 IanR
join:2001-03-22
Madison, NJ | Nearly $40.00 to transmit a 2 hour HD movie? Utter nonsense............ | |
|  | 
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs: | Re: Nearly $40.00 to transmit a 2 hour HD movie? I agree, completely. | |
| | | deepblackmag
join:2004-12-27
00000
| Re: Nearly $40.00 to transmit a 2 hour HD movie? Goto any dedicated hosting provider. between 1 and 3 TB of bandwidth per month for around 100-200$. how the crap does 9 GIG equate to 40$? Do the math, recognise the BLATANT LIES. Check your routes, most cable providers (TIME WARNER etc) use the SAME bargain basement carriers (cogent) as these hosting providers. WHY can we get 100mbps with insane caps for ~100 a month but end up paying ~50$ for 5mbps with these consumer ISP scammers. They cry and wine about not getting enough money because bandwidth is SOOOO expencive. Why is cisco making ISP gear capable of a billion PPS and 90TBPS of traffic fully loaded (CRS-1) | |
| | 
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace | Agreed as well. I'd love to know the calculations used to pull that number directly out of their asses. | |
| | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | ISPs have to repay that Cisco gear that sells for the obscene prices of several million dollars. but yet what americans pay for broadband must have lots of profit.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| not on the wholesale level, really? pretty insane.. its got to be at least HALF that price on the wholesale level, they probably aren't using enough of the latest generation fiber signaling equipment to bring economies of scale down to size. (either that or competition is not thriving on the internet backbone in UK) | |
| | 
Chiyo
Save Me Konata-Chan
Premium
join:2003-02-20
Minneapolis, MN
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| Re: not on the wholesale level, really? If they are going to charge the customer more money because they want HD content they I say F them. We pay and Im sure the UK pay a good amount for cable TV so asking us to pay more is insaine. When are people going to tell the cable co's NO MORE?
--
"Sure there have been injuries and deaths in boxing - but none of them serious."- Alan Minter, Boxer"I get to go to lots of overseas places, like Canada."- Britney Spears, Pop Singer | |
| | | 
DrugSkill
join:2005-11-14
Saint-Jean-Sur-Richelieu, QC
·Videotron
| Re: not on the wholesale level, really? I don't get it.I'm not a network expert,but why would it cost more when there is data transfered? I mean it cost something to maintain an infrastructure period.The fact that this same infrastructure is used at full capacity just force them to upgrade it.If it's the case, I call this investments and we don't have to pay for this.We are already paying well enough. | |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: not on the wholesale level, really? You just made the phone company's point and case for why they want to charge more and tier the internet.
The internet is, in their words, becoming clogged up and as you say, "full capacity"... since many people are out there placing everything on line they can think of, why does the ISP have to pay to upgrade and not expect to pass the cost to the customer who is part of the congestion?
Are we paying enought? Let's look.. Dial up modems, circa $20 a month per one computer. It also usually meant holding your phone line hostage or a second line for the computer.. that was for ONE computer. Dial up and a phone line was about $45 a month for about 30k on average. Cable HSI (since people like to bitch so much about it's price) is often LESS than most people paid for a dial up modem + phone line. Now, let's add to this that HSI can be shared among multiple computers, where dial up wasn't feasable to do so. In some homes, people had multiple dial up accounts even so the cost gets higher.
Now let's look at what you do with a 56K line vs. a 6 or 8mb line. (Many DSL customers are STILL trying to get beyond 1.5).. look at all you are doing and getting with that $45 cable modem line and how many computers in the home are using it at one time. So, please tell me again how that $45 is "already paying well enough" again?
As to the internet,... the internet, in my opinion, needs to slow down for a moment. There is a reason we have Cable TV and Satellite companies... they provide television viewing services. There is a reason that phone companies exists.. to provide telephone services. I personally want the internet, today, to remain what it is... a place to transfer data.. and not the kind that I can get on TV or the phone. The internet is trying to become EVERYTHING over night and it just isn't going to happen the way people want it to. Everyone wants to throw everything on it at one time and then cry foul when it can't hanlde it! No kidding!
So, the ISP is the one to foot the bill for everyone else's desire to explode and, again, as you say "we already pay enough"? I hate to say this, I have been against tiering of the internet as SBC started talking about a few months back, but with this thinking of yours, you have given me reason to now see a valid argument on the other side.
