5 ms·

You would have to provision for the maximal capacity all over your network. Given that most people only utilize their channel 1% of the time, this is a huge was

You would have to provision for the maximal capacity all over your network. Given that most people only utilize their channel 1% of the time, this is a huge waste! Agreed, everybody loves the idea of fixed allocation, but never seem to consider how much that costs. If you could buy overprovisioned 25mbps @ $50/mo, or fixed allocation 25mbps @ $5,000/mo, which do you think most people would go for...

nitrogen 10y ago
That is not what transit actually costs though.
- mseebach 10y ago
  Transit isn't everything you're paying for. Your local street cabinet isn't kitted out like your local datacentre and thus prices won't be the same.
  - nordify 10y ago
    No, but everything that's not transit is a fixed cost and thus as long as the internal network is properly designed and implemented, only transit costs matter. The rest (i.e. the fixed costs) will be covered by the monthly subscription fee.
    - rhino369 10y ago
      It would take a massive upgrade to most ISP internal networks to allow each home to use 25 mbit at the same time. There are bottlenecks that would have to replaced.
      - nordify 10y ago
        True, but it would still be a fixed cost to upgrade.
    - mseebach 10y ago
      It is very expensive fixed cost that the customers need to pay the amortisation of. Also, it's only fixed as long as it's never maintained or until it needs to be upgraded. You're not going to be satisfied with 25mbit a few years from now.
      - nordify 10y ago
        Maintenance is a percentage of the fixed costs. Upgrades replace old equipment as they have been paid off and decommissioned, so just another fixed cost that replaces the old fixed cost. So fixed costs all around.
        mseebach 10y ago
        That certainly depends. But just because a cost is fixed doesn't mean it's free or low.
        nordify 10y ago
        I made no promises of either free or low.
        mseebach 10y ago
        That was literally the premise of the thread. So your entire errand was pointing out the blatantly obviously fact that fixed costs are fixed?
        nordify 10y ago
        > That was literally the premise of the thread. No it wasn't. The thread starter discussed how broadband connections should be marketed, and the suggestion was to use guaranteed bandwidth as a measure. This then digressed into the cost of bandwidth, where one poster took it totally off the rails by assuming transit costs $25 per Mbps, when the true cost is two decades lower. The fixed cost of providing guaranteed bandwidth in the last mile pales compared to costs like $25 per Mbps, which was my point. The last mile is a fixed cost and even high amounts of guaranteed bandwidth in the last mile are fixed costs which are easily covered by the monthly subscription fee. That does not mean that the fixed costs are free or low by absolute dollar terms. So there.
Retric 10y ago
Everyone is playing by the same rules so they would all end up advertising 2.5 mbps @ 50$ / month with speed boost if that's what they can provide. The important point is it does not actually take much bandwidth to do streaming video etc, but if you can't provide reasonable bandwidth when people want to use it then it's false advertising. PS: Don't forget back haul is actually a relatively minor cost for most ISP's. Until it hits ~20% it's just not going to have a major impact on peoples bills.
- sliverstorm 10y ago
  If utilization is generally 1% of service today, you'd be looking at 0.25mbps @ $50/mo, not 2.5
  - Retric 10y ago
    You are assuming back haul is 100% of their current costs AND they don't increase it any AND that's 1% of peak not 1% of average including 3AM. Further, this is only limiting them to saying what their current network is. Honestly, this is like car company's advertising their top speed when dropped from an aircraft and then complaining when they need to list actual horsepower.
- rhino369 10y ago
  That information is even less useful than what ISPs provide now. Home users really have no reason to value the worst case scenario speed since it never happens. If my ISP was going to tell me either the limit they cap me at and the speed the can guarantee me at 100% use, I'd pick the former.
  - Retric 10y ago
    If you buy a 30MPG car your not going to actually get 30MPG as it will depend on your driving habits. However, it's based on a meaningful test so you can do meaningful comparisons. As it stands an ISP can advertise 100 mbps service and fail to show Netflix streams when a 10 mbps connection on another ISP can easily handle 2 of them in HD. Thus, consumers need something meaningful. PS: Picture trying to compare gas MPG if car companies could report MPG while costing down the side of a mountain. That's a perfect recipe for Honda to optimize the wrong things just like ISP's do now.

