[sllug-members]: ISP bandwidth allocation (Was: Read my blog...)

[Caleb Call]

It's actually pretty simple, even if it's no harder on the equipment  
to be working 24/7 then it is to be sitting idle, the bottom line is  
bandwidth costs no matter how you break it down.  So really it's not  
an equipment issue (I've never heard that as an excuse anyways) but  
rather someone's gotta pay for your bandwidth.


On Feb 23, 2007, at 1:24 AM, Chad wrote:

> [SNIP]
>
>> The charge is not levied on the customer by UTOPIA, it is levied  
>> on the
>> ISP by UTOPIA, who has at its discretion to charge the user or to  
>> eat the
>> extra cost by building the average overage fees into the base service
>> cost. I for one don't blame an ISP who passes on the charges that  
>> they
>> have to pay to the person who caused them to get charged, rather than
>> passing them to all of us.
>
> [/SNIP]
>
> Taken out of context for a second, I am somewhat confused, and don't
> understand completely.  If an ISP is allocated (for example) 100GB per
> month, and has 10 customers.  Then, evenly divided, these 10 customers
> should be allocated 10GB by the ISP.  So far, so good?  So, let's
> pretend that customer A is using 4GB per month, and customer B is
> using 16GB per month.  And the remaining customers are using 10GB or
> less per month.  Passing the "charges" that customer B has supposedly
> incurred aren't 'passing on the cost to the perpetrator' but instead
> is making additional money for, well, nothing additional.
>
> I don't disagree with quotas, I really don't understand them well
> enough to take a stance either way.  But, assuming ISPs that impose
> quotas have a somewhat dynamic customer base, then it's extremely
> unlikely that they have such a low bandwidth allotment that when
> customer B uses an extra 6GB that it's actually adding additional
> charges to the ISP.  Instead, it's more likely than customers C
> through J are using far less than their 10GB allocation, and the
> overall 100GB allocation isn't even getting close to being touched.
> Realistically, those numbers are probably significantly larger, just
> used easy small numbers for scale ;)
>
> So, what's wrong with that thought process?
>
> Also, can anyone enlighten me on what the issue is with bandwidth
> costs?  My (again extremely narrow and 'n00b') understanding is that
> the hardware that 'powers the internet' isn't having any more problems
> being used 24/7 than if it were just sitting there (but powered on and
> 'running' but not doing any packet sending).  Meaning, that a
> flat-fee-per-month for unlimited bandwidth totally makes sense.
> Limiting the amount of bandwidth only makes sense if you don't have
> enough switches (or nodes?) in a given area such that too much
> saturation is taking place and network congestion results.  In that
> case, it sounds like you have enough customers to warrant throwing in
> a few more 'nodes'...
>
> Hopefully this doesn't sound like a jab at any ISP, or anyone.  I
> really don't know, and I'm trying to explain what I think I
> understand; and am really asking for some enlightenment to how it
> really works, and why.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Chad
> ______________________________________________________________________
> See http://www.sllug.org/ for latest SLLUG news, information, links.
> Join SLLUG and other UT LUG members on irc.FreeNode.net channel #Utah
> sllug-members at sllug.org
> http://www.sllug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sllug-members