I still want net nutrality, don't get me wrong, but comapnies are not in business to just exist and break even. Innovation comes with more than an idea - they have to be backed with money. Upgrades come with money.. that money comes with the fact that your product makes a profit.. profits go back into the system to enhance the network. If the product is flat, there is no money.. no money, no upgrade.. no upgrades - internet will max out and stay that way and BBR will continue to get pleanty of hits for people looking for a place to bitch. | |
| | | | | 
FiL
Premium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD
| Re: not on the wholesale level, really? "As to the internet,... the internet, in my opinion, needs to slow down for a moment. There is a reason we have Cable TV and Satellite companies... they provide television viewing services. There is a reason that phone companies exists.. to provide telephone services. I personally want the internet, today, to remain what it is... a place to transfer data.. and not the kind that I can get on TV or the phone. The internet is trying to become EVERYTHING over night and it just isn't going to happen the way people want it to"
what are you talking about man?!
That made absoulty NO SENSE to me. The internet is trying to do anything, its users that determine whats going on. You seem to like to clump EVERYTHING into one thing, and that "thing" really isnt "anything" at all.
lol. Ur confusing meh. In your view, there should be some internet cop program that would only allow "data" to be shared, and nothing else. Then, what the hell is "data"? How could you ever proclaim "THATS data; this on the other hand isnt." Im not sure you could do that without stomping on someones right to share what they "want". You lobbying for the RIAA/MPAA? Cuase IMO, thats EXACTLY what they wanna hear! | |
| | | | | | keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA
 ·Teliax VOIP
 ·WestPAnet Inc.
·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
| Re: not on the wholesale level, really? It made sense to me, I had trouble reading your post though.
I think the basic point and ideal I really agree with is the internet is not an infinite "thing". Mainly money limits how big and how fast it is. Everybody has to pay some body to connect to the internet somewhere. Even tier 1 providers have enourmous costs.
Now, what I got from the post was this... The internet is not "upgrading". For that to happen everyone in the world would have to upgrade. That means more cost in a world when everyone feels entitled to pay less. We want more out of the same old internet. It is the same as loading up your old 88 chevy with 10 fat people, not going to go well no matter how much you want to move those damn fat people. | |
| | | | | | |
FiL
Premium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD
| Re: not on the wholesale level, really? Sorry. I thought English was read in all countrys. (least you got my point, i dont care about the grammer part)
I was confused on how ayone can think they can filter out specific content; even child porn is still running rampant on the web.
"It is the same as loading up your old 88 chevy with 10 fat people, not going to go well no matter how much you want to move those damn fat people."
Actually, that analogy is more so tied to their marketing and research then actual real world transmission of data. How can gigz, terabytes an such worth of data being flowing all over the net, and I still have 14 ping in my FPS shooter? Im not feelings the "slowdown" these guys wanna make you believe will come. Also, its not our fault their still using 88' Chevy's as their point of refernce. | |
| | | | | | 
neofate
Caveat Depascor
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Birmingham, AL
| When my cable bill is already a cheap car payment, 130$,.. and goes even higher.. Is when they lose me. Cable companies already charge outrageous prices in the US.
Which is why I can't understand how certain companies can't keep their profit margin up.
Take on average 40-50$ a customer x customer base.. + PPV/On demand etc etc.. It's constant residual income.
The only argument I can see is having to constantly upgrade for technology and needs, but it's going to happen one way or another, and if the Companies want to go further into the outrageous range, another company will come in and undercut, even if they have to build over them.
One thing CC's could do to cut costs in the "long run" is start making it a priority to run Fiber past the Node and into the homes. This would drop Trouble calls due to signal issues, bad Coax etc significantly. As it is now, the current semantics of Coax are on the "edge" of working or having poor quality. It makes more sense to bring in an overkill for the inevitable future. IE: All digital in all markets, more QAM-256B HD, more streams,.. basically Clean Bandwidth. What can achieve that? How about light? 
I know it is expensive, but think about how much it costs them to maintain what they have. Then to have to come back and upgrade over X years ,.. It would be much more advantageous to leave room for growth, imo.
Also, the quality of service is questionable in many homes.. once everyone is all digital this quality won't be quite the issue.
But anyway, back to the exact topic -- That amount of money for the transfer of the movie I'm sure has some inflated equipment/overhead costs equated, but is still ridiculous.
One more thing -- an immediate resolution to some of this would be to utilize everyone's bandwidth as in "bit-torrent" hash style sharing for like programming.
That said, Docsis 3.0 is going to blow the roof off what currently resides.
