4 ms·

I have had an extremely hard time getting an answer to this question. It is my understanding that it is either very negligible, or an entirely non-existent cost

by ralusek 10y ago

I have had an extremely hard time getting an answer to this question. It is my understanding that it is either very negligible, or an entirely non-existent cost that is incurred by an ISP to transfer more vs less data. They basically just facilitate the infrastructure, is that correct? I understand with mobile data you're actually competing for frequency space, among other issues, but this is not analogous to how data over cable works.

bajsejohannes 10y ago
The cost of transferring more data on current infrastructure is negligible. However, ISPs have a maximum capacity that's well below their number of users multiplied by the user's maximum bandwidth. They're just making a bet that not everyone will use all their bandwidth most of the time. At some point, average utilization goes up, and they have to buy more infrastructure to handle it, which is what costs money.
- wmf 10y ago
  Only peak time (e.g. 8 PM) utilization matters and caps generally don't reduce it. It's definitely true that increased peak usage requires ISPs to upgrade their networks, but their pricing is almost totally disconnected from costs.
shwash 10y ago
It's not negligible. Wired and wireless are both "pipes" of a certain capacity. When you install the initial investment you build out a certain sized pipe. Wired has a much larger pipe for obvious technical reasons. In both cases, there is no real cost delta between a low to medium utilization. In both cases, if the pre-built pipe experiences a high level of utilization, it results in irregularity of service (more latency, dropped packets). With wireless, the impact of high usage is significantly more severe and is more visible at a much lower percent of utilization. The solution to this is to either reduce capacity or improve infrastructure. The latter involves capital expenditure for both pipes, albeit it is exponentially cheaper to increase wired capacity compared to wireless capacity. Cheaper, but it's not cheap. It's not just hardware - technician training, deployment costs, for larger inefficient businesses it's not easy to upgrade an edge node of 1Gbps to 10Gbps because a feeder for 100 families has a handful of hungry users. From just a straight business perspective, usage caps make so much sense. The vast majority of customers get nowhere near them and will never notice. The small subset of "power" users that are eating your capacity you're losing money on anyway, so it's easy to sacrifice this market segment. The sad truth is that the internet video push has turned "power user" expectations fully out of whack with what an executive room was predicting. A business that has had a built network has a hard time justifying large capital pipe expenditures for what it's internally viewing as troublesome "power" users who should switch to business accounts. So they're fighting it with these policies. The simple truth is that the bandwidth demands are going to continue to increase across the board and this will need to be accepted and the capital spent to expand the pipe. However, a lack of competition will make this process long and painful.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
rb808 10y ago
Cable you're competing with frequency space just the same as mobile. A good analogy is a café. If the place is half empty its negligible to have an extra person come and sit down. But if you have a dozen people who sit there all day it doesn't leave much room for when the rush arrives.

by ralusek 10y ago

bajsejohannes 10y ago

The cost of transferring more data on current infrastructure is negligible. However, ISPs have a maximum capacity that's well below their number of users multiplied by the user's maximum bandwidth. They're just making a bet that not everyone will use all their bandwidth most of the time. At some point, average utilization goes up, and they have to buy more infrastructure to handle it, which is what costs money.

wmf 10y ago
Only peak time (e.g. 8 PM) utilization matters and caps generally don't reduce it. It's definitely true that increased peak usage requires ISPs to upgrade their networks, but their pricing is almost totally disconnected from costs.

shwash 10y ago

It's not negligible. Wired and wireless are both "pipes" of a certain capacity. When you install the initial investment you build out a certain sized pipe. Wired has a much larger pipe for obvious technical reasons. In both cases, there is no real cost delta between a low to medium utilization. In both cases, if the pre-built pipe experiences a high level of utilization, it results in irregularity of service (more latency, dropped packets). With wireless, the impact of high usage is significantly more severe and is more visible at a much lower percent of utilization. The solution to this is to either reduce capacity or improve infrastructure. The latter involves capital expenditure for both pipes, albeit it is exponentially cheaper to increase wired capacity compared to wireless capacity. Cheaper, but it's not cheap. It's not just hardware - technician training, deployment costs, for larger inefficient businesses it's not easy to upgrade an edge node of 1Gbps to 10Gbps because a feeder for 100 families has a handful of hungry users. From just a straight business perspective, usage caps make so much sense. The vast majority of customers get nowhere near them and will never notice. The small subset of "power" users that are eating your capacity you're losing money on anyway, so it's easy to sacrifice this market segment. The sad truth is that the internet video push has turned "power user" expectations fully out of whack with what an executive room was predicting. A business that has had a built network has a hard time justifying large capital pipe expenditures for what it's internally viewing as troublesome "power" users who should switch to business accounts. So they're fighting it with these policies. The simple truth is that the bandwidth demands are going to continue to increase across the board and this will need to be accepted and the capital spent to expand the pipe. However, a lack of competition will make this process long and painful.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

rb808 10y ago

Cable you're competing with frequency space just the same as mobile. A good analogy is a café. If the place is half empty its negligible to have an extra person come and sit down. But if you have a dozen people who sit there all day it doesn't leave much room for when the rush arrives.