buzz_4_20
join:2003-09-20
Presque Isle, ME | WTF
Why do ISP's claim the content providers are part of the problem. They pay for bandwidth they send out? |
|
kontos
xyzzy
join:2001-10-04
West Henrietta, NY
| said by buzz_4_20  :Why do ISP's claim the content providers are part of the problem. They pay for bandwidth they send out? Content providers have the advantage of a small (physical distance) network. The build a data center (or a few) and they make sure they locate it where they have cheap and easy access to the 'Internet backbone.'
The ISPs that cater to the eyeballs have a much bigger area with a lot more nodes to service. Think about how many hops that BT has to deal with...
BT has the DSL connection form you modem to the DSLAM, then maybe a DS-3 from the DSLAM to the aggregation POP, then an OC-3 from the POP to the backbone POP, and then an OC-12 from the backbone POP to the IXP.
The BBC rents space in the IXP building, and makes a few GigE interconnects inside the building, and they're done. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
 ·VOIPo
| reply to buzz_4_20
Because they(the ISPs) could have their own product and it mat not be making as much money as it could. And the CT providers are making money and the ISPs are jealous. They are cheap and do not want to pay to upgrade their own network, they want the content providers and or the people to do so and still be kept under a cap. |
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000 | reply to buzz_4_20
And of course without content, why would anyone subscribe to an ISP?
--
POKE 65495,1 |
|
Killa200
Premium
join:2005-12-02
Spring City, TN
 ·AT&T Southeast
1 edit | reply to kontos
then perhaps they should get out of the isp business and into the datacenter business... You know, its only several hundred million dollars to get a good one up and running, 
Or they can actually make an effort to do good in the content business, and "give up" the "oh so hard" task of making sure the people have a way to view the content. That way later on when we have a few ISP's that actually do a fantastic job delivering connections to homes, they can charge them this fee they are trying to get content providers to pay,  |
|
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | They don't spend anywhere near that much money on a single POP. They lease space in that type of facility you are talking about but do not occupy the entire datacenter. |
|
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
1 edit | reply to kontos
said by kontos :The ISPs that cater to the eyeballs have a much bigger area with a lot more nodes to service. Think about how many hops that BT has to deal with... BT has the DSL connection form you modem to the DSLAM, then maybe a DS-3 from the DSLAM to the aggregation POP, then an OC-3 from the POP to the backbone POP, and then an OC-12 from the backbone POP to the IXP. The BBC rents space in the IXP building, and makes a few GigE interconnects inside the building, and they're done. All true, but the ISP's subscribers are paying for the ISP to build a network that can handle the data from the content providers. They're in the business of providing Internet access. If they can't do that, then they shouldn't be offering the service.
BT and AT&T's position would be like an airline asking hotels to pay for them (the airline) to transport passengers on the rationale that the hotels make money from these passengers staying there, yet they bear no cost in getting them to their front doors. So why should these hotels get a free ride when it's the airlines that are incurring the expense of delivering all these people?
If the ISPs want to charge the content providers for delivering their data, then what am I paying the ISP to do? It'd be like the USPS, UPS, or FedEx trying to charge both the sender and recipient of a package for its delivery. |
|
buzz_4_20
join:2003-09-20
Presque Isle, ME
·Great Works Internet
·GWIS Internet Solu..
| reply to kontos
I know the ISP has a higher per bit cost than a datacenter that's not the issue. But they are making it sound like it's YouTube's fault for being something that customers are interested in.
Some upgrades would drop thier per bit cost and improve service to customers.  |
|
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| reply to kontos
said by kontos :The ISPs that cater to the eyeballs have a much bigger area with a lot more nodes to service. Think about how many hops that BT has to deal with... Well then.... Why don't these ISP's stop competing with local municipalities for last mile delivery, and just offer their content delivery into a muni owned system? Oh, or is that just bullshit, and they are soaking their customers many times over for the same aging copper based system??
