farbelow
join:2006-09-20
Salt Lake City, UT
| reply to tsu9
Re: This is terrible!
this is bull...the MPAA rapes people for millions per year & has virtually given up on the box office due to dvd sales...it doesnt cost them that much to make a damn movie & actors dont need to make millions per year for what they call a "job". if there's anything that can be done to hurt this business along with the music industry we should all do it!! |
|
Sexyman
@66.145.x.x
| reply to calvoiper
Your not getting because your rated speed from the carrier because of other issues probably. Your internal network, your OS is restricted it, the server your going to is slow.
I've always got what my ISP advertised so if your not then switch or fix issues that aren't there fault.
As far as them snooping, snoop on them. Do to them what they are doing to you. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to cdru
If the ISP is so worried about overall consumption, then they should charge for it. If heavy BT use does, in fact, heavily load part of the ISP network, then I have no problem with the ISP charging for that.
What I have a problem with is the ISP claiming high broadband speeds and then throttling it back because they are too cheap and too dishonest to deliver the product they've promised.
It's not about "If they don't do this, they'll have to do that," it's about them lying about what they ARE doing, RIGHT NOW. (And yes, I consider advertising one thing and putting something different in the fine print TOS to be lying--and so does the Federal Trade Commission.)
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
mikef1
Mike
join:2004-10-28
Littlestown, PA
| reply to Ignite
said by Ignite  :said by insomniac84 :it probably was oc192, I couldn't remember all I remember was that when dividing the cost up so each person has 100mbit, the cost is 100 a month. I did this like 5 years ago. So prices are definitely cheaper now. So how do we deliver this bandwidth to each user, magic? Oh wait, unless all these 100 people live in a datacentre someone has to pay for an access network. There's a lot more to it than just bandwidth.  OC192 gives you 9621.504 Mb of usable bandwith.
If each customer is getting 100Mb of speed this works out to about 96 customers. Heck lets oversell just a little and make it an even 100 customers. If they each pay $100 a month then the oc192 can’t cost anymore than $10,000 a month. What does an oc192 line go for these days? Broadband.com advertises oc3 (155 Mb) starting at $7,500 a month, I’m sure an oc192 would be much higher.
For argument sake lets say these customers are in an apartment complex. Technically it can be done with fiber runs to each apartment from where the oc192 comes into the building. But it would just be too expensive at least here in the US. What about the cost of the ISPs internet connection itself. If every customer has 100Mb, with thousands of customers the ISP will need multiple oc192s to multiple peers, who is going to pay for that? You also have to consider other businesses expenses and yeah they want to make a profit too.
--
mike
HouseOfMike |
|
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs:
 ·BlueYonder Interne..
 ·Be There
| reply to insomniac84
said by insomniac84 :it probably was oc192, I couldn't remember all I remember was that when dividing the cost up so each person has 100mbit, the cost is 100 a month. I did this like 5 years ago. So prices are definitely cheaper now. So how do we deliver this bandwidth to each user, magic?
Oh wait, unless all these 100 people live in a datacentre someone has to pay for an access network.
There's a lot more to it than just bandwidth. |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN | reply to mikef1
it probably was oc192, I couldn't remember all I remember was that when dividing the cost up so each person has 100mbit, the cost is 100 a month. I did this like 5 years ago. So prices are definitely cheaper now. |
|
mikef1
Mike
join:2004-10-28
Littlestown, PA
| reply to LilYoda
said by LilYoda :an't find OC128, but Wikipedia knows about the one above and below 128: Which was my point.
$100 for 100Mb doesn't work, at least not yet.
--
mike
HouseOfMike |
|
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
| reply to insomniac84
On top of the circuit itself, you have to pay for your actual bandwidth with your internet backbone connection provider. That ain't cheap.
If you don't oversubscribe, you also have to pay for the same amount of circuit and bandwidth on the other side, to go to your subscribers (via lots of DSL circuits, cable distributions, etc...)
