 
Chiyo
Save Me Konata-Chan
Premium
join:2003-02-20
Minneapolis, MN
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| We need caps again why? So my argument has a point YAY! Why are companies capping their users when bandwidth as a whole which they say is very costly is DROPPING.
also good to hear for companies that have lines like DS3's and such.
--
My Blog:
»abanzai.animeblogger.net/ | |
|
 | 
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | Re: We need caps again why? Because P2P is eating up all of their bandwidth. But still, I'd rather them can P2P and leave everyone uncapped. | |
|
| | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: We need caps again why? said by ninjatutle  :Because P2P is eating up all of their bandwidth. But still, I'd rather them can P2P and leave everyone uncapped. BZZZZZZT! WRONG!
»gigaom.com/2008/04/22/shocking-n···d-usage/
quote:
The P2P stats are the ones that came as a complete surprise. Like you, I have read many reports that suggest P2P applications account for the majority of the traffic on high-speed networks. But McPherson’s data suggests otherwise:
* 20 percent of traffic is P2P applications
* During peak-load times, 70 percent of subscribers use http while 20 percent are using P2P
* Http still makes up the majority of the total traffic, of which 45 percent is traditional web content that includes text and images. Streaming video and audio content from services like YouTube accounts for nearly 50 percent of the http traffic. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone — streaming TV shows from Hulu and videos from YouTube have been on a major upswing, as noted by our colleagues over on NewTeeVee.
also, please note this article is from April, so P2P is probably has even less of a share now. | |
|
| | |
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | Re: We need caps again why? Who the heck is gigom? Another blogger? And they got their data by surveying a small software co?  | |
|
| | | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | Re: We need caps again why? why don't you click the damn link and decide for yourself - that's why I put it there. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
 ·Dreamhost
·Armstrong Zoom In..
| Re: We need caps again why? said by ninjatutle :Who the heck is gigom? Another blogger? And they got their data by surveying a small software co? Who the heck is the company? Someone who lies and makes up false data to appease their stockholders at the expense of the consumer?
I have seen many companies over the years lie or provide false data to shore up support for their ever-dwindling idea of fair use.
I don't trust the company itself anymore than you trust a random blogger to provide the information.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
| | | | 
asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| Om malik isn't just another blogger. He is a well respected tech and telecommunications journalist.
He has at least one book published, has worked for forbes, been published at places like the wall street journal. His analysis is taken seriously by serious people. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | 
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC | Re: We need caps again why? Just quit responding to him. | |
|
| | 
SLD
join:2002-04-17
Los Angeles, CA | The P2P broken record spins again... | |
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA | oh hey! look! here is everybody's favorite anti-p2p troll at work! | |
|
|
JasonOD
@comcast.net
| Bandwidth is a very small item (and growing smaller) in the list of ISP expedetures. Hardware and human costs are the real costs. Caps in fact, are only thing that will keep ISP's ahead of the bandwidth demand growth curve. Without it, we'd all be faced with an overloaded infrastructure 24/7. Unless you want to lose your cheap internet. | |
|
| | 
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: We need caps again why? said by JasonOD :
Bandwidth is a very small item (and growing smaller) in the list of ISP expedetures. Hardware and human costs are the real costs. Caps in fact, are only thing that will keep ISP's ahead of the bandwidth demand growth curve. Without it, we'd all be faced with an overloaded infrastructure 24/7. Unless you want to lose your cheap internet.
The trend in wholesale prices going down also indicates all the associated costs are going down. Wholesale providers must incur those same costs as retail ISPs.