--
/\/eofate | |
| | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
2 edits | Re: not on the wholesale level, really? Their profit margin is artificially depressed by large depreciated asset accounts which were allocated during merger mania. As a financial analyst we are actually taught this as the best method (vs. direct write offs, or goodwill application, which I guess it is), but when you overpay by billions and billions of dollars, this is what happens. The problem is when your accounting tricks replace your reality. | |
| | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| said by fiberguy  :You just made the phone company's point and case for why they want to charge more and tier the internet. The internet is, in their words, becoming clogged up and as you say, "full capacity"... since many people are out there placing everything on line they can think of, why does the ISP have to pay to upgrade and not expect to pass the cost to the customer who is part of the congestion? The same could be said for Comcast, Cox, TWC, etc. How many of these players have cut off or sent warning letters to "bandwidth hogs?"
Cable companies chose to use their system to pass internet traffic as a means of extra income. Now, since the internet has matured and more and more data goes online, they are finding out that there needs to be more capacity just like there needed to be more than just the 3 TV networks.
said by fiberguy :Are we paying enough? Let's look.. Dial up modems, circa $20 a month per one computer. It also usually meant holding your phone line hostage or a second line for the computer.. that was for ONE computer. Dial up and a phone line was about $45 a month for about 30k on average. Cable HSI (since people like to bitch so much about it's price) is often LESS than most people paid for a dial up modem + phone line. Now, let's add to this that HSI can be shared among multiple computers, where dial up wasn't feasible to do so. In some homes, people had multiple dial up accounts even so the cost gets higher. And the more people you put online, in the same household, the greater demand is for that same bandwidth. Also, there was a time when the cable companies fought to keep routers off their networks because of the loss of revenue selling additional IP addresses.
said by fiberguy :As to the internet,... the internet, in my opinion, needs to slow down for a moment. There is a reason we have Cable TV and Satellite companies... they provide television viewing services. There is a reason that phone companies exists.. to provide telephone services. I personally want the internet, today, to remain what it is... a place to transfer data.. and not the kind that I can get on TV or the phone. The internet is trying to become EVERYTHING over night and it just isn't going to happen the way people want it to. Everyone wants to throw everything on it at one time and then cry foul when it can't handle it! No kidding! Then why are the cable companies trying to sell phone service too on those same lines? Maybe Comcast needs to stop selling their phone service. 
As for the Satellite companies, they are competing with cable and offering pay TV services to those where cable was not offered. They are not only competing but filling a niche.
said by fiberguy :So, the ISP is the one to foot the bill for everyone else's desire to explode and, again, as you say "we already pay enough"? I hate to say this, I have been against tiering of the internet as SBC started talking about a few months back, but with this thinking of yours, you have given me reason to now see a valid argument on the other side. SBC is doing what all telcos do. They want more income but don't want to invest in their own infrastructure. They are still going back to the days of their monopoly. I still remember the days when you had to rent phones and there were no plug in jacks. Answering machines finally hit the public in the 70's when they were out in the 40's.
said by fiberguy :I still want net neutrality, don't get me wrong, but companies are not in business to just exist and break even. Innovation comes with more than an idea - they have to be backed with money. Upgrades come with money.. that money comes with the fact that your product makes a profit.. profits go back into the system to enhance the network. If the product is flat, there is no money.. no money, no upgrade.. no upgrades - internet will max out and stay that way and BBR will continue to get plenty of hits for people looking for a place to bitch. Technology gets cheaper with volume. Almost always, early adopters will pay more. As more people subscribe to high speed, then the cost per subscriber goes down (depending on many other factors of course: competition, age of system, etc.)
| |
| | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: not on the wholesale level, really? MP,
you basically said the same thing I did. However, at the same time, you also dove a little deeper into what I was getting at.
Cable sending out the "bandwidth hog" messages is exactly what I am getting at. It's a way to control the use of the internet so that EVERYONE's traffic goes through, and not just that of the few resource intensive people. Remember, and regardless of what you can calculate out a constant stream of tranfer at 24 /7/ 30 days a month based on your speed, the user agreement spells it out pretty clear.. the service is for the average residential use. What is average? Simple - average out what the over all use of the home use is and that's average. It's not a constant stream of data transfer.
But, you are turning my post into a cable vs telephone argument; I was not. I was pointing out that everyone wants the internet to be everything. they want EVERYTHING shoved down the internet pipes as fast as yesterday. The internet is not ready to handle that.
