> They are buying more bandwidth so they can get it cheaper. I don't think that's actually true. The first assumption, that they are buying something from some

> They are buying more bandwidth so they can get it cheaper. I don't think that's actually true. The first assumption, that they are buying something from someone else is potentially flawed, and the conclusion is based on another potentially flawed assumption, that bandwidth has an inherent volume discount. I say "potentially" flawed because these assumptions easily hold true for small enough providers and little enough bandwidth. At large provider scale, it's probably safer to assume that they're building instead of buying, and those costs follow fairly large, discrete steps. Increasing bandwidth means buying faster DWM modules and, possibly, higher-end equipment that supports them. It might mean doing that for their network peer, too. In many cases, I expect it would mean bypassing shared infrastructure like internet exchanges, which might be limited to as little as 10Gb/s or even 1Gb/s and getting direct peering arrangements (including physical connections) with other networks, including possibly reimbursing them for their costs. This can be complicated by the new peer only having just enough bandwidth to that exchange point to match the exchange's maximum bandwidth, in which case peering will require co-locating somewhere else, with all the hardware and (hopefully dark but not always possible) fiber leasing costs. None of those costs are necessarily high if considering maximum available bandwidth, such as if they spent 5x to get 20x or even 100x the capacity. However, if they only did it for a single customer that, on average only uses 2x the bandwidth (and only peaks at 20x-100x at rare times or only on certain, unpredictable in advance, connections to peers), they experienced a volume premium, rather than a discount.