--
09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0 | |
|
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| You still need to pay for the transit and support. Bandwidth has always been relatively low cost. Once you figure out how to get a cable from that GigE port in the exchange to your house for $10-14/Mbps, then you can argue that ISP costs are dropping and therefore caps aren't required. | |
|
| | 
pspcrazy
Anime Freak
join:2008-02-06
San Diego, CA | Re: We need caps again why? The cables are already set, and the support doesn't cost much per customer, so honestly they don't need caps. Caps are just another way of controlling their customer when the push there video services. | |
|
| | | 
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
·Comcast
| Re: We need caps again why? said by pspcrazy :The cables are already set, and the support doesn't cost much per customer, so honestly they don't need caps. Caps are just another way of controlling their customer when the push there video services. So you and your neighbors are not using any more bandwidth this year than last year? I know that mine has increased significantly due to video/streaming. For cable companies the issue is in the last mile until DOCSIS 3 gets rolled out. I am not sure why telco's seem to see the need promote caps.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 | |
|
| | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: We need caps again why? said by halfband :said by pspcrazy :The cables are already set, and the support doesn't cost much per customer, so honestly they don't need caps. Caps are just another way of controlling their customer when the push there video services. So you and your neighbors are not using any more bandwidth this year than last year? I know that mine has increased significantly due to video/streaming. For cable companies the issue is in the last mile until DOCSIS 3 gets rolled out. I am not sure why telco's seem to see the need promote caps. Their Bay Networks equipment was amortized over 30 years and it must generate revenue for 30 years before being permitted to be removed. | |
|
| | | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| Re: We need caps again why? said by patcat88 :Their Bay Networks equipment was amortized over 30 years and it must generate revenue for 30 years before being permitted to be removed. Can you say more about this? | |
|
| | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
1 edit | Re: We need caps again why? said by funchords :said by patcat88 :Their Bay Networks equipment was amortized over 30 years and it must generate revenue for 30 years before being permitted to be removed. Can you say more about this? »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amortize
Its a financial/financing trick of some sort. I believe its loaning/financing equipment onto yourself (you remove the cost for the equipment each month rather than instantly, you can also finance it through outside parties, or your can finance your corporation's general activities (see commercial paper, etc)), or claiming the equipment is actually near liquid $ on the books, sort of like a car, and therefore no cost $ was actually spent to buy it.
There might be some tax tricks to this too, that you pay tax on the equipment only on the portion of the equipment you paid or wrote off that year.
Its something the bean counters invented, and bean counters aren't IT folks, so they get a loan/self finance/bond/etc to pay for the equipment for much longer than the real world life of the equipment, and fight tooth and nail when they are told this is an 386 and has to go by IT and that IT wants to buy new equipment. Usually execs will support the beancounters and stock holders on this one, not IT dept.
Then execs hire consultants to figure out how to not retire this equipment (and not screw up the books), and consultants recommend caps and throttling to keep the old equipment usable for much longer and not buy new routers, switches, and line cards every 2 years.
The phone company is famous for doing this. All the POTS switches are amortized to 20, 30, or 40 years. And thats sorta true, a POTS switch will last that long.
edit: I'm not sure if a market exists for used line cards, core routers, switches, HFC plant, telco switches. So if equipment is retired, your suddenly must write off the entire remaining value of the equipment in 1 shot, big drain on the finances, unless your can sell the equipment to cancel that out, which depends on a market for used carrier grade network hardware.
Another question is will the manufacturers (cisco, juniper, foundry, etc) offer replacement parts, or service contracts for non-orignal owners of the hardware? Financially they shouldn't since they are bastardizing themselves by supporting old equipment and not selling new equipment to pay off R&D on new equipment product lines. No carrier except the basement IT geek will then buy used carrier grade hardware (or they will steal from the dumpster at work  ), or maybe a 3rd world nation national telco for the president for life's villa. | |
|
| | | | | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: We need caps again why? said by patcat88 :So if equipment is retired, your suddenly must write off the entire remaining value of the equipment in 1 shot, big drain on the finances, unless your can sell the equipment to cancel that out, which depends on a market for used carrier grade network hardware. Yes, and a company is, of course, allowed to upgrade even if it can't sell the used equipment (unless the equipment is collateral on a loan). Usually, it will be replaced by something, so the balance sheet will have a new asset -- and since it is technology, that replacement may be less expensive than the remaining depreciation of the capital item (now residing in the dumpster) or worth more than that in additional income capability.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
|
| | | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| said by patcat88 :Their Bay Networks equipment was amortized over 30 years and it must generate revenue for 30 years before being permitted to be removed. There isn't a company in the world amortizing the cost of networking equipment over 30 years. That's a likely figure for property and plant, though.
