High Speed Internet costs (was: Email hosting)

[David Roberts]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, bscott at ntisys.com stated in their Email:

bscott> From: bscott at ntisys.com
bscott> To: Greater NH Linux User Group <discuss at gnhlug.org>
bscott> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 21:44:30 -0500 (EST)
bscott> Subject: RE: High Speed Internet costs (was: Email hosting)
bscott> 
bscott> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 9:00pm, travis at scootz.net wrote:
bscott> > The exsiting ISP, be it Vitts, MV, Joe Blow local ISP, they should already
bscott> > have ISP backbone equipment in place for their dialups.
bscott> 
bscott>   Just because a business is already in possession of something doesn't mean
bscott> you can call it "free".  Even if they aren't in-debt to pay it off, it has
bscott> maintenance and depreciation costs.  We all know how fact computers
bscott> depreciate...
bscott> 
bscott> > At the most they'll have to upgrade their pipe or get an aditional T ...
bscott> 
bscott>   "At the most"?
bscott> 
bscott>   100 customers @ 56 kbps  =  5600 kbps = 3.6 T1's
bscott>   100 customers @ 768 kbps = 76800 kbps =  50 T1's
bscott> 
bscott>   Obviously, since consumer services can be oversubscribed, the math doesn't
bscott> really work out like that, but you should see my point.  We're talking an
bscott> increase in capacity of more than 1000%!
bscott> 

I not sure how this applies to ATTBI (Cable) 
technology, which I thought brought this to the 
surface.  I seem to remember hearing once at a 
MediaOne presentation that the cable companies 
had a huge amount of bandwidth available (TV 
used very little), and they actually had their 
hardware throttling back their customers.

I also thought she said something about the 
main problem was upgrading the cable network 
(neighborhoods), but due to cable's design it 
was extremely easy to upgrade the central 
locations (heads?) as more customers signed up.  
If this were the truly the case, wouldn't it 
be true that there should be no need for any 
change in speeds and/or major equipment 
upgrades at this point?  This would reflect 
directly on the rate increases which started 
this little thread.

(But I must admit, I'm extremely ignorant in 
the realm of cable so my thinking could be 
totally flawed.)

[... snip ...]

-- 
"Linux: Because a PC is a terrible thing to waste."
   -- As seen on the 'net --