What do I want on it? I don't mind video downloads, typical surving, file transfers.. but to stream television? NO! Not now.. it's not ready. Can you imagine what it would be like if everyone wanted to watch TV streams today? It's not going to happen.
As for telephone calls? No.. I don't like them either, however, telephone conversations of the cable company go over the last mile WHERE THERE IS capacity available. Even then, a telephone call uses a significantly low amount of BW. Still, I am not an advocate of telephone calls over the internet either - if you were reading, it's why I stated the very reason why the telephone company is in business.
Again, I agree with about 90% of what you are saying, however, like many, you are trying to read into a post more than you should.. you are trying to assume and tie me into a "party line" type of political discussion. If anyone knew me and actually followed me, my thoghts and reasons for things are my own. I do NOT follow what someone else wants me to think.. I am very capable of drawing my own conclusions and making my own decisions NO MATTER WHAT...
Oh, one last point to your reply - you spoke about "the more people you put on line, in the same household, the greater the demand... " Yea? no kidding. I was talking about the OP's comment of "we already pay enough" comment. I was talking about his silly comment and showing that people are getting FAR more for FAR less money as comapred to what they have evolved from over the past few years. As for routers being blocked? Yea.. at first.. the VERY firt launch of routers.. and why? Becuase many people couldn't figure them out to begin with and that so-called blockage was short lived.. VERY short lived. | |
| | | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: not on the wholesale level, really? said by fiberguy :MP, you basically said the same thing I did. However, at the same time, you also dove a little deeper into what I was getting at. You want to see the "whole picture" then you need to dive in deeper.
said by fiberguy :Cable sending out the "bandwidth hog" messages is exactly what I am getting at. It's a way to control the use of the internet so that EVERYONE's traffic goes through, and not just that of the few resource intensive people. Remember, and regardless of what you can calculate out a constant stream of transfer at 24 /7/ 30 days a month based on your speed, the user agreement spells it out pretty clear.. the service is for the average residential use. What is average? Simple - average out what the over all use of the home use is and that's average. It's not a constant stream of data transfer. First it was P2P, then it was VOIP. Is video conferencing next? My point is that broadband is capable of so much more however, because companies do not want to upgrade their infrastructures, they keep throttling back the speed and capacity. I augured that with the speed increase, there would be less traffic. Each packet would get to its destination faster and not have to wait as long as before.
We keep hearing time and time again about all these wonderful things that dial up can't do but high speed can and yet, in reality, the ISPs don't want us to use them because they cost bandwidth and money.
said by fiberguy :But, you are turning my post into a cable vs telephone argument; I was not. I was pointing out that everyone wants the internet to be everything. they want EVERYTHING shoved down the internet pipes as fast as yesterday. The internet is not ready to handle that. Ummm, then why make the point of telcos should only provide voice, cable and DBS provide TV, etc? Also, noticed that TWC was looking into a virtual DVR sending those same recorded programs down the same pipe as TV, internet and voice.
Ma Bell was doing data service before the cable companies had the idea of it.
said by fiberguy :What do I want on it? I don't mind video downloads, typical surfing, file transfers.. but to stream television? NO! Not now.. it's not ready. Can you imagine what it would be like if everyone wanted to watch TV streams today? It's not going to happen. And I agree but with more and more talk of IPTV on both sides, you can see where this is all going to end up. Something has to give.
said by fiberguy :As for telephone calls? No.. I don't like them either, however, telephone conversations of the cable company go over the last mile WHERE THERE IS capacity available. Even then, a telephone call uses a significantly low amount of BW. Still, I am not an advocate of telephone calls over the internet either - if you were reading, it's why I stated the very reason why the telephone company is in business. Then should the cable companies stop selling this? How about the VOIP companies? People have been doing PC to PC calls for years and because it has grown in popularity, more bandwidth is taken up. It shows that people will use something if they want it not because someone sells it.
said by fiberguy :Again, I agree with about 90% of what you are saying, however, like many, you are trying to read into a post more than you should.. you are trying to assume and tie me into a "party line" type of political discussion. If anyone knew me and actually followed me, my thoughts and reasons for things are my own. I do NOT follow what someone else wants me to think.. I am very capable of drawing my own conclusions and making my own decisions NO MATTER WHAT... Your posts speak for themselves. You tout the benefits of Comcast's voice service yet above, you clearly state that only the phone company should do voice. You are tailoring your views to the subject at hand but you are also playing both sides of the field.
