4 ms·

But I also recognize that a flat-fee for widely variable usage isn't sustainable for ISPs. What information do you have that makes you recognize this?

scott_s 18y ago
That it takes more expense to handle customers with higher bandwidth usage.
- Goronmon 18y ago
  That it takes more expense to handle customers with higher bandwidth usage. Which doesn't address why you think it's unsustainable. The business model for ISPs has always been been that the lower end user subsidizes the use of bigger consumers. I interpreted that you believe this model is losing it's viability and I am wondering what information you have that shows this. Or did I misinterpret your original post? Edit: Not to mention that I've never understood how bandwidth caps actually address any problem that an ISP faces.
  - Retric 18y ago
    ...problem that an ISP faces. The idea is to prevent people from canceling cable and using the internet to watch TV not to cover costs. The cable company costs are well below than 10c per GByte used, but that's not going to prevent users from watching video online so they bump things well over 10 times their true cost. In the end it's a win / win either people keep cable or they milk those who switch.
  - scott_s 18y ago
    What I stated in my original post: more people will be big consumers of data.
    - Goronmon 18y ago
      So? Why does that mean their business model is unsustainable? Do you have a reason to expect that bandwidth consumption will grow faster than the ISPs can keep up or are you just guessing?
      - scott_s 18y ago
        Of course I'm guessing. It just seems like an obvious guess to me - specifically, that people's bandwidth usage will start to resemble other utilities. I'm surprised you find it a controversial guess.
        Goronmon 18y ago
        I don't necessarily find it controversial, just that I haven't seen enough evidence to suggest that's it is correct. So when people make the statement, I like to find out if they are guessing or if they have more information than I do on the subject. Perhaps that wasn't clear from my initial response.
- anamax 18y ago
  > That it takes more expense to handle customers with higher bandwidth usage. It doesn't cost any more to set up their accounts and bill them. It doesn't cost any more to run the wires. There is some marginal cost for bandwidth. There are some third order router-cost effects. There are some fourth-order power effects. Note that time of usage has a huge impact on costs. Someone who downloads 1GB/month at peak periods is more expensive than someone who downloads 250GB/month at off-peak.

scott_s 18y ago

That it takes more expense to handle customers with higher bandwidth usage.

Goronmon 18y ago
That it takes more expense to handle customers with higher bandwidth usage. Which doesn't address why you think it's unsustainable. The business model for ISPs has always been been that the lower end user subsidizes the use of bigger consumers. I interpreted that you believe this model is losing it's viability and I am wondering what information you have that shows this. Or did I misinterpret your original post? Edit: Not to mention that I've never understood how bandwidth caps actually address any problem that an ISP faces.
- Retric 18y ago
  ...problem that an ISP faces. The idea is to prevent people from canceling cable and using the internet to watch TV not to cover costs. The cable company costs are well below than 10c per GByte used, but that's not going to prevent users from watching video online so they bump things well over 10 times their true cost. In the end it's a win / win either people keep cable or they milk those who switch.
- scott_s 18y ago
  What I stated in my original post: more people will be big consumers of data.
  - Goronmon 18y ago
    So? Why does that mean their business model is unsustainable? Do you have a reason to expect that bandwidth consumption will grow faster than the ISPs can keep up or are you just guessing?
    - scott_s 18y ago
      Of course I'm guessing. It just seems like an obvious guess to me - specifically, that people's bandwidth usage will start to resemble other utilities. I'm surprised you find it a controversial guess.
      - Goronmon 18y ago
        I don't necessarily find it controversial, just that I haven't seen enough evidence to suggest that's it is correct. So when people make the statement, I like to find out if they are guessing or if they have more information than I do on the subject. Perhaps that wasn't clear from my initial response.
anamax 18y ago
> That it takes more expense to handle customers with higher bandwidth usage. It doesn't cost any more to set up their accounts and bill them. It doesn't cost any more to run the wires. There is some marginal cost for bandwidth. There are some third order router-cost effects. There are some fourth-order power effects. Note that time of usage has a huge impact on costs. Someone who downloads 1GB/month at peak periods is more expensive than someone who downloads 250GB/month at off-peak.