> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, at 9:00pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The exsiting ISP, be it Vitts, MV, Joe Blow local ISP, they should > > already have ISP backbone equipment in place for their dialups. > > Just because a business is already in possession of > something doesn't mean you can call it "free". Even if they > aren't in-debt to pay it off, it has maintenance and > depreciation costs. We all know how fact computers depreciate...
The pipe to the net should be supported by whoever they're getting it from (in MV's case, BBN/Genuity). If you spend it right you can make it stretch a LONG time.. MV had a 486 as their email server until I think 2 years ago, they just replaced it with a $3k system that they expect to last them at LEAST 10 years.. Even replacing the hard drive every year, that's not a lot of money at all. Even if you tripple that the cost is still very small. > > At the most they'll have to upgrade their pipe or get an > aditional T > > ... > > "At the most"? > > 100 customers @ 56 kbps = 5600 kbps = 3.6 T1's > 100 customers @ 768 kbps = 76800 kbps = 50 T1's Oh yes, because you always have 100% of your customers using 100% of your connection 100% of the time. Plus add on seemless caching like AT&T does to cut down on that.. Plus, I have a 768k DSL line, I rarely get that except from HUGE sites like download.com. Http doesn't take a lot of bandwidth. Most people use email and IM stuff... > Obviously, since consumer services can be oversubscribed, > the math doesn't really work out like that, but you should > see my point. We're talking an increase in capacity of more > than 1000%! Yah, but it's not like you need to upgrade it to that overnight.. You build as you grow. And for people like AT&T what does it cost them to add some T1s? I bet close to nothing, since they own them. > You also have CO rental costs. A CO isn't some two-bit > ISP's machine room, with a handful of PCs and $500 UPS from > APC. The telcos do things > *right* when it comes to infrastructure. Redundant power > throughout the entire building; massive battery banks; > generators; secured access; onsite staff; the list goes on > and on. It isn't cheap. You've never seen some of the COs around here :) > The average annualized fixed cost for a DSL circuit is > something like $2000, IIRC. That's $167 per month, for those > of you keeping score at home. > Before bandwidth charges. Before profit. > > > The way cable modems work is TOTALLY different the DSL ... > > I know that, but I imagine they still need equipment. > > > [Cable] is "shared" bandwidth ... > > *Everything* on the Internet is shared bandwidth. It isn't > like your 768 kbps DSL line is a 768 kbps CIR right to > whatever web server you're talking to. DSL goes into a DSLAM > at the CO, and then you're on the same packet-switched > network that everyone else is. You might have 768 kbps to > the DSLAM, but you sure as hell don't have a dedicated 768 > slice of the T1 feeding it. I'm just saying that because of the old "Web Hog" ads that Bell South used to run. They were very inaccurate. > > You know that Verizon has been getting ready for DSL stuff > for years > > and probably would have been rolled out sooner if the cable modems > > came out sooner. The only reason they didn't start rolling > it out was > > because they didn't have to and they could still milk people for > > second phone lines for dial-up modems. > > That may be true. I suspect it is. But it doesn't make > DSL cheaper to operate. Once the pipe is in place, and the equipment is on each end unless something breaks what is the extra cost besides electricity.. For an EXTREAMLY simple example, if I toss a cat5 cable to my neighbor and throw in some cards and a hub after the cost of running the cable and buying the cards and the hub what do I have to pay for now if that cable doesn't break? _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
