A quick traceroute to yahoo from my Cornell Resnet connection shows that we do in fact have an OC-3 connection to the Internet. The connection to Internet 2 is probably many times faster.
Why is it that no ISP can provide true broadband (something like 1.5 Mbps up / 1.5 Mbps down) at a price point that would ensure wide market acceptance, say $50. A T1 line costs on the order of $1000-1500, so lets say a T3 with 28 times the capacity costs $20000. Ok, so with this we have 43.25 Mbps of bandwidth (howstuffworks.com). If we charge $50 per user to break even we have 400 users. Everyone still gets at least 100 kbps up/down even if every single person is maxing their connection. Ok, so obviously we want to turn a profit so we decide that we'll allocate 700 users to this one T3 line. Assuming a 10$ (20%) overhead per subscriber, we still have a profit of $8000 (50*700-(10*700+20000).
Lets see, now even if each subscriber is downloading their porn, N'Sync mp3's etc the total bandwidth per subscriber is 60 kbps or about the speed of a 56k modem. However its more likely that say only 100/700 customers will be fully using their bandwidth at one point, so average total bandwidth ends up being about 430 kbps, a little less than the average DSL dl rate, but much higher than the usual 128 upload cap. So given the high prices for bandwidth on the ISP's end it seems that 1.5 Mbps up and down is not a possibilty at 50$ but that the ISP should have no problem selling 512 kbps up and down without restrictions on servers and the like for 50$. After all, they can afford to provide the 512 kbps of bandwidth per subscriber, so why restrict it? Going out on a limb, I'm sure that with higher speed connections on the ISP's end (OC3, OC12, etc.) comes even greater economies of scale allowing them to profitably offer 768 up and down without restrictions. So why doesn't this exist in the United States? 30% profit (8000 / (20000 bandwidth + 7000 overhead)) doesn't seem that bad!
Conclusion, it must be those damn telco and cable companies preventing a competitive market. Deregulation to break up monopolies is a good thing, folks!
"We have tested the rubber bullets on dogs. It cannot kill the dog, but the dog is stunned and can't run away."
How long before PETA begins an ad campaign against Thailand for animal cruelty by testing weapons with animals? Will this lead to labels on weapons in the same vein as the cosmetics industry such as "This weapon not tested on animals?"
Slashdot Mirror
A quick traceroute to yahoo from my Cornell Resnet connection shows that we do in fact have an OC-3 connection to the Internet. The connection to Internet 2 is probably many times faster.
Lets see, now even if each subscriber is downloading their porn, N'Sync mp3's etc the total bandwidth per subscriber is 60 kbps or about the speed of a 56k modem. However its more likely that say only 100/700 customers will be fully using their bandwidth at one point, so average total bandwidth ends up being about 430 kbps, a little less than the average DSL dl rate, but much higher than the usual 128 upload cap. So given the high prices for bandwidth on the ISP's end it seems that 1.5 Mbps up and down is not a possibilty at 50$ but that the ISP should have no problem selling 512 kbps up and down without restrictions on servers and the like for 50$. After all, they can afford to provide the 512 kbps of bandwidth per subscriber, so why restrict it? Going out on a limb, I'm sure that with higher speed connections on the ISP's end (OC3, OC12, etc.) comes even greater economies of scale allowing them to profitably offer 768 up and down without restrictions. So why doesn't this exist in the United States? 30% profit (8000 / (20000 bandwidth + 7000 overhead)) doesn't seem that bad!
Conclusion, it must be those damn telco and cable companies preventing a competitive market. Deregulation to break up monopolies is a good thing, folks!
How long before PETA begins an ad campaign against Thailand for animal cruelty by testing weapons with animals? Will this lead to labels on weapons in the same vein as the cosmetics industry such as "This weapon not tested on animals?"