[kwlug-disc] Hitting Bell / Rogers where it hurts?

[unsolicited at swiz.ca]

Note to list managers: I did not see this message from Eric come across.
Perhaps a glitch on my end, but I don't see it.

> On 01/02/11 05:32 PM, Eric Gerlach wrote:
>> Here's what gets me about this whole thing:
>>
>> - Cost to install fibre: fixed wrt GBs used
>> - Cost to install copper to the home: fixed wrt GBs used
>> - Cost to install all the networking equipment: fixed wrt GBs used
>> - Cost to maintain equipment: fixed wrt GBs used
>>
>> All of the above are fixed wrt the GB used.  They are variable wrt Mbps
>> offered.
>>
>> Quality of service has been in networking equipment for years now.
>> So, when someone goes over their 25GB limit, don't charge them more,
>> just throw them into a lower QoS tier.

But it's not the same cost per GB.

It depends upon the expected utilization rate. Both from the home, and in
aggregate at each point of aggregation up the line.

You cannot deliver fibre to the home, then assume at the first point of
aggregation that all connections will use the full bandwidth at full rate
24x7, your aggregation point could neither take it all in, nor forward it
up. At the next level up, repeat. [The same issue exists in every
installation, your switch backbone is always less than the total possible
aggregate of the incoming ports, let alone the switch fabric. And you can
buy the same switch, for more $$$, with faster backbones.]

So, the question becomes ... what rate do you assume?
- and you don't dare be wrong, because the cost of fixing it, by expanding
an installation and running another fibre to it, is prohibitive.

Sort of like the situation we're in now, with copper, and increased
(video) usage.

Now you can argue they run multiple fibres, and so on and so forth - my
only point here is that the cost is not fixed. And you're peering into the
crystal ball, in some fashion, at some point.

What was the phrase ... 640KB ought to be enough for anybody?