3 ms·

I don't understand how this answers the question "Is there any cost that an ISP company has related to the amount of data transferred?". This all sounds like m

I don't understand how this answers the question "Is there any cost that an ISP company has related to the amount of data transferred?". This all sounds like maintenance and they'd have that if I use 1GB or 1TB.

ubercow13 7y ago
If every customer can use 1TB, it is more likely that many customers will be using more bandwidth at the same time, therefore requiring more infrastructure to ensure their connections still provide their advertised bandwidth
- JustSomeNobody 7y ago
  I don't see how that would affect anything. If we assume that most people consume the most data in the evenings (streaming Netflix, etc), no matter the cap, you would see issues if bandwidth was an issue. If I'm downloading ISOs of Linux during the day at 100% everyday while people are at work, big deal, right? But, if everyone is streaming at the same time, if there was going to be an issue, it would happen if caps existed or not because at some point during the month you're going to have nearly all your customers with data to use.
  - stordoff 7y ago
    The way I've seen this handled in the UK (a while ago, but I think some ISPs still do it) is to have caps at certain times (either by having a limit or throttling bulk P2P downloads), but then allow unlimited downloads at other times, especially overnight
  - vlan0 7y ago
    > But, if everyone is streaming at the same time, if there was going to be an issue, it would happen if caps existed or not because at some point during the month you're going to have nearly all your customers with data to use. It's a giant bucket of 'it depends'. If the CDN network serving the content has placed hardware within the ISPs network, it's likely a non-issue. This was a major issue before folks like Netflix started moving their CDNs closer to the customer. You might have a hard time finding the articles, but I recommend looking at the pissing match Level 3 and Verizon got into years back. >it would happen if caps existed or not I'm not convinced. You are essentially arguing that scarcity of a resource has no affect on consumption.

ubercow13 7y ago

If every customer can use 1TB, it is more likely that many customers will be using more bandwidth at the same time, therefore requiring more infrastructure to ensure their connections still provide their advertised bandwidth

JustSomeNobody 7y ago
I don't see how that would affect anything. If we assume that most people consume the most data in the evenings (streaming Netflix, etc), no matter the cap, you would see issues if bandwidth was an issue. If I'm downloading ISOs of Linux during the day at 100% everyday while people are at work, big deal, right? But, if everyone is streaming at the same time, if there was going to be an issue, it would happen if caps existed or not because at some point during the month you're going to have nearly all your customers with data to use.
- stordoff 7y ago
  The way I've seen this handled in the UK (a while ago, but I think some ISPs still do it) is to have caps at certain times (either by having a limit or throttling bulk P2P downloads), but then allow unlimited downloads at other times, especially overnight
- vlan0 7y ago
  > But, if everyone is streaming at the same time, if there was going to be an issue, it would happen if caps existed or not because at some point during the month you're going to have nearly all your customers with data to use. It's a giant bucket of 'it depends'. If the CDN network serving the content has placed hardware within the ISPs network, it's likely a non-issue. This was a major issue before folks like Netflix started moving their CDNs closer to the customer. You might have a hard time finding the articles, but I recommend looking at the pissing match Level 3 and Verizon got into years back. >it would happen if caps existed or not I'm not convinced. You are essentially arguing that scarcity of a resource has no affect on consumption.