nitrogen 10y ago

That is not what transit actually costs though.

mseebach 10y ago
Transit isn't everything you're paying for. Your local street cabinet isn't kitted out like your local datacentre and thus prices won't be the same.
- nordify 10y ago
  No, but everything that's not transit is a fixed cost and thus as long as the internal network is properly designed and implemented, only transit costs matter. The rest (i.e. the fixed costs) will be covered by the monthly subscription fee.
  - rhino369 10y ago
    It would take a massive upgrade to most ISP internal networks to allow each home to use 25 mbit at the same time. There are bottlenecks that would have to replaced.
    - nordify 10y ago
      True, but it would still be a fixed cost to upgrade.
  - mseebach 10y ago
    It is very expensive fixed cost that the customers need to pay the amortisation of. Also, it's only fixed as long as it's never maintained or until it needs to be upgraded. You're not going to be satisfied with 25mbit a few years from now.
    - nordify 10y ago
      Maintenance is a percentage of the fixed costs. Upgrades replace old equipment as they have been paid off and decommissioned, so just another fixed cost that replaces the old fixed cost. So fixed costs all around.
      - mseebach 10y ago
        That certainly depends. But just because a cost is fixed doesn't mean it's free or low.
        nordify 10y ago
        I made no promises of either free or low.
        mseebach 10y ago
        That was literally the premise of the thread. So your entire errand was pointing out the blatantly obviously fact that fixed costs are fixed?
        nordify 10y ago
        > That was literally the premise of the thread. No it wasn't. The thread starter discussed how broadband connections should be marketed, and the suggestion was to use guaranteed bandwidth as a measure. This then digressed into the cost of bandwidth, where one poster took it totally off the rails by assuming transit costs $25 per Mbps, when the true cost is two decades lower. The fixed cost of providing guaranteed bandwidth in the last mile pales compared to costs like $25 per Mbps, which was my point. The last mile is a fixed cost and even high amounts of guaranteed bandwidth in the last mile are fixed costs which are easily covered by the monthly subscription fee. That does not mean that the fixed costs are free or low by absolute dollar terms. So there.

Retric 10y ago

Everyone is playing by the same rules so they would all end up advertising 2.5 mbps @ 50$ / month with speed boost if that's what they can provide. The important point is it does not actually take much bandwidth to do streaming video etc, but if you can't provide reasonable bandwidth when people want to use it then it's false advertising. PS: Don't forget back haul is actually a relatively minor cost for most ISP's. Until it hits ~20% it's just not going to have a major impact on peoples bills.

sliverstorm 10y ago
If utilization is generally 1% of service today, you'd be looking at 0.25mbps @ $50/mo, not 2.5
- Retric 10y ago
  You are assuming back haul is 100% of their current costs AND they don't increase it any AND that's 1% of peak not 1% of average including 3AM. Further, this is only limiting them to saying what their current network is. Honestly, this is like car company's advertising their top speed when dropped from an aircraft and then complaining when they need to list actual horsepower.
rhino369 10y ago
That information is even less useful than what ISPs provide now. Home users really have no reason to value the worst case scenario speed since it never happens. If my ISP was going to tell me either the limit they cap me at and the speed the can guarantee me at 100% use, I'd pick the former.
- Retric 10y ago
  If you buy a 30MPG car your not going to actually get 30MPG as it will depend on your driving habits. However, it's based on a meaningful test so you can do meaningful comparisons. As it stands an ISP can advertise 100 mbps service and fail to show Netflix streams when a 10 mbps connection on another ISP can easily handle 2 of them in HD. Thus, consumers need something meaningful. PS: Picture trying to compare gas MPG if car companies could report MPG while costing down the side of a mountain. That's a perfect recipe for Honda to optimize the wrong things just like ISP's do now.