|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
> > Now, ISP economics pretty much require that some amount of overcommit > > will happen. However, if you have a 12GB quota, that works out to > > around 36 kilobits/sec average. Assuming the ISP is selling 10Mbps > > connections (and bearing in mind that ADSL2 can certainly go more than > > that), what that's saying is that the average user can use 1/278th of > > their connection. I would imagine that the overcommit rate is much > > higher than that. > > I don't think that things should be measured like this. Throughput != > bandwidth. No, but it gives some rational way to look at it, as long as we all realize what we're talking about. The other ways I've seen it discussed mostly involve a lot of handwaving. > Technically the user can use the connection to it's maximum theoretical > speed as much as they like, however, if an ISP has a quota set at > 12G/month, it just means that the cost is passed along to them when they > exceed it. And that seems like a bit of the handwaving. Where is it costing the ISP more when the user exceeds 12G/month? Think very carefully about that before you answer. If it was arranged that every customer of the ISP in question were to go to 100% utilization downloading 12G on the first of the month at 12:01AM, it seems clear to me that you could really screw up 95th. > > Note: I'm assuming the quota is monthly, as it seems to be for most > > AU ISP's I've looked at, for example: > > Yes most are monthly based on GB. > > > capacity is being stifled by ISP's that are stuck back > > in speeds (and policies) appropriate for the year 2000. > > Imagine a case (even in the largest of ISP's), where there are no > quotas, and everyone has a 10Mbps connection. I'm imagining it. I've already stated that it's a problem. > I don't think there is an ISP in existence that has the infrastructure > capacity to carry all of their clients using all of the connections > simultaneously at full speed for long extended periods. I'll go so far as to say that there's no real ISP in existence that could support it for any period. > As bandwidth and throughput increases, so does the strain on the > networks that are upstream from the client. Obviously. > Unless someone pays for the continuously growing data transfers, then > your 6Mbps ADSL connection is fantastic, until you transit across the > ISP's network who can't afford to upgrade the infrastructure because > clients think they are being ripped off for paying 'extra'. > > Now, at your $34/month for your resi ADSL connection, the clients call > the ISP and complain about slow speeds, but when you advise that they > have downloaded 90GB of movies last month and they must pay for it, they > wont. Everyone wants it cheaper and cheaper, but yet expect things to > work 100% of the time, and at 100% at maximum advertised capacity. My > favorites are the clients who call the helpdesk and state "I'm trying to > run a business here" (on their residential ADSL connection). 90GB/mo is still a relatively small amount of bandwidth. That works out to around a quarter of a megabit on average. This is nowhere near the "100%" situation you're discussing. And it's also a lot higher than the 12GB/mo quota under discussion. > > What are we missing out on because ISP's are more interested in keeping > > bandwidth use low? > > I don't think anyone wants to keep bandwidth use low, it's just in order > to continue to allow bandwidth consumption to grow, someone needs to pay > for it. How about the ISP? Surely their costs are going down. Certainly I know that our wholesale bandwidth costs have dropped orders of magnitude in the last ~decade or so. Equipment does occasionally need to be replaced. I've got a nice pair of Ascend GRF400's out in the garage that cost $65K- $80K each when originally purchased. They'd be lucky to pull any number of dollars these days. It's a planned expense. As for physical plant, I'd imagine that a large amount of that is also a planned expense, and is being paid down (or already paid off), so arguing that this is somewhere that a lot of extra expense will exist is probably silly too. > > What fantastic new technologies haven't been developed > > because they were deemed impractical given the state of the Internet? > > Backbone connections worth $34/month, and infrastructure gear that > upgrades itself at no cost. Hint: that money you're collecting from your customers isn't all profit. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
|