Add this in the mix. Soon, everything will be IP related. Even the massive switching done by the phone company will need to be replaced and an IP solution (with a lot of fiber) might be the solution they are looking for. In any regards, bandwidth will need to be increased for future demands.
said by fiberguy :Oh, one last point to your reply - you spoke about "the more people you put on line, in the same household, the greater the demand... " Yea? no kidding. I was talking about the OP's comment of "we already pay enough" comment. I was talking about his silly comment and showing that people are getting FAR more for FAR less money as comapred to what they have evolved from over the past few years. As for routers being blocked? Yea.. at first.. the VERY firt launch of routers.. and why? Becuase many people couldn't figure them out to begin with and that so-called blockage was short lived.. VERY short lived. The blockage was short lived because they didn't want to devote the massive resources needed to find all of them. Imagine trying to find every router on the network. Or what if someone used 2 different systems at different times?
Also, we are no longer the one TV household of the 60's but rather the mutli-TV, VCR, DVD, cable (or sattelite) hookup, and computer households of the new millenia. (Kinda sad if you ask me.) One phone in the living room has given way to everyone having their own cell phones. When one area code could handle a state, now multiple are needed in some cities with all the phones, cells, faxes, etc.
The Cable Act of 1996 answered the question of should people pay per household or per connection. The OP seems to side with the law even though it covers TV and not internet. Who knows if another law comes into affect to say the very same thing. Even Comcast sells a family plan and Verizon FIOS gives you a wireless router for multiple connections.
All this is a straw man argument for not only upping capacity but upgrading equipment. No one wants to pay for it but everyone wants it. | |
| | | | | 
pb5k
more cowbell
Premium
join:2005-11-16
Glendale, AZ
·Cox HSI
| You see this is what I don't get. Over in the EU where you can often get 20/1 ADSL2+ for $35 USD a month, there is no push for tiered internet access, despite the increased bandwidth consumption by consumers. This is also the case in Asia as well, where many consumers have had access to 50M/50M broadband at enviable prices while we're slobbering over 15/2 FIOs. This leads me to believe that this tiered internet nonsense is the product of American telco PR B.S.
--
"When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.'" --
Theodore Roosevelt | |
| | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: not on the wholesale level, really? Again, you make what appears to be a valid point, but you, like many, don't take into consideration the "whole picture" when it comes to broadband and deployemnt costs.
It always comes back to the EU or an Asian country. The US is not as dense as these other countries. Asia stacks their people one above the other and the U.S. is more spread out.
Ok... Let me give you an example... look at a city like NY or SF. Compare that to a city like Norman Oklahoma or any city in CO. The landscape is spread out in the U.S. as in even the major metros are very spread out from one another. Sure, the last mile isn't a huge deal in many cases, but to connect all those cities together is. Not to mention that fact that we have that thing called the Single Family home where these other countries everyone wants to compare us to is big on the Multi Dwelling Unit.
People that like to see the greener grass on the other side need to realize that ours is just as green for our own make up.
If you will recall, as well, internet access in some of these other countries has ALWAYS been much more expensive that ours until recently. Don't you recal the 1.5 ADSL line that gave you X amount of transfer per month (sometimes as low as 5 or 10gb) before throttle down to 56k modem speed? And that was about $50 a month.
Moral of the story, - you can't compare one country to another and expect to get a valid outcome.
Simply look at these costs to JUST PASS a home here in the U.S. - that doesn't mean the house is connected,.. JUST PASSED with the feeder cables. Add another cost to hook them up. Now, add the cost to supply those services, and factor in the competition lowered prices, the prmotional give outs.. how much money has to be tied up by eager for return investors and the company profit pots to provide these services.. not to mention the U.S. consumer that wants everything for virtually nothing... or the greedy consumer that doesn't play by the rules (though want the providers to play by the rules) buy abusing the "new customer" promotion and hopping between companies. It all drives up the costs to all people using the service.. | |
| | | | | | | Capharnaum
join:2006-06-19
Montreal, QC
| Re: not on the wholesale level, really? My ISP is using only a fraction of its capacity.
The point is that upgrades is something natural that the telcos and the cable companies should do. They don't want to do it because if they use the same old stuff their profit increases year by year and they would rather "tier" than upgrade their network to give them 10 or 100 times the capacity.
That's the whole point of tiering. Making more money out of the old insfrastructure by limiting the customer.
On the free market, consumer demand dictactes the market. You can try to stop it for a while (tier it), but in the end, the inevitable will come and infrastructures will have to be changed again, and the cost won't be less at that time for the new technology. | |
| | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| A tiered internet would only work if there was one owner; and then it only works if they exclude some people(data) even if they are willing to pay.
