yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| reply to tsu9
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
| 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
| reply to yock
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
| reply to yock
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
| 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 | 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. =)
 |
|