5 years or less is more likely.
Also, it's nothing nefarious, it's just how you treat capital expenditures for accounting and tax purposes. Essentially you spend x dollars on a building, router, or whatever, and you get to write off the value over a certain number of years, so if you buy some industrial equipment expected to last 30 years, you get a yearly tax benefit of x/30. If you buy a router expected to last 5 years, you get x/5. (approximately, this is a general description, residual value complicates things somewhat)
Fiber construction cost is probably amortized over 30 years, but the electronics on it certainly aren't.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  | |
|
| | | | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: We need caps again why? said by wierdo :There isn't a company in the world amortizing the cost of networking equipment over 30 years. That's a likely figure for property and plant, though. When the term "plant" is used in this context, is that simply building (roof/floors/walls)? Would "vaults" be plant? Thanks.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
|
| | | | | | K Patterson
Premium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
| Depreciation and amortization schedules for financial reporting are set by GAAP - bean counters. For tax purposes, they are set by the IRS. The depreciation allowed is treated as an expense and is deducted from income, reducing the taxes paid. The two get reconciled on financial statements by listing the tax savings on the larger deduction allowed by the IRS as "deferred federal taxes".
You don't get to choose your own equipment life. If it lasts longer than the depreciation schedule, there is no more expense to be deducted. If it lasts less, then you can deduct the remaining undepreciated value when you dispose of the equipment. | |
|
| | | | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| said by halfband :So you and your neighbors are not using any more bandwidth this year than last year? I know that mine has increased significantly due to video/streaming. For cable companies the issue is in the last mile until DOCSIS 3 gets rolled out. I am not sure why telco's seem to see the need promote caps. Bandwidth costs / usage are not a linear function. It is a step function. You add capacity for a fixed cost, and you can use all the way up to that capacity for no additional charge. So not only are people using a bit more traffic, but the cable companies have been increasing speeds and adding customers. If bandwidth is really an issue, then don't oversell it so badly. This means managing congestion if a node is full, and splitting it to reduce the oversubscription rate. These costs should be covered by the additional subscribers that are being added. If the average usage goes up, then it's time to upgrade. But as the cable co's have stated, their mean usage is 3GB per month, so where's the big crunch?
cw | |
|
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Where is the cable from an exchange to my house. The closest "real" exchange to me is Atlanta, and I guarantee that transit costs from Atlanta to the Panhandle for 1 Gbps isn't cheap. Support doesn't cost much per customer? I'd wager that support costs are probably the largest expense that established ISPs have. | |
|
| | | | 
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
 ·T-Mobile US
·Packet8
| Re: We need caps again why? said by openbox9 :Where is the cable from an exchange to my house. The closest "real" exchange to me is Atlanta, and I guarantee that transit costs from Atlanta to the Panhandle for 1 Gbps isn't cheap. Support doesn't cost much per customer? I'd wager that support costs are probably the largest expense that established ISPs have. And this has WTF to do with capping?
You guys are pathetic - and BTW this is another BS spread by companies; I don't know anyone in my circles (6-8 ppl) who called their cable companies in the past year or so. Some of us actually NEVER called them since it's been installed.
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: We need caps again why? said by openbox9 :I responded by stating that bandwidth is relatively low cost and that the transport and support costs are really the factors driving ISP costs. I added that if costs for support and transit are included in the $10-14/Mbps cost estimates (which they aren't BTW), then Chiyo 's argument about the need for caps may be valid. pspcrazy added that the cables already exist and that support costs are a minor factor. pspcrazy then attempted to restate that caps aren't needed. I responded by stating that the cable doesn't exist and that transport and support costs are indeed key cost factors for ISPs. But if I buy a port from a wholesale provider are you implying that it does not connect anywhere? That wholesale provider needs an infrastructure, which at least financially, will look very similar to what an ISP needs, there just isn't generally a last mile and where there is they are usually buying that from the ILEC and passing the costs along.