Since no one entity owns the entire infrastructure, tiering only works within each network, making it close to useless. Also if EVERYONE decides that their data is important and purchases the "upgrade" then we'll be right back where we were. In act the telco's could just tell you their tagging your data and do nothing.. You'd never know.. and you probably wouldn't be able to tell either. That's the beauty of this new fee structure. That and they can charge people that they don't offer service to, or that they will have any maintenance costs for. (Because their primary connection isn't to THEIR network)
The internet has a lot of capacity to spare, it just has some huge bottlenecks that only exist because incumbents have been milking it for decades (since the 80's). They could have started upgrading to fiber back then, and spread the cost out over 30 years.. Not to mention everything would have gotten cheaper (because that's what happens with technology as adoption increases) faster.. | |
| | | | | | | backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
| Re: not on the wholesale level, really? lets not forget that once fiber is run to the home it remains as an asset to any company that can deliver content. That is the attitutde that gets me... It is not like they have to run fiber to every house every year once it is in i becomes an asset, as many other types of services can be delivered. You would think the north american audience would be more valuable than that! | |
| | | | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: not on the wholesale level, really? said by backness :lets not forget that once fiber is run to the home it remains as an asset to any company that can deliver content. That is the attitutde that gets me... It is not like they have to run fiber to every house every year once it is in i becomes an asset, as many other types of services can be delivered. You would think the north american audience would be more valuable than that! AND it is more robust and easier to maintain than copper which translates to fewer repairs (unless the homeowner is a moron and digs it up.) | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| When did this become an issue with the cable co? I believe this is about "ISPs" in general. In fact, they are talking about HD movie files being downloaded from the internet, not the cable company... you've totally lost me.
Personally, I don't buy this article as it is anyway.. these 3rd party so-called 'looks into X" articles are usually meaningless or pointless. Seems like there is a new piece of drama coming out every 5 minutes these days. | |
| | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| problem is the ISP market is trying to apply a metered water system to something that doesnt really have any cost to create.(every gallon of water costs a city money, every megabit of data costs an ISP nothing to send over its own network).
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: not on the wholesale level, really? said by Kearnstd :problem is the ISP market is trying to apply a metered water system to something that doesnt really have any cost to create.(every gallon of water costs a city money, every megabit of data costs an ISP nothing to send over its own network). Try again... it does cost money to move data.. the internet IS a metered water system. I suppose the fiber lines, the routers, switches, and, well EVERYTHING doesn't cost a dime to purchase, install, run, maintain, replace, and upgrade to meet the growing demands? | |
| | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: not on the wholesale level, really? Internet bandwidth is not a physical measurement. You cant save or store "unused" internet capacity. The internet is a bunch of circuits, you dont "save" any money or reduce costs by having a 50% filled fiber transmission line or a 80%, either the bandwidth is used in the moment or its lost forever. | |
| | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: not on the wholesale level, really? :sigh:
You know, as I said before, there was a very well educated user here a few months back that broke it down as to HOW and WHY there is a cost to move the data and how a price can and IS placed on the measured movement of data. I only wish I could find that post again.
You can play symantecs here all you want, but the truth is that YES, it DOES cost to move the data.
End users are sold a certain speed. The more and more people that want to use the internet and move the data, the more and more data needs to be moved at one time. In order to keep up with that demand, more capacity has to be installed and maintained. There is a cost to purchase that equipment, etc. (read above, this is a message forum and there is no need for me to repeat that)
Bottom line, you are making alot of assumptions and guesses and theory comments about the internet and how it works. You are trying to make a justification and fact about something that it's clear you don't understand entirely.
We aren't talking about your home network or even your corporate intranet.. we are talking about the public and global internet here. Based on the cost to install and maintain the equipment, and the amount of data that has to be moved, (and a few other factors) they are going to place a cost on moving that data - it's how it works.
No one ever said anything about saving, storing, used, unused.. that's irrelevant here. The more demand, the more resources are needed. And, since we arne't putting up Linksys routers as $69 a pop with a $10 mail in rebate, these pieces of equipment run into the millions... if you don't put a cost per byte to transfer (which is what they do) then how do you sell the transport?
Therefore, it's METERED. And yes, it IS a physical measurement. Data physically takes up space. | |
| | | | | | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: not on the wholesale level, really? Look, even if water itself were free, if a city went from everyone drinking four glasses a day and using no other water to half the people constantly flushing toilets, taking showers, and washing cars, there would be significant costs to "upgrade the pipes". (Heard that phrase before?)
