 
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
edit:
June 11th, @05:22PM
| Very Interesting ... So much for cable and their whining/caps.
Thats about $0.012 (or 1.2 cents) per GB of transfer when I do the math (@$4/mbps fully utilized).
Just proves the caps and are a step backwards - the old mantra remains:
It is easier to add capacity to deal with a bandwidth problem than it is to mess with the alternatives
Can you imagine in 1998 if ISPs had said: "Well instead of providing faster pipes, we're gonna provide metered service because thats what our customers really want!" | |
|
 | 
Rob
In Deo speramus
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
 ·Comcast
 ·AT&T Southeast
| Re: well... said by Jerm  :hmm so much for Cable and their caps... What does this have to do with cable providers and their caps? | |
|
| | BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: well... said by Rob :said by Jerm :hmm so much for Cable and their caps... What does this have to do with cable providers and their caps?    | |
|
| | |
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
| Re: well... ... at least someone gets it ...
It's like Verizon charging $0.15 per text msg. Or TWC and their proposed $1.50/GB fee. | |
|
| | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: well... said by Jerm :... at least someone gets it ... It's like Verizon charging $0.15 per text msg. Or TWC and their proposed $1.50/GB fee. Remember a cellular phone call is 7 to 11 text messages PER SECOND bandwidth wise. Nothing like getting payed half a million $ to move 1 CD worth of text messages. $930K per GB of texts. They must be laughing all the way to the bank. | |
|
| | 
Jodokast96
R.I.P Bassman442
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Rob :said by Jerm :hmm so much for Cable and their caps... What does this have to do with cable providers and their caps? From the arguement that was made by some that a customer using their full bandwidth costs a cableco money, hence the need for caps. | |
|
| | |
Rob
In Deo speramus
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: well... said by Jodokast96 :said by Rob :said by Jerm :hmm so much for Cable and their caps... What does this have to do with cable providers and their caps? From the arguement that was made by some that a customer using their full bandwidth costs a cableco money, hence the need for caps. But that really isn't why caps exist. Caps exist because of the limited amount of bandwidth that a cable co can send to its customers. It's not about costing more money, it's about trying to give everyone an equal share. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | |
Rob
In Deo speramus
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: well... said by Skeedatl :Cable providers have no trouble providing an equal share at the backbone connectivity level. They do have trouble at the nodal level on occasion which requires traffic management or bandwidth saving measures that allow more channels to be assigned for transport between those saturated nodes and the head end. Yea, that's what I meant. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | espaeth
Misanthrope
Premium
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·voip.ms
·Comcast
·Embarq
| said by djrobx :Back then this same argument was being made, when cable's caps were as low as 1500/128. Cable companies are now offering 10x those speeds on pretty much the same DOCSIS 1 technology, and overall it's holding up quite well. Back then it was also very common to share the same downstream channel across a half dozen nodes or more. Over the last decade the MSOs have been pretty active in getting the number of nodes per downstream channel reduced, down to 1 DS in many cases. They've also added multiple upstream channels and performed physical node splits to get the number of homes per node down.
said by djrobx :Think about how many nodes cover a city, and then think about how much backbone capacity it would require to fill all of those nodes, at 38mbps per node. And don't forget, you need a very big link from the cable plant TO the backbone provider that can handle all of that traffic. That infrastructure is in place for many carriers.
Look at Comcast's network:
The CMTS hardware is connected to user/utility routers with GigE connections. The user routers connect to the aggregation routers with multiple 10GigE connections, and the area/aggregation routers connect to the core with multiple 10GigE connections.
Comcast's network is extremely fat in the middle, with Internet access circuits provisioned by demand (at significantly less capacity than what is available in the core) and the CMTS routers can't generate enough traffic to come even remotely close to choking the GigE uplink connections they have into the network.
For MSOs the congestion is in the last mile that connects the subscribers, followed by a distant chokepoint at the Internet access points. | |
|
| | | | | | | 
boils down
@mcleodusa.net
| Re: well... Great so what you're saying is that is has nothing to do with the wholesale cost of traffic to their upstream providers and more to do with them not being able to offer the speeds and services they advertise to more and more customers without charging overages under the guise of collecting more money for "upgrades" (As if somehow what users currently pay does not allow a cable provider to do anything more than scrape by). If it truly is not related to the extremely cheap cost of wholesale bandwidth, then i suppose they will just implement a "free nights and weekends" sort of deal where they are unmetered, or unrestricted during periods of non peak usage right?
OR
Being somewhat knowledgeable in the way corporate america operates what is the more logical conclusion? | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
Jodokast96
R.I.P Bassman442
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ | True, but that is the reason some (not me) have put forth as a need for caps. | |
|
| | | |
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
| said by Rob : Caps exist because of the limited amount of bandwidth that a cable co can send to its customers. It's not about costing more money... "Limited amount of bandwidth"??? Then UPGRADE the dang backbone! Most cable co's own their own regional fiber networks, upgrade the friggin lasers!. And DOCSIS 3 will take care of the last mile.
On the contrary, it's all about the money. Oh and preventing online video from competing. After all what takes the most bandwidth? hmm... | |
|
| | | | |
Rob
In Deo speramus
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: well... said by Jerm :said by Rob : Caps exist because of the limited amount of bandwidth that a cable co can send to its customers. It's not about costing more money... "Limited amount of bandwidth"??? Then UPGRADE the dang backbone! Most cable co's own their own regional fiber networks, upgrade the friggin lasers!. And DOCSIS 3 will take care of the last mile. On the contrary, it's all about the money. Oh and preventing online video from competing. After all what takes the most bandwidth? hmm... It's not about the backbone. It's about the last mile, and yes it's about money. But it's not about the Cogent lowering their pricing. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | markopoleo
join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: well... said by espaeth :said by Jerm :And DOCSIS 3 will take care of the last mile. DOCSIS 3.0 will help the last mile, but only once they upgrade every installed CMTS and replace every single subscriber cable modem with a DOCSIS 3.0 model. Will you people stop thinking DOCSIS 3.0 is the answer to all.