Also, all of this negates peering. If two ISPs pass an equal amount of traffic between each other they might enter into a peering agreement where the billed cost per Mbps is 0.
--
09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0 | |
|
| | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: We need caps again why? said by joako :But if I buy a port from a wholesale provider are you implying that it does not connect anywhere? Of course the port connects somewhere. What did I write that led you to believe otherwise? Maybe the misunderstanding is due to the fact that I only implied "backbone" instead of stating such.said by joako : That wholesale provider needs an infrastructure, which at least financially, will look very similar to what an ISP needs For a backbone, yes...if the ISP owns their backbone. | |
|
| | | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
2 edits | Upon reflection, I do not wish to post. Take me back! (brain fart) | |
|
| | | |
pspcrazy
Anime Freak
join:2008-02-06
San Diego, CA | It doesn't help when their support can't help you for shit, and you have to wait 1 hour on line for them to help either. Mabye if they didn't make so much mistakes and have such slow reps it may have cut those costs down. | |
|
| | | |
| | 
fcisler
Premium
join:2004-06-14
Riverhead, NY
| Correct.
My job pays around $2,000 for 100mb from Savvis. We pay around $2,500 for the transit from NYC to us through a DWDM ring of a large "delivery company". If you live on LI, you most likely pay them for electricity and gas. Most people don't know that they actually have a huge and very well designed fiber network | |
|
| | |
See 11 replies to this post |
|
| 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | $$$$ | |
|
| battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | This is no different than water. The cost of the product it's self is very cheap. It's the cost of treating it and getting it to your house that cost a lot of money. | |
|
| | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Re: We need caps again why? And even though we can't make more water, we do fine without caps on our water usage. | |
|
| | | battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | Re: We need caps again why? I've had a cap on my water usage for the last two years. There are caps on water usage through out the South Eastern US. | |
|
| | | 
Vchat20
Landing is the REAL challenge
join:2003-09-16
Warren, OH | No, the difference is you end up paying per unit for your water akin to a pay-per-byte scenario that everyone is so against. | |
|
| I pos rep
join:2008-08-22
| said by Chiyo :So my argument has a point YAY! Why are companies capping their users when bandwidth as a whole which they say is very costly is DROPPING. also good to hear for companies that have lines like DS3's and such. Because those 25 million bonus checks are not enough. It is not like they are upgrading their network and they are certainly not hiring more competent and qualified employees.
Employee cost-down
Bandwidth cost-down
Infrastructure-0 as it is never being upgraded
CEO checks-Up 2500%
I think that it is obvious why there need to be higher prices and bandwidth caps. More profit for the CEO to shove up his ass and waste on nothing. It is called a monopoly. It can do whatever the hell it wants when not regulated. Duopolies are hardly more competition.
Find me suburb or major city with more than 3 providers for all customers and I will retract my statement. With HSI markets being heavy monopolies or duopolies in 95% of places you see:
-No price drop
-No service upgrades
-No innovation
-No incentives for companies who run the area to do anything except raise prices.
Comcast powerboost and speed increases are not upgrades when they cannot be used to their full potential. It is the same as selling me a car with 6000 more horsepower that can only do it for 5 secs. Hardly an upgrade, in fact, it is nothing more than an illusion.
Proof recently: »AT&T Kills Off $20 Unlimited Pre-Paid Data
They use false advertising and get away with it. When people use the advertised service the price either goes up or the service is discontinued.