Where better to collect upgrade costs than from the heavy users, who are causing the need for the upgrade?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: not on the wholesale level, really? Oh, and I might add that trying to collect broadband upgrade fees from content providers would be like the city trying to collect pipe upgrade costs from the makers of toilets, showerheads, and car-wash wands.
Charging the user makes far more sense than trying to indirectly charge what they are using.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: not on the wholesale level, really? said by calvoiper :Oh, and I might add that trying to collect broadband upgrade fees from content providers would be like the city trying to collect pipe upgrade costs from the makers of toilets, showerheads, and car-wash wands. Charging the user makes far more sense than trying to indirectly charge what they are using. calvoiper While it makes more sense, it is not consumer correct. 
Consumers already unhappy with the high cost of high speed might not want to stay after a rate hike and therefore, more churn and less money for those trying to upgrade. Charge the faceless corporations, they can afford it.  | |
| | | | | | | | |
See 11 replies to this post | |
| | | 
hangon
@bellsouth.net
| the internet IS a metered water system. That's actually not the best analogy because I know my water company doesn't sell me a 1" water line with a X gallon per minute capacity for X dollars per month with unlimited use.
ISPs purchase connectivity by the circuit, for example a OC-12 @ 622Mbps wth unlimited transfer and the only limitation is the capacity of the circuit.
If it was a metered water system, they'd be purchasing connectivity with a per GB or MB charge and no ISP is paying their upstream provider that way. | |
| | | | | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| Re: not on the wholesale level, really? said by hangon :the internet IS a metered water system. That's actually not the best analogy because I know my water company doesn't sell me a 1" water line with a X gallon per minute capacity for X dollars per month with unlimited use. ISPs purchase connectivity by the circuit, for example a OC-12 @ 622Mbps wth unlimited transfer and the only limitation is the capacity of the circuit. If it was a metered water system, they'd be purchasing connectivity with a per GB or MB charge and no ISP is paying their upstream provider that way. well this was kinda my point with the water company you are being charged for what you use. with the internet a pipe has the same cost full or empty.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: not on the wholesale level, really? hangon,
It's not the size of the pipe to your house we're talking about--it's the size of the pipes and tanks that supply the whole town when everybody starts flushing their toilets constantly and overall demand goes up by a factor of 10 or 100. The size of the pipe to your house may not need to be increased, but if your water usage increases tremendously and that's the overall trend, the rest of the system may well need extensive upgrades.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | firewire9999
join:2004-07-11
Livonia, MI
| LOL - They must be using two math???They got to be using "New Math" (ones our little crumb crunchers learn in grade school).
Thats my two cents.
P.S. It only took two cents to transmit this post to DSLREPORTS.COM
| |
| | HawkI911
join:2002-04-08
San Antonio, TX | Re: LOL - They must be using two math??? I think they're using Al Gore's calculator. Please note, this is the same one that said we were all going to die horrible deaths from global warming and no ozone by the year 2000. | |
| 
bufferoverru
Premium
join:2002-12-10
Ottumwa, IA | wow At 39$/9GB, I would cost my isp 1,300$/m in bandwidth. Oooo wait, I'm on a Tier1 provider, so it's more like 10$. | |
| grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY | Yeah Holy walloping Bullshit Batman! | |
| | backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
| Re: Yeah ya i guess if you trasmit i high def video for all of great Britan... i guess the cost is 39$
What would happen if everybody used this techology?
20,000,000/39$ = about right
economies of scale | |
| | | grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY | Re: Yeah I think you mean $39/2,000,000 | |
|
Mr Anon
@172.16.x.x
| I'm just being an idiot on word play. So they can tream 9gigs over two hours!
Thats like 1.28MB a sec!
On second thought I guess that is possible for 10Bb connections and higer not including overhead and network traffic.
I'm not sure about the cost and the cost structure outside the US but It hink it would be beneficial for ISPs, that and in increase of backbone access a capability as well as probably a few hand washing deals. After all I think a lot of cost in bandwidth is not real. (not in that it doesn't exist in that it doesn't need to be there, IE the cost of DSL between two sites VS a dry copper pair and DIY) | |
| | | | | devicenull
Premium
join:2002-12-01
Clifton, NJ
| Re: I'm just being an idiot on word play. 10M connections are not uncommon overseas.. I was watching someone in europe upload a file to a FTP server.. he could upload it a lot faster then I could download it.. something around 600KB/s upstream IIRC.