cw |
|
kontos
xyzzy
join:2001-10-04
West Henrietta, NY
| reply to ISurfTooMuch
said by ISurfTooMuch :BT and AT&T's position would be like an airline asking hotels to pay for them (the airline) to transport passengers on the rationale that the hotels make money from these passengers staying there, yet they bear no cost in getting them to their front doors. So why should these hotels get a free ride when it's the airlines that are incurring the expense of delivering all these people? 'Course that metaphor discounts the fact that airline customers basically pay for metered service. You have to buy a ticket for each flight, and the longer the flight, the more expensive the ticket. You've seen what happens here when an ISP wants to charge more to people that use more? |
|
Maynard G Krebs
@teksavvy.com
| said by kontos :Course that metaphor discounts the fact that airline customers basically pay for metered service. You have to buy a ticket for each flight, and the longer the flight, the more expensive the ticket. You've seen what happens here when an ISP wants to charge more to people that use more? But the long-haul flight (more data) generally costs the carrier less per mile (per bit).
A fiber (and routers) carrying 40% of its capacity cost the carrier more per bit than the same fiber/router carrying 70% capacity. |
|
kontos
xyzzy
join:2001-10-04
West Henrietta, NY | A long-haul flight at 40% capacity gets canceled and people (packets) get delayed.
You've seen what happens here when and ISP advertises one speed, but delivers something lower? |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to kontos
'Course you also fail to mention that there is very high cost in every flight that justifies the cost per ticket.
If flights cost less than a penny per person to run, then I would be willing to bet we would have monthly unlimited (by unlimited I mean 50 flights) per month subscription base service. Because they would make more from that than actually charging you each time you use it. Just as the current telco's do with text messaging. It is ridiculously priced per text because they want the subscription service and that price makes logical people say..."well it would be cheaper to subscribe". They don't care how many you send, it cost them virtually nothing. |
|
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
| reply to Maynard G Krebs
Not to mention the fact that much of the cost is fixed cost related to equipment deployment. Once the fiber is laid and the routers installed, much of the cost is covered. Sure, there's maintenance and upgrades, but you don't have a big expense moving each packet around. |
|
kontos
xyzzy
join:2001-10-04
West Henrietta, NY
| reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25 :If flights cost less than a penny per person to run, then I would be willing to bet we would have monthly unlimited (by unlimited I mean 50 flights) per month subscription base service. You've seen what happens here when and ISP says 'unlimited' but only allows you to use 50 GB (or 5, or 250)? |
|
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
| reply to Skippy25
And texts are also expensive because people are willing to pay that price. Ditto for designer clothes and accessories. They're made in China, just like the stuff on the shelves at Wal-Mart, but, once that label is attached, people want them and are willing to pay for them. If a counterfeiter can make a bag that looks like a $500 Prada and sell it for $35 on the streets of New York, then how much profit is Prada making off their real bag? Quite a lot, I'd wager. Even if the real thing is a better bag, I doubt the production costs are orders of magnitude higher than the counterfeit.
It's all about what price people are willing to pay. The cost of production has little to do with it. |
|
kontos
xyzzy
join:2001-10-04
West Henrietta, NY | reply to ISurfTooMuch
What happens when the capacity of the installed routers and fiber is 'used up'?
Those upgrades you mention don't come for free, and with fixed pricing/unlimited usage, there's no additional revenue to pay for the upgrades. |
|
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
1 edit | reply to kontos
said by kontos You've seen what happens here when and ISP says 'unlimited' but only allows you to use 50 GB (or 5, or 250)?
If you can't keep the promises you make, then don't make them. That's called false advertising. |
|
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
| reply to kontos
Then raise rates. I started out with 1.5/256 DSL for $39.99 in 2000, which went to $49.99 in 2001. Now I pay around $45 for 6/768. And I seriously doubt that any of this was or is sold at a loss. If they've had to do upgrades to give me more speed, then where is that cost reflected? My guess is that the drop in wholesale bandwidth and equipment prices have had a lot to do with it.
And, as far as upgrades go, remember that hardware is purchased with a set depreciation schedule. No one expects it to last forever, and the replacement cost is taken into consideration. |
|
danclan
join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to kontos
They update the repeaters and swap out a few cards...depending out future proofed they made the fiber plant initially...and they really only have to update the long haul not the short so their costs are still fairly low comparatively.
Still, these are capital costs that they get to deduct each year under most tax codes so...they pay out that cash year one and deduct it the next 2-7 or so....my sympathy level for maintaining your product is fairly low... |
|
