I don't get.............

Things change I've changed · 11 Jun 2008 at 16:28

Someone explain to me why does it cost so much to send data ?, all I hear is ISP's going on all the time saying we are using to much bandwidth and they are getting in a flap about Internet TV services etc but can someone explain to me how does this all work financially ?, I understand that ISP's have to buy bandwidth from a whole seller ?, so what does that mean ?, they are buying the right to be able to transfer a certain amount of data ?, I thought though once the system is in place it's a simple case of paying for the up keep of the servers, exchanges etc, basically the hardware, so where does the cost of the actual bandwidth come in ?

I know this is a noobie question but it's something I've never fully understood

.

tres · 11 Jun 2008 at 16:33

i imagine the cost of the upkeep, the cost of maintaining and replacing such a huge number of components, thousands of miles of cable (both above and below sea) is a daunting figure

bigredshark · 11 Jun 2008 at 16:33

ISPs pay on amount of data transfered over transit, peering is a fixed cost per port but transit is expensive.

tolien · 11 Jun 2008 at 16:36

And for ISPs using BT Wholesale, the lion's share of their money goes on Central costs.

bigredshark · 11 Jun 2008 at 16:37

trescodrucey said:
i imagine the cost of the upkeep, the cost of maintaining and replacing such a huge number of components, thousands of miles of cable (both above and below sea) is a daunting figure

It's pretty daunting, we've just shelled out another £100k for a core router upgrade...just one router out of 40 or so...

tres · 11 Jun 2008 at 16:38

a speedtouch?

Things change I've changed · 11 Jun 2008 at 16:39

bigredshark said:
ISPs pay on amount of data transfered over transit, peering is a fixed cost per port but transit is expensive.

but why is it expensive ?, I don't get where the cost of the actual data transfer/bandwidth is coming in ?

Syngress · 11 Jun 2008 at 16:41

Also higher bandwidth backbone links cost a lot more moeny, so the more traffic an ISP has to move the more backbone bandwidth they require....

bigredshark · 11 Jun 2008 at 16:53

lowrider007 said:
but why is it expensive ?, I don't get where the cost of the actual data transfer/bandwidth is coming in ?

Because transit providers charge a set fee per megabyte you send and receive, because they have to maintain a worldwide network with heaps of kit and cabling...

Dist · 11 Jun 2008 at 18:11

lowrider007 said:
but why is it expensive ?, I don't get where the cost of the actual data transfer/bandwidth is coming in ?

If the data was traveling on lines owned compleatly by the ISP then it would be simple, but since data travels all over the world, the ISP has to pay for the right to send data over lines owned by other campanies. The companies that recieve the money then use it to pay off the initial cost of laying the lines (which can be very expensive), building more lines, and to earn profit.

rpstewart · 11 Jun 2008 at 19:08

A BT Central is approximately £1.5million a year for a 622Mbps pipe. If you were to guarantee a permanent 8Mbps to every connected customer you'd need to charge about £1600 per connection per month which is hardly a sustainable business model.

Hence the ISPs have to spread that cost over more users but as those users start using more bandwidth the ISP needs and hence either their bandwidth bill goes up or they have to charge more. Charging more unfortunately means that you lose the low usage customers who are subsidising the high usage ones and you end up in a downward spiral.

VeNT · 11 Jun 2008 at 19:17

that may be so but reducing my bandwidth to 512 from 8meg for torrents is not on, why not 50% hell I'd put up with 2meg but its sick getting 50k/s on a torrent.
also selling me it as unlimited is bad and wrong.

rpstewart · 11 Jun 2008 at 19:32

VeNT said:
that may be so but reducing my bandwidth to 512 from 8meg for torrents is not on, why not 50% hell I'd put up with 2meg but its sick getting 50k/s on a torrent.

How else do you do it? Your £40 (at most) a month doesn't make a big dent in a £125K a month central bill.

Muffin` · 11 Jun 2008 at 19:32

VeNT said:
that may be so but reducing my bandwidth to 512 from 8meg for torrents is not on, why not 50% hell I'd put up with 2meg but its sick getting 50k/s on a torrent.
also selling me it as unlimited is bad and wrong.

Curiosityx · 11 Jun 2008 at 19:50

VeNT said:
that may be so but reducing my bandwidth to 512 from 8meg for torrents is not on, why not 50% hell I'd put up with 2meg but its sick getting 50k/s on a torrent.
also selling me it as unlimited is bad and wrong.

Well yes you may well be downloading legitimate material but a large percentage of P2P traffic isn't legal, they can hardly single out the people playing by the rules, unfortunately the actions of the many out weigh the few.

In regards to the original post i dont think you comprehend the shear amount of power, cooling, maintenance, upgrades and man hours that goes into providing you with what appears to be a straightforward service. As mentioned above the equipment needed to shift the amount of traffic that internet usage generates doesn't come cheap your talking in the millions for high end Juniper and Cisco products.

tolien · 11 Jun 2008 at 21:21

What protocol you use or what it is you're downloading isn't relevant - ISPs can't afford the capacity to let every user use their connections for much more than email and browsing at "peak time". Obviously most users do more than that, but the system relies on some of the userbase not being online at all.

The "what you're downloading is illegal" argument is crap - whether you download 500GB of CAD drawings from work or 500GB of DVD rips from Usenet, the same applies.