The US is so far behind in terms of broadband, it's pathetic. | |
|
Dillio56
@savvis.net
| Figuring True Cost If you are using a telco tier-1 provider their actual cost is under $10/mbit. If you are using a cable co without a backbone figure $20-40/mbit on the high end.
1 mbit = 320 GB/moth
So for the actual cost:
Telco = 10/320 = $.03/GB * 9GB = $.27
Cable = 20/320 = $.06/GB * 9GB = $.54 | |
| IanR
join:2001-03-22
Madison, NJ
2 edits | Creative math at it's best... This is what makes these companies look really silly. And who are they trying to kid?
What they do is look at their Total infrastructure, ongoing maintenance costs and HQs costs. Then they look for the most "creative" way of distributing those costs by use. They decide that their current data thruput is "X" and that 9 GBs of data therefore costs $40.00
Of course this isn't a true way of charging out these costs.
It takes "Y" cost just to hook up someone even if they only want to use occasional email. Hence the ISPs get back their full infrastructure costs by the monthly fees they charge AND they make a PROFIT.
Once the industry goes into major media downloading the additional (marginal) costs of supplying the increased data is minor as an incremental EXTRA. (Because 90-95% of the necessary infrastructure is already there and paid for). The extra hardware. suport etc. to allow for multi-media downloading is incrementally relatively minor, though real cost. Down the road I can see a Basic service costing "$A.00 p.m. plus a media (unlimited) allowed download sevice of $A.00 + $10.00 p.m.
This would more than cover all the costs associated with the extra data and allow ISPs to make a decent profit. Frightening Consumers with creative math is a really silly way to go IMHO. First of all the business is going in this direction, whether they like it or not. Second they cannot expect to run a business gouging consumers (they will not accept those charges), third someone else with another data channel would step in and eventually take out their whole business, if they tried to cost it that way. So what's the point of going Public with this kind of creative math? | |
| bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA
| If you build it....They will pay What do the ISPs think we are going to do with 10-20 or 30 megabit FIOS?
People are paying for more bandwidth and streaming more and more.
I have a great idea...Why don't all the ISPs give us a little bandwidth fuel gauge Java Ap that we can see when we are going to run out of bandwidth.
Just my 2 cents....Flame lightly | |
| wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| Copyright Infringement? I can see a whole new method of copyright infringement here. Basically, we are talking about removing the content owners from their control on their media. GO FOR IT!!!! This will open the doors for anyone to pull free content!!
YAY!
puritan | |
| |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Copyright Infringement? You're possibly quite right--there may be big objection from the source, particularly if the source wants to individually track downloads.
On the other hand, ISP caching may reduce the source's server and bandwidth needs, so it may be a help if the server isn't as interested in the direct connection to the end-user as in just getting the stuff out there.
Aren't market dynamics fun to watch and hypothesise about?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | 
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| said by wentlanc :I can see a whole new method of copyright infringement here. Basically, we are talking about removing the content owners from their control on their media. GO FOR IT!!!! This will open the doors for anyone to pull free content!! YAY! puritan $39 dollars for 9GB could include the cost of the license to display that movie + the cost of the bandwidth. If the ISP cached the movie on their local network, then they wouldn't have to pay as much for the bandwidth (they'd have other costs) but could still pay the license fee to the source.
--
YourIP.US - Quickly Locate Your IP! | |
| | |
neofate
Caveat Depascor
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Birmingham, AL
| Re: Copyright Infringement? said by Rob :said by wentlanc :I can see a whole new method of copyright infringement here. Basically, we are talking about removing the content owners from their control on their media. GO FOR IT!!!! This will open the doors for anyone to pull free content!! YAY! puritan $39 dollars for 9GB could include the cost of the license to display that movie + the cost of the bandwidth. If the ISP cached the movie on their local network, then they wouldn't have to pay as much for the bandwidth (they'd have other costs) but could still pay the license fee to the source. It very well does include those costs -- However 40 dollars for 9 gig to a consumer is stretching the simple truth of it all to not a multiple but a power of bs.
As someone said a few posts up -- This is where it's going, and if they don't do it properly someone else will. Cable is entertainment, and people will only pay so much. Moving the industry into the upper middle class and above , alone, is a quick way to jump into very diminishing returns.
--
/\/eofate | |
| | | |
|
|
Should ISPs Start Caching Content?
