
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
 ·T-Mobile US
| said by yock :said by tsu9 :How about some rational figures to back that assertion up? To whit: if there is that much risk involved ($760 rough risk) per line, then I really have to wonder how the market stays afloat. Because, honestly, they seem to be making plenty of money. It's a number that roughly equates to 5Mb of commercial access with a Service Level Agreement. It may very well be incredibly inaccurate, as I do not work in the industry. Consider that a dedicated T1 line costs around $400/mo for 1.5Mb up and down these days, my estimation for 5Mb might even be low. You might want to take your own advice and check out the industry then: most of the extra you pay for a T1 comes from the SLA behind it: the routing, those various peering routes the ISP must secure to be able to back up its "five-digit 9s" SLA. 
Contrary to this we don't want SLA, nobody expects 99.999% service but everybody expects uncapped service.
The two barely has anything to do with each other if it's not cable, not a shared last-mile system. | |
| | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| said by yock :It's a number that roughly equates to 5Mb of commercial access with a Service Level Agreement. It may very well be incredibly inaccurate, as I do not work in the industry. Home users do not get anywhere near the service of a "service level agreement." | |
| | | |
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit said by moonpuppy :said by yock :It's a number that roughly equates to 5Mb of commercial access with a Service Level Agreement. It may very well be incredibly inaccurate, as I do not work in the industry. Home users do not get anywhere near the service of a "service level agreement." Which is exactly my point. Since you are not promised every bit of that bandwidth every moment of every day, they can over-sell their networks.
Either way, I feel I've made my point to the best of my ability. The great thing about our discussions here is our right to disagree. I'll exercise that right...right now. =)
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge | |
| | | | |
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
2 edits | Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit said by yock :said by moonpuppy :said by yock :It's a number that roughly equates to 5Mb of commercial access with a Service Level Agreement. It may very well be incredibly inaccurate, as I do not work in the industry. Home users do not get anywhere near the service of a "service level agreement." Which is exactly my point. Since you are not promised every bit of that bandwidth every moment of every day, they can over-sell their networks. No, you are confusedon multiple counts.
1.SLA is more about the service quality - bandwidth is there anyway.
2. Slowing down periodically has nothing to do with deliberate capping. Capping for using your PAID service is CLEARLY illegal and has no merits.
Either way, I feel I've made my point to the best of my ability. The great thing about our discussions here is our right to disagree. I'll exercise that right...right now. =)
 | |
| |
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| said by tsu9 :How about some rational figures to back that assertion up? To whit: if there is that much risk involved ($760 rough risk) per line, then I really have to wonder how the market stays afloat. Because, honestly, they seem to be making plenty of money. Ouch, another great one - touche'!  | |
| | 
owenhome
keeper of the magic blue smoke
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR
| I was one of the first to jump on the DSL bandwagon. I bought a dry loop to an ISP for 768/768 SDSL. The cost was in excess of $600/month. The justification for this price was that the ISP (not a telco) had to provide 100% of this bandwidth 100% of the time (I was running servers and using every bit of it). The phone company was charging ~$1200/month for a T1, so it was a decent deal. Half the speed for half the cost.
Currently, with BB ISP's, the market stays afloat because of the law of averages.
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. | |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
1 edit | said by yock :said by tsu9 :ISPs oversell their network because of the nature of bandwidth usage.Then perhaps they should not "oversell"? It would be nice, but then your DSL or cable connection would cost about $800 a month. I certainly don't want that. Another ignorant comment. FYI: an SLA-backed T1 starts around $300 - and that's 1.5Mbit guaranteed, both ways. | |
| |
owenhome
keeper of the magic blue smoke
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR
| Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit No, no it's not. It's guaranteed yes, but the bandwidth available at the ISP itself to support your T1 is not up to the task of supporting every T1 at 100%. They depend on each T1 to be below a certain average capacity. When I worked for an ISP who sold T1's, many moons ago, the average we used was 25%. It was only when customer's complained that we would do something about it.
Can you see the forest despite the trees?
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. | |
| | | | | |
|
·
·
·