Cable connections and other HSI was also advertised as unlimited. As soon as people started using it more than 3 hrs a month it all of sudden has problems. Other ignorant posters like ninjatutle who live below a rock just buy the corporate BS. Please, a unregulated monopoly is not going to be making massive profit? Seriously, get off your lazy asses and go take basic economics at a community college. Maybe you will learn that monopolies make good profit, more than enough to sign thousands of multi million dollar BONUS checks. This is not counting the massive salary. Damn I feel sorry they might have to spend another 5 million dollars on upgrading their infrastructure and a dang CEO might see a couple million drop on his check. Whatever will the poor baby do?
Yeah, massive crisis is that people are now using the broadband technology more once they understand it more and the CEOs are crying their check got smaller by 3% so they need to cap to make that up. Ninjatutle and others will come in saying that P2P is killing broadband. LMFAO.
P2P has lead to much more innovation than the CEO wiping his massive checks with his ass. | |
|
| |
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Re: We need caps again why? said by I pos rep :P2P has lead to much more innovation than the CEO wiping his massive checks with his ass. Innovations? I guess finding better ways to steal movies is an innovation. But in the wrong direction. | |
|
| | | 
DaMaGeINC
The Lan Man
Premium
join:2002-06-08
Greenville, SC
clubs: | Re: We need caps again why? Copy movies. Get it right. Stealing DEPRIVES the owner of something. | |
|
| | | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | I like your lack of rebuttal about anything substantive that was stated here. It just goes to show that you really have no argument on anything that he is saying.
cw | |
|
|
keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA
·Teliax VOIP
·WestPAnet Inc.
·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
·Verizon Online DSL
|  Misleading BULL
They see $14 per Mbps and say WTF am I paying so much for 1 Mbps?
What I challenge people to do is figure out a way to get a GIGe cable (fiber cable) from the point offering the GIGe bandwidth port to there home and then price it out.
Last time I looked it was around $30,000 per mile of fiber being strung in my area. That is fine. Myself I have to go about 80 miles via telephone pole way. So that is $2,400,000 or 2.4 Million dollars to run my own fiber line from the Gige POP to my home. That is only about $3,300 per month if I live 60 more years and get a 0% interest loan.
Now think of this. Customer support, servers/routers/ basically data centers. Last mile (am I doing fiber to the home?) costs.
If it is $14 per Mbps and you are paying $30 per month then I see a real razor thin line of profit for the company offering the broadband.
Do some math and come up with some business models, see what you get. Overselling, caps, throttling the abusers, and many other tactics are how selling sow cost broadband can be done. | |
|
|
See 14 replies to this post |
|
K Patterson
Premium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
| What is reasonable? 1 mb/sec x 3600 sec/hr x 720 hr/mo / 8 bits/byte = 324 Gigabytes/month, for $10.
To which you need to add the costs of the equipment, its maintenance, local loops, support, etc.
My guess is that a customer that uses 250 GB/month is not earning a profit for any cable company. | |
|
|
See 13 replies to this post |
|
chronoss2009
join:2008-09-23 | Japan GETS 1000 MEGABIT 56USD Japan GETS 1000 MEGABIT 56USD/month
thats where the so called price lower is everywhere else you see no savings or it getitng more expensive as the GREED pulls in. | |
|
| |
| | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Re: Japan GETS 1000 MEGABIT 56USD The funny thing is my friend there chooses the 8Mbit service for 12USD/month, because he wants to save some money. 50MB for around 32 dollars is more common. | |
|
| 
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Huntsville, AL
| Before someone posts the usual line that Japan has a higher population density than the USA, here are some figures:
Japan Population Density = 872.8/sq mi*
New Jersey Population Density = 1,134/sq mi*
*Numbers taken from Wikipedia
Japans Average speed = 61mbps (From ITIF Broadband rankings »www.itif.org/files/BroadbandRankings.pdf)
New Jersey Average speed = 5.83mbps (From CWA report on internet speeds »files.cwa-union.org/speedmatters···rsey.pdf)
While the numbers may not be 100%, such a difference even assuming a 50% margin for error should raise some eyebrows.