That ain't cheap either
As other said, to run such a distribution layer, you'd probably have to invest a lot in hardware (you don't run those speeds on a linksys. It's Cisco or *maybe* Juniper hardware, mandatory)
That ain't cheap either
Then you have to pay your employees, the lease of the white room where all this equipment is stored, maintenance, fancy offices, call center in Cairo or Bangalore for angry users, CEO's golden parachutes, etc...
That ain't cheap either.
All but the last one are mandatory 
--
"the two most abundant things in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity." (Harlan Ellison) |
|
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
| reply to mikef1
an't find OC128, but Wikipedia knows about the one above and below 128:
quote:
OC-96
OC-96 is a network line with transmission speeds of up to 4976.64 Mbit/s (payload: 4810.752 Mbit/s; overhead: 165.888 Mbit/s). Implementations of OC-96 in commercial deployments are rare, if ever used at all.
[edit]
OC-192
OC-192 is a network line with transmission speeds of up to 9953.28 Mbit/s (payload: 9621.504 Mbit/s; overhead: 331.776 Mbit/s). This is the fastest connection commonly available to the Internet.
--
"the two most abundant things in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity." (Harlan Ellison) |
|
bohn
join:2006-05-30
Scarborough, ON
| reply to r81984
The internet has gone in reverse in canada. We get throttled bandwidth caps slow speed no newsgroups pay triple what americans pay when we used to pay half and now they are going to block sites thanks to people like richard warman. Thank god we can still get directway dsl or dialup from america. I guess soon canada will pass laws so you we can't get the internet from an american company just like with satellite television in canada. |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to r81984
said by r81984 :We need network neutrality now. If I am paying for my connection I should not be block or impeaded from using it how I see fit. Playing Devil's Advocate here....
You aren't paying for just any connection. You are paying for a residential connection. Your $29.95 or whatever you pay doesn't even come close to paying for the amount of bandwidth you consume with heavy bittorrent (or any other P2P) application.
If you want a unencumbered network connection, your welcome to pay for a business level connection with guaranteed bandwidth.
--
Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? |
|
CableConvert
Premium
join:2003-12-05
Atlanta, GA
| reply to rradina
said by rradina :What if the ISPs returned us all to the 1.5Mbps packages? Then they probably wouldn't care if folks used BT. From where I sit, ISPs are no different than CPU, WiFi, video and hard disk companies. Each is trying to make something faster/bigger to keep their price point stable. If they don't, the empirical laws of technology require falling prices. What makes this different, however, is unlike the hardware manufacturers who almost always deliver a faster/bigger product, ISPs increase speeds and turn to shaping/capping to ensure that they don't have to invest in their infrastructure. This is what we get while the stable revenue stream from subscribers reduces debt load and increases profits -- not that there's ANYTHING wrong with this. This is fundamental capitalism. The problem is the product isn't being provided in a truly competitive environment. If it was, I totally agree that there would be no need for government oversight. Competitive forces would take care of the issue because the majority would get what they want. If that turned out to be shaped traffic, so be it. If that turned out to be a fat, dumb pipe, so be it. However, until something steps in to provide true competitive forces against the oligopoly and in many cases, monopoly of the incumbent cable and telco carriers, regulation is required to keep them honest. Imagine if Intel provided a 10Ghz chip that only worked at 10Ghz for three seconds. After 3 seconds the chip overheats. To compensate, Intel reduces the speed of the chip to 3Ghz. As soon as you quit using it and it cools, you can get another 3 second burst. It all comes down to what this poster has written. Its very simple yet nobody seems to get it. This is not the free market at work as there is no competition. Free market principles cannot be applied. Most people do not have the choice to drop ISP 'A' and sign up with ISP 'B' because they dont like the product they are receiving. This could be lack of choice or unaffordable price points. The free market does work...but you have to have one first |
|
Zaber
When all are gone, there shall be none
join:2000-06-08
Cleveland, OH
clubs:
·Expedient
·XO COMMUNICATIONS
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to superdog
Re: This is terrible!se
said by superdog :Hmmmm..........Then I guess You would rather pay the actual cost for 6Mb down and 1Mb up?. If You do that?, You would need 12 bonded T1's just to get the 6Mb down part(A fractional DS3 would be a little cheaper). The bonded T1's would give You that bandwidth You paid for, AND they wouldn't throttle Your bit torrent traffic. So lets see, If it is the ISP's fault for not charging enough, than I guess You would be really happy if they stopped throttling Your bandwidth and sent You a bill in the mail for the actual cost of the bandwidth?. Hey, what the hell?, my bill is $4800 a month, but they're not choking any traffic?.  Actually I would. Just for the record 12 bonded T1s would yield 18M not 6M. While the $725 for 5M quote we just received is a little high for my home use, it is nowhere near the $4800 you mentioned. Consumer ISPs are using the fact that it is a "best effort" service with no SLA as an excuse to avoid the costs of upgrading their networks. While I understand that there will be slowdowns on their networks, the ISPs need to upgrade them instead of just telling people that they are not allowed to use the connection they are paying for only part of the time.
