dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
10
share rss forum feed


ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to cdru

Re: Could be worse.

I just don't see how using so much data has any relation with the cost of upgrading the plant. those costs should be spread across all the customers instead of the "top 5%" if the costs were spread across more customers the ISP would be able to upgrade far more often. maybe that is why they have such insanely low caps.



cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7

said by ArrayList:

I just don't see how using so much data has any relation with the cost of upgrading the plant. those costs should be spread across all the customers instead of the "top 5%" if the costs were spread across more customers the ISP would be able to upgrade far more often. maybe that is why they have such insanely low caps.

I don't understand why when I drive a semi I should have to pay more to use the roads then a passenger. Or if I drive farther on a toll road I should have to pay more. If they just spread the costs across all motorists equally instead of the heaviest vehicles that use the roads the most, they would be able to make and repair roads far more often.

Those top 5% pay more for their connection because the ISP has deemed that they have used their connection in excess of what their monthly fee allocates for. The 5% of the heaviest users causes the peak capacity needs to go up. That requires faster connections to not impact other customers and greater bandwidth costs. Instead of passing on the costs to everyone, they go after those that use the most instead of requiring everyone to subsidize the users that use the most.

I'm not saying they are completely right in their thinking, and I'm not saying they are completely in the wrong either. I definitely understand where they are coming from a logic standpoint. And I'm also sure just plain old desire to make more is at play as well.


ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL
Reviews:
·Comcast

If they only charged overages for peak usage then your analogy would be accurate but alas they don't. They meter your connection 24/7 and if I use my quota up only during non-peak hours I still would get charged for an overage even though I had no impact on the ISPs performance.

I am all for caps if and only if they have peak and off-peak limits.



Augustus III
If Only Rome Could See Us Now....

join:2001-01-25
Gainesville, GA
reply to cdru

said by cdru:

said by ArrayList:

I just don't see how using so much data has any relation with the cost of upgrading the plant. those costs should be spread across all the customers instead of the "top 5%" if the costs were spread across more customers the ISP would be able to upgrade far more often. maybe that is why they have such insanely low caps.

I don't understand why when I drive a semi I should have to pay more to use the roads then a passenger. Or if I drive farther on a toll road I should have to pay more. If they just spread the costs across all motorists equally instead of the heaviest vehicles that use the roads the most, they would be able to make and repair roads far more often.

Those top 5% pay more for their connection because the ISP has deemed that they have used their connection in excess of what their monthly fee allocates for. The 5% of the heaviest users causes the peak capacity needs to go up. That requires faster connections to not impact other customers and greater bandwidth costs. Instead of passing on the costs to everyone, they go after those that use the most instead of requiring everyone to subsidize the users that use the most.

I'm not saying they are completely right in their thinking, and I'm not saying they are completely in the wrong either. I definitely understand where they are coming from a logic standpoint. And I'm also sure just plain old desire to make more is at play as well.

And another company troll arises.

Because bandwidth is created out of thin air. Roads are not

It costs you nothing to maintain a line at 90% load vs one at 5%.

But yah, nice try there buddy. Now go back to work at the telco call center


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
reply to ArrayList

said by ArrayList:

I just don't see how using so much data has any relation with the cost of upgrading the plant. those costs should be spread across all the customers instead of the "top 5%" if the costs were spread across more customers the ISP would be able to upgrade far more often.

The problem is the usage distribution is so horribly skewed that you can't easily spread the costs around without making everyone's pricing skyrocket.

The top 1 percent of broadband connections is responsible for more than 20 percent of total Internet traffic. The top 10 percent of connections is responsible for over 60 percent of broadband Internet traffic, worldwide.
Source: »www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/co···_WP.html

Part of the challenge is that technology upgrades are cheap, but capacity upgrades tend to be expensive.

What I mean by that is if you had to build out a 6TB storage array 6-7 years ago, you would have spent a ridiculous amount of money on 750GB or maybe 1TB drives and had to get a special chassis and controller to handle all the drives and some type of RAID5/6 solution. Today you can build a screaming fast RAID10 array using basic motherboard interfaces, a standard chassis that typically supports 4 drives, and 3TB drives that are available dirt cheap at most retailers. If you can keep your demand somewhat in line with upgrades in technology that bring expansion of capacity, you can get the best "bang for your buck" as your grow your infrastructure.

If ISPs can defer capacity upgrades to line up with their technology refresh cycles, they can keep infrastructure costs reasonable as they expand capacity. Examples of this include Comcast, which is a company that has been able to bump the base package offering from 3m/128k in 2001 to 12m/2m today without altering the base price of the package much. (in fact, adjusting for inflation the price has actually gone down)


GeekJedi
RF is Good For You
Premium
join:2001-06-21
Mukwonago, WI
reply to Augustus III

Wow. Intelligent reply. You win the internet.



ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to espaeth

said by espaeth:

The top 1 percent of broadband connections is responsible for more than 20 percent of total Internet traffic. The top 10 percent of connections is responsible for over 60 percent of broadband Internet traffic, worldwide.
Source: »www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/co···_WP.html

Of course this is true. The majority of internet connections out there sit idle and hardly get used. This is why I feel there needs to be peak/off-peak limits.

said by espaeth:

If ISPs can defer capacity upgrades to line up with their technology refresh cycles, they can keep infrastructure costs reasonable as they expand capacity. Examples of this include Comcast, which is a company that has been able to bump the base package offering from 3m/128k in 2001 to 12m/2m today without altering the base price of the package much. (in fact, adjusting for inflation the price has actually gone down)

If inflation were to go down you would most certainly not see any change in the price.

I have to ask though, what kind of technology upgrades other than networking equipment does an ISP need? I would imagine that networking equipment/plant equipment and capacity would be the largest expenses other than labor costs.