Bandwith *rant*

[Floyd10]

Is it just me, or does bandwith seem like a scam? Does it ACTUALLY cost to have someone access a server? If you have a static IP, that wouldn't cost anymore than what you're paying already. Where does this come in? Bandwith actually used to be free.


Edit by moderator: you've been warned about the profanity before.  Please do not try to get around the filters.  IF YOU CAN NOT SAY SOMETHING WITHOUT CURSING, LIKELY IT IS NOT WORTH SAYING.

[Daniel270]

And have you noticed (those of you who have DSL) that as more people get online, that DSL's speed is slowly dropping?  Soon we'll be paying outrageous prices for the equivalent of dialup

[Floyd10]

and Dialup will be slower

[shmokes]

I remember back in the day when everybody in the DSL camp said, "Sure, Cable has a higher burstable throughput, but you'all are sharing a single pipe with your whole neighborhood where as each person on DSL has a dedicated line."  

And then, slowly, people quit making that claim.  Were residential ADSL lines ever dedicated, or were people just confused thinking that all DSL lines were created equal?

I used to think I had a dedicated line, but now know for a fact that I do not.

[kevin]

I have a few friends who work or have worked at the local cable ISP. They pay a flat rate for a constant connection at X mbit. For every second they go over this amount they're charged by the second depending on the amount. It's strange, you'd think all these hosting and communications companies would run the lines, buy routers and servers, keep them operating, and upgrade them for free.

Think of it this way.. Does it actually cost money to have me drive my car down the road? Then why does the government have to take a bunch of tax payers money for roads then?


Kevin

[saint]

Road painting...
Road repair...
Road re-paving
Road cleaning...
State Patrol officers...
Electricity for street lights...
Surveillance cameras...
etc.

Think of it this way.. Does it actually cost money to have me drive my car down the road? Then why does the government have to take a bunch of tax payers money for roads then?


Kevin

[kevin]

And that's exactly why I tried to draw the analogy...

[abrannan]

Is it just me, or does bandwith seem like a scam? Does it ACTUALLY cost to have someone access a server? If you have a static IP, that wouldn't cost anymore than what you're paying already. Where does this come in? Bandwith actually used to be free.

No, bandwidth is not a scam.  
Yes, it does cost to have someone access a server.  The equipment that can handle larger bandwidth loads is excruciatingly expensive.  In order to guarantee quality of service, you have to make sure that you disincent people from using too much of that bandwidth.  Allocated bandwidth with additional cost for spikes is the only way to realistically achieve that.  
Yes, static IP addresses cost more in terms of managment overhead than dynamic addressing.  As an ISP or other organization, you have to pay for IP space.  With static IPs in a largely geographically divergent environment, there is a lot of manual configuration of network equipment to make sure that traffic is being handled appropriately.  With dynamic addressing, much of that work is automatically handled.  That can reduce the number of network administrators needed, with each one costing (after salary, benefits, etc) roughly $100K/year.
On what planet was bandwidth ever free?  

[Floyd10]

Is it just me, or does bandwith seem like a scam? Does it ACTUALLY cost to have someone access a server? If you have a static IP, that wouldn't cost anymore than what you're paying already. Where does this come in? Bandwith actually used to be free.

Ok, thank you for clearing that up.

No, bandwidth is not a scam.  
Yes, it does cost to have someone access a server.  The equipment that can handle larger bandwidth loads is excruciatingly expensive.  In order to guarantee quality of service, you have to make sure that you disincent people from using too much of that bandwidth.  Allocated bandwidth with additional cost for spikes is the only way to realistically achieve that.  
Yes, static IP addresses cost more in terms of managment overhead than dynamic addressing.  As an ISP or other organization, you have to pay for IP space.  With static IPs in a largely geographically divergent environment, there is a lot of manual configuration of network equipment to make sure that traffic is being handled appropriately.  With dynamic addressing, much of that work is automatically handled.  That can reduce the number of network administrators needed, with each one costing (after salary, benefits, etc) roughly $100K/year.
On what planet was bandwidth ever free?