It means NOTHING to the end user currently, it just helps the cable provider.
Let me say it again..current cable customers have NOT REACHED THE BANDWIDTH OF CURRENT DOCSIS MODEMS. Had to yell it cause some people are not listening.  | |
|
| | | | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: well... Markopoleo
You forget about the shared part of the Docsis. We all (on the same node) have to share the bandwidth on the channel(38 down and 10 up for Docsis 1.1, most markets). You start splitting up 10 (up) with a bunch of guys running 16/2 and the brakes go on in a hurry. | |
|
| | | | | | | | markopoleo
join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: well... said by Lazlow :Markopoleo You forget about the shared part of the Docsis. We all (on the same node) have to share the bandwidth on the channel(38 down and 10 up for Docsis 1.1, most markets). You start splitting up 10 (up) with a bunch of guys running 16/2 and the brakes go on in a hurry. That really is not a DOSIS problem though, thats just a problem in deployment. They should not even be oversubscribing nodes in the first place. Nothing saying they won't use 3.0 and oversubscribe it anyways even if they have more bandwidth at headend. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | |
| |
| | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Re: Very Interesting ... There's also talk about backbone... though that seemed to be more from at&t than the cablecos. | |
|
| | | |
| | | |
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
| Re: Very Interesting ... said by Skeedatl :Any caps are simply about increasing revenue, not because caps are necessary to maintain network stability. Bingo. And don't forget preventing comptition from online video - after all the cable co's are terrified of becomming a "dumb pipe" provider and having their cash cow drift away like VOIP is doing to the telcos... | |
|
| | | | | 
Skeedatl
Ah, push it - push it real good
Premium
join:2007-12-26
The Cloud
edit:
June 11th, @10:57PM
| Re: Very Interesting ... That's true. I'm watching a South Park episode via the Internet based DirecTV On Demand while I'm downloading Semi-Pro in 720P on my AppleTV. These services were once exclusive domain of cable companies. | |
|
| | | | 
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA | Agreed Skeedatl. | |
|
| | jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| However, aren't all ISPS hooked into the backbones and simply resetting the bandwidth that level 3 providers sell? My understanding, and I might very well be wrong, is that ISPS wire neighborhoods and business. However, the actual capacity is the backbone on which the ISP leases the bandwidth. So lets say X company has a backbone in LA. This backbone has 1 10 gigabits of speed for say 100,000 people. The slow downs come w here an ISP has too many people sharing a node, but not because of said backbone. The capacity is there, just the fact an ISP doesnt have enough nodes in the area. It'd be like a 6 lane highway being able to handle those 100,000 people until construction forces it down to 2 lanes a mile before the highway ends. The highway itself is sound up until the point of exit. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Very Interesting ... said by Skeedatl :said by jc100 :However, aren't all ISPS hooked into the backbones and simply resetting the bandwidth that level 3 providers sell? Backbone connectivity is scalable and bandwidth is cheap and evidentally getting cheaper. However i don't see my HSI bill going down.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
| 
HEDP
join:2008-04-27
Miami, FL
edit:
June 11th, @09:15PM
| A T3 fully utilized at 45mbps up/down costs you around 4K-5K per month from Cogentco.
Ethernet can vary from 2K-4K with faster speeds, it also depends if you are on network or off network and how far you are from their POP, oh and that's per month.
A cable company asks for 150 dollars for a 18mbps line with I am sure but I think it was 45GB cap, I say from what Cogentco is charging you without a email account, without newsgroup access you are getting a bargain as a consumer for that pipe.
Also I am sure those prices are per data transferred, not the cost of speed.
If you don't believe me give Cogentco a call. I just did, to confirm my facts. | |
|
|
Skeedatl
Ah, push it - push it real good
Premium
join:2007-12-26
The Cloud
edit:
June 11th, @06:21PM
| Well it certainly shows that these overage charges are price gouging to the Nth degree.
Like Time Warner, certainly with their volume they get great prices while charging the customer $1.50/GB. | |
|
| |
| |
See 6 replies to this post |
|
| raccettura
join:2002-09-28
USA
| said by Jerm :So much for cable and their whining/caps. Just means more profit. Cable providers connect to upstream provider like Cogent. If they lower the cost, and cable companies cap their service (hence cap their costs)... that results in higher profit margins.
Just more reason to go ahead. | |
|
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| domestic vs international Isn't cogent tier-1 for international traffic & tier-2 for domestic (US) traffic? This is more about getting data shipped to & from overseas.. but for some reason Cogent seems to think that has peaked & is on the decline. Companies engaging in multi-source hosting aren't going to be enticed to stream unless it's worth their while. On the other hand, demand will only be there if two things materialize.. demand for content increases & last mile providers raise broadband caps, instead of trying to bill by the byte.
This of course highlights some real problems in the international economy. As energy prices rise, consumers cut back & companies become more desperate to find ways to make a profit. Just don't run into any business model icebergs trying to make it work. Without companies such as Cogent, more providers would be chomping at the bit to bill by the byte. | |
|
|
Cogent 'McBandwidth' Gets Cheaper
·
