Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Data Storage Technology

ISPs 'Exaggerate the Cost of Data' 173

Posted by timothy
from the learned-it-from-the-telcos dept.
Barence writes "ISPs are wildly exaggerating the cost of increased internet traffic, according to a new report. Fixed and mobile broadband providers have claimed their costs are 'ballooning' because of the expense of delivering high-bandwidth services such as video-on-demand. However, a new report from Plum Consulting claims the cost per additional gigabyte of data for fixed-line ISPs is between €0.01-0.03 per GB. The report labels claims of ballooning costs a 'myth.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ISPs 'Exaggerate the Cost of Data'

Comments Filter:
  • Yea. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 08, 2011 @07:35AM (#37647012)

    No fucking shit.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 08, 2011 @08:00AM (#37647084)

    You obviously don't understand that Plum Consulting is just pointing out that these companies are using price fixing. They all make an excuse, then all jack their rates. It's collaboration, which carries some hefty fines.

  • Re:Carefull (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gmack (197796) <{ten.erifrenni} {ta} {kcamg}> on Saturday October 08, 2011 @08:06AM (#37647094) Homepage Journal

    Not really, In places where the b/w costs are competitive (server hosting) I don't pay much more than that. ISPs only get to charge more because there are fewer options, on the other hand, last time I was in a telco building pretty much everyone was using ATM switching equipment and that will drive the costs up.

  • Re:Carefull (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gmack (197796) <{ten.erifrenni} {ta} {kcamg}> on Saturday October 08, 2011 @08:31AM (#37647170) Homepage Journal

    That is exactly my point. The entire cost of running an ISP is the costs associated with the "last mile" and they are using that to overcharge. I would be much more understanding if the limitations I faced were due to the copper rather than artificial charges from the ISP side.

  • by jenningsthecat (1525947) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @08:44AM (#37647204)

    I've been saying the same thing for years - as soon as any technology reaches the stage where it becomes essential infrastructure, ownership should gradually transfer to the public. And to those of you who say, "What about capitalism and free enterprise", I say "What about all the tax breaks, government handouts, favourable legislation, and public rights-of-way that these 'free market' 'capitalist' companies took advantage of to get where they are?"

    It strikes me that privatized infrastructure is like patents and copyrights in this regard. A period of full ownership and control is required in order to ensure a fair return on investment and to incentivize creation; after that period expires, the thing created belongs to the public. Everyone who complains about the screwed-up patent and copyright systems ought also to be complaining about the continued private, for-profit ownership of such things as communications infrastructure.

  • by tech4 (2467692) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @09:00AM (#37647254)
    The overage charges aren't supposed to make them lots of money, it's supposed to keep heavy bandwidth users in control so that the rest of the network doesn't suffer. Also, it doesn't matter how much it actually costs to the ISPs at that point. Nowhere they say it costs them $2.50/GB, but that's the price they're billing from you if you use over something like 250GB a month, which most people won't. They're free to do so. You're also free to choose your provider. However, don't bitch if there are no providers that sell you at the price you want.

    Note that sometimes just upgrading their network doesn't work. There is a limited amount of bandwidth available between ISPs and from city to city and to and from overseas. It costs billions to lay down new such cables in the bottom of the atlantic. When your ISP is the size of major ISP's, they just don't have the possibility to offer everyone dedicated bandwidth. It has to be shared.

    If they have a need to control the amount of bandwidth some heavy users use on their network, then that's the best way to go about it. Or in fact, they could either offer overage fees or severely limit your bandwidth. However, they have saw the need to do it make sure the rest of the customers aren't affected. Those torrenting and using full 100Mbps home line 24/7 are just leeches that are bringing down the network quality for rest of the customers.

    Of course, if you don't agree you can always go start your ISP. Seems like you'd make a fortune since you've suddenly found so easy and cheap way to do.
  • Of course, if you don't agree you can always go start your ISP.

    The 12 year olds approach to arguments.

  • Re:Carefull (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zippthorne (748122) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @10:52AM (#37647832) Journal

    The truth is never in the middle. Sometimes the truth isn't even on the same axis as the claims. The truth is what the truth is, and you can't find it by simply averaging the claims of interested parties.

    The truth, in this case, is that the ISPs are balkanized monopolies. Except for a few places, you've only got one or two options in any given area. Since there's no real competition, they can basically charge what they want. The costs don't really come into it.

  • by lolcutusofbong (2041610) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @12:19PM (#37648312)
    No, the adult approach is to realize that in countries without a common-carrier law for ISPs, it's prohibitively expensive to start a new ISP, so effort is better spent getting better deals out of existing ISPs.
  • by slackbheep (1420367) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @12:25PM (#37648340)
    Oh come on, you think Bell is charging $13/gb overage just to "keep us in line" and not to line their pockets? If they wanted to keep users in line, they'd throttle or contact the account owner and advise them of the issue/threaten fees. Instead they're skipping those steps and laughing all the way to the bank.
  • by kilodelta (843627) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @03:30PM (#37649502) Homepage
    Is power. And power had been fairly stable. Add to that the fact that newer routing gear isn't as power hungry as the old and you can see we are getting raked over the coals.

    It's the same thing with telephony. The long distance market fell apart because the cost to carry the calls kept dropping with increased levels of automation. Now long distance is bundled in with the normal monthly cost of most phone plans wired or wireless.

    And even wireless services, they're getting increasingly less expensive to provide too. But they'll try to charge all the market will bear.

    And need I bring up banks that rely on some of the technologies above? Why do you pay a foreign ATM fee that's a full 30% of the average $20 withdrawal when we KNOW that the cost for the network transports are hundreths of a cent per transaction? The bottom dropped out, but banks being greedy, rapacious bastards, will charge all the market will bear.
  • Re:Carefull (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bengie (1121981) on Saturday October 08, 2011 @04:22PM (#37649864)

    Internet protocol is meant to be P2P, but routing tables aren't. They work best with a hierarchy.

Things are not as simple as they seems at first. - Edward Thorp

Working...