4 ms·

Well, that's a bunch of nonsense. If you eat twice as much oreos you use up twice as much resources. For network connections that is not true. Once a connection

by Melkman 10y ago

Well, that's a bunch of nonsense. If you eat twice as much oreos you use up twice as much resources. For network connections that is not true. Once a connection has been made no extra resources are used for traffic over that connection. The only problem is in the uplinks when a provider has estimated a 1:100 overbooking should be enough but customers start using their connection for more than 1% of the time.

rnhmjoj 10y ago
They must enjoy making you pay for something that has virtually no cost. My ISP charges for stuff like displaying the caller ID or checking the last number on the landline phone.
gwright 10y ago
It is a bit difficult to understand what you are saying. All packet based networking is dependent on the mathematics of statistical multiplexing and the aggregate behavior of the subscribers. While there are fixed costs for a connection (i.e. a subscriber with a physical connection via DSL or cable) the total required Internet bandwidth is highly dependent on the aggregate behavior of all the subscribers. Outliers in a statistical multiplexing situation can push total traffic into an over-subscribed realm. It is certainly possible to simply raise the rate for all subscribers to cover the network build-out required to satisfy the outliers, but it isn't far fetched to think that the outliers should bear most the cost via an alternate rate plan, overage charges, etc. The bigger problems is that we don't have effective competition for Internet service at the last-mile level. If you are a business in an office building serviced by multiple fiber providers, your Internet costs are going to be quite competitive. Otherwise you are basically beholden to the local telco and/or cable company and the regulatory infrastructure in your state.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  Punishing outliers too aggressively, however, will result in stagnation because no novel services will be invented that might require more bandwidth. Then the lack of those services' existence is used as proof that more bandwidth is not required.
  - gwright 10y ago
    Since when has novelty created an obligation for a resource to be sold at below cost? There is nothing special about Internet bandwidth in that regard. Should electric rates be increased so that some novel use of electricity can become affordable due to the subsidy of other rate payers? What if the use of electricity was 10 times a normal residential use? 100 times? 1000 times?
    - nitrogen 10y ago
      Who said anything about selling below cost? But if you insist, there are many things sold slightly above cost for most but slightly below cost for a few, because the averages still work out and it serves to benefit the society as a whole. Insurance is one example. Maybe, again if you insist, bandwidth could be sold slightly below cost to a few, to facilitate investment in the future.
      - gwright 10y ago
        Insurance is a very bad example because it is predicated on not knowing who will be the outlier. If you know who is the outlier you can just charge them more money directly. The numbers matter here but when I say below cost, I mean that the average price paid by the outlier is less than if they were paying their weighted share. Example: Let's assume I'm selling something such that by selling one unit at $1 I make a reasonable profit. If I have 100 subscribers and 95% of those subscribers use an average of 5 units per/month but 5% use an average of 50 units per month, I have to provision for 725 units/month (955 + 550). If I charge everyone the same monthly rate, I would charge $7.25/month per person to get my $725 of revenue. But 95% of the people are only using 5 units. They are paying almost 50% more than actual usage would justify. This is because they are subsidizing the 5% who are each getting 42.75 units subsidized for 'free'. Their monthly rate is 'below cost'. I doubt the real-world data is bimodal in exactly this way but I think this illustrates what I was trying to communicate. I did find this interesting quote from http://www.techhive.com/article/2055502/why-your-internet-service-provider-wants-to-nix-all-you-can-eat-data-buffets.html http://www.techhive.com/article/2055502/why-your-internet-se... > According to Comcast, the current median monthly data usage for its customers is roughly 16GB. AT&T claims that the top 2 percent of its users (in terms of data consumption) eat up 20 percent of its network’s total available bandwidth. Telecom analyst Teresa Mastrangelo, principal at Broadbandtrends, suggests that the 80/20 rule applies, in that 80 percent of the data is going to 20 percent of users. “It may even be closer to 90/10,” Mastrangelo says.

by Melkman 10y ago

rnhmjoj 10y ago

They must enjoy making you pay for something that has virtually no cost. My ISP charges for stuff like displaying the caller ID or checking the last number on the landline phone.

gwright 10y ago

It is a bit difficult to understand what you are saying. All packet based networking is dependent on the mathematics of statistical multiplexing and the aggregate behavior of the subscribers. While there are fixed costs for a connection (i.e. a subscriber with a physical connection via DSL or cable) the total required Internet bandwidth is highly dependent on the aggregate behavior of all the subscribers. Outliers in a statistical multiplexing situation can push total traffic into an over-subscribed realm. It is certainly possible to simply raise the rate for all subscribers to cover the network build-out required to satisfy the outliers, but it isn't far fetched to think that the outliers should bear most the cost via an alternate rate plan, overage charges, etc. The bigger problems is that we don't have effective competition for Internet service at the last-mile level. If you are a business in an office building serviced by multiple fiber providers, your Internet costs are going to be quite competitive. Otherwise you are basically beholden to the local telco and/or cable company and the regulatory infrastructure in your state.

nitrogen 10y ago
Punishing outliers too aggressively, however, will result in stagnation because no novel services will be invented that might require more bandwidth. Then the lack of those services' existence is used as proof that more bandwidth is not required.
- gwright 10y ago
  Since when has novelty created an obligation for a resource to be sold at below cost? There is nothing special about Internet bandwidth in that regard. Should electric rates be increased so that some novel use of electricity can become affordable due to the subsidy of other rate payers? What if the use of electricity was 10 times a normal residential use? 100 times? 1000 times?
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    Who said anything about selling below cost? But if you insist, there are many things sold slightly above cost for most but slightly below cost for a few, because the averages still work out and it serves to benefit the society as a whole. Insurance is one example. Maybe, again if you insist, bandwidth could be sold slightly below cost to a few, to facilitate investment in the future.
    - gwright 10y ago
      Insurance is a very bad example because it is predicated on not knowing who will be the outlier. If you know who is the outlier you can just charge them more money directly. The numbers matter here but when I say below cost, I mean that the average price paid by the outlier is less than if they were paying their weighted share. Example: Let's assume I'm selling something such that by selling one unit at $1 I make a reasonable profit. If I have 100 subscribers and 95% of those subscribers use an average of 5 units per/month but 5% use an average of 50 units per month, I have to provision for 725 units/month (955 + 550). If I charge everyone the same monthly rate, I would charge $7.25/month per person to get my $725 of revenue. But 95% of the people are only using 5 units. They are paying almost 50% more than actual usage would justify. This is because they are subsidizing the 5% who are each getting 42.75 units subsidized for 'free'. Their monthly rate is 'below cost'. I doubt the real-world data is bimodal in exactly this way but I think this illustrates what I was trying to communicate. I did find this interesting quote from http://www.techhive.com/article/2055502/why-your-internet-service-provider-wants-to-nix-all-you-can-eat-data-buffets.html http://www.techhive.com/article/2055502/why-your-internet-se... > According to Comcast, the current median monthly data usage for its customers is roughly 16GB. AT&T claims that the top 2 percent of its users (in terms of data consumption) eat up 20 percent of its network’s total available bandwidth. Telecom analyst Teresa Mastrangelo, principal at Broadbandtrends, suggests that the 80/20 rule applies, in that 80 percent of the data is going to 20 percent of users. “It may even be closer to 90/10,” Mastrangelo says.