--
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he will feed himself for a lifetime |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| reply to phattieg
Re: This is terrible!
What if the ISPs returned us all to the 1.5Mbps packages? Then they probably wouldn't care if folks used BT.
From where I sit, ISPs are no different than CPU, WiFi, video and hard disk companies. Each is trying to make something faster/bigger to keep their price point stable. If they don't, the empirical laws of technology require falling prices.
What makes this different, however, is unlike the hardware manufacturers who almost always deliver a faster/bigger product, ISPs increase speeds and turn to shaping/capping to ensure that they don't have to invest in their infrastructure. This is what we get while the stable revenue stream from subscribers reduces debt load and increases profits -- not that there's ANYTHING wrong with this. This is fundamental capitalism. The problem is the product isn't being provided in a truly competitive environment. If it was, I totally agree that there would be no need for government oversight. Competitive forces would take care of the issue because the majority would get what they want. If that turned out to be shaped traffic, so be it. If that turned out to be a fat, dumb pipe, so be it. However, until something steps in to provide true competitive forces against the oligopoly and in many cases, monopoly of the incumbent cable and telco carriers, regulation is required to keep them honest.
Imagine if Intel provided a 10Ghz chip that only worked at 10Ghz for three seconds. After 3 seconds the chip overheats. To compensate, Intel reduces the speed of the chip to 3Ghz. As soon as you quit using it and it cools, you can get another 3 second burst. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to Skippy25
Re: This is terrible!
Well, the government prevents car manufacturers from saying that you can get "up to 50 miles per gallon" when you'd have to drive 17.356 mph exactly, with only a 60 pound driver and nobody else in the car, to get that.
If the ISPs are going to play stupid games like "Up to X" without ever intending to deliver X, then they are going to see more government regulation, the way government mileage tests are regulated.
It's BS cr@p like this, and the shills who defend it, that bring on the regulation the ISPs hate so much.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
Diddy1
join:2003-07-19
Sidney, NE
| reply to calvoiper
said by calvoiper :But do we want our ISPs/carriers "listening in" to the files we're downloading to determine "legality"? I think not. There are legal reasons to use BT, to use encryption, and to transfer very large files. calvoiper They won't be 'listening in' on the actual files. It could be porn, illegal/legal MP3, or Mary Poppins Greatis Hits. Just controlling it. |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | reply to calvoiper
Up to X MB/s |
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·surpasshosting
 ·ViaTalk
| reply to insomniac84
A new take on the spurious arguments about "fair" bandwidth practices.
Did your calculations cover the cost of hardware to hook that circuit to? Don't forget maintenance on the hardware, plus UPSes, plus customer-side equipment, plus a few qualified people to manage all that stuff.
Of course they didn't... |
|
mikef1
Mike
join:2004-10-28
Littlestown, PA | reply to insomniac84
Exactly how fast is this oc128?
I'm not familiar with that beast.
--
mike
HouseOfMike |
|