--
Im Your Boogeyman, Thats What I Am | |
|
| |
fdhfdgdf
@gci.com
| Re: Japan GETS 1000 MEGABIT 56USD said by Boogeyman :Before someone posts the usual line that Japan has a higher population density than the USA, here are some figures: Japan Population Density = 872.8/sq mi* New Jersey Population Density = 1,134/sq mi* *Numbers taken from Wikipedia Japans Average speed = 61mbps (From ITIF Broadband rankings » www.itif.org/files/BroadbandRankings.pdf) New Jersey Average speed = 5.83mbps (From CWA report on internet speeds » files.cwa-union.org/speedmatters···rsey.pdf) While the numbers may not be 100%, such a difference even assuming a 50% margin for error should raise some eyebrows. You're an idiot. Try thinking before you make yourself sound so stupid | |
|
| |
ijayjayjay
@cia.com
| Two HUGE issues with your statement
Look at the density of a New Jersey:
330m^2 is equal to 1134mi^2
While Tokyo's density is 5800m^2.
If you look at smaller areas in Japan, many still use ADSL or ADSL2+. Lots of places still use copper. So when making a comparison to Japan, you really need to look at availability. And the way our market works here... pro-deregulation is so big in America but if you look at the nation with the most and cheapest broadband, it is heavily regulated, yet dominated by the incumbents.
»www.itif.org/files/Ebihara_Japan···band.pdf is a very good slide show/read. | |
|
John Keels
@bellsouth.net
| Amortizing What kind of a business dealing in technology that will be obsolete amortize expense on this kind of technology for 30 years. That was a dumb move. LOL If it was equipment that had a real use to the company for 30 years then yes it makes sense. Equipment for Cable HSI and DSL!? HAH! They shot themselves in the foot with that. Don't come crying to me for more money when some moron amortizes technology for 30 years. | |
|
|
| 
tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
·Comcast
| Re: So let me get this straight... said by qworster :RETAIL (the home user's) bandwidth costs are going UP all the time-while wholesale (the costs THEY pay) are dropping! The cost per wholesale unit has dropped, but the volume used has increased at a much faster rate, so the total cost has increased.
However that is still a minor portion of their expense increases, customer support, tech support (they are actually different things), maintaince, upgrades, equipment fuel prices, power, are all much larger costs.
Many people don't understand (or choose to ignore) how expensive, and time consuming it is to grow and maintain the last mile. | |
|
| | qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA | I agree... AND...the last mile costs are pretty constant, whether it's 0% loaded or 100% loaded... | |
|
| | |
tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
·Comcast
| Re: I agree... said by qworster :AND...the last mile costs are pretty constant, whether it's 0% loaded or 100% loaded... But when it reaches some level of useage/congestion, based on percentage of time above a certain level, or minutes per day at peak, then they have to increase the capacity of that circuit. Like adding lanes to a roadway, sure their are many lanes on the freeway (backbone) but that won't necessarily help the arterial/2 lane road to your house.
Suppose three users in your neighborhood, a bus company, a trucking company, and a cab company all generate so many trips that the road becomes grdlocked to the point you can't get in and out from your home.
wouldn't it be resonable to charge them a greater portion of the cost of adding new lanes, then to say everyone pays equally?
Or to (somehow) limit their trips during peak traffic times?
Adding new lanes (or network capacity) may not double the cost, but it certainly costs more than the status quo. | |
|
Unit649
I B U, Who U B?
Premium
join:2000-01-22
Stockton, CA
·Comcast
| P2P argument again *Yawn* Of course they are. Just like cellphones, once the infrastructure cost is paid, the prices come down because you're just maintaining now.
But I'm not complaining about caps since I don't come anywhere near CC's. I know someone around here is, because the slowdowns I used to experience in the evenings have stopped. I'm guessing someone around here got the "letter" and figured out what they were using and stopped, or slowed themselves down to stay under the cap.
I'm not complaining  | |
|
|
|
|
Wholesale Bandwidth Prices Still Dropping
·
