Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy
These two goals are contradictory. The argument against the rate hikes is that MAINTAINING the network is cheap... that may be, but UPGRADING it isn't, and OVERHAULING it most definitely isn't.
|
Read my post, the cost of bandwidth (maintaining it working with connectivity to other major backbones) is 3ct/gigabyte.
Adding the "worst case scenario" layout by Bell (that's that the network is no longer economically feasible and basically adding deferred payment for future renovation) is 8cts/gigabyte.
And the future fixed operation cost for them (whether they do network overhaul or not), costs of their connectivity to other major providers is declining. Current level is about $5~$7 per mbps (again 316GB a month roughly, so 1.5cents~2.2cents per GB) to less than $1 in 2015 or before ($0.3cents) and they argue they need more money expanding? come on... seriously?
Companies that dedicate themselves on laying out major backbones like Level3 or Global Crossing don't stop building backbones, that means bandwidth only gets cheaper and not the other way around.
This is why ISPs in countries where connectivity are easier to add (denser population) like Japan/Korea/HK keep offering higher and higher speed connections. We as a developed country should be following leads if we can't create the lead, not let greedy corporations do things to maximize their profit IMHO. Heck, even without the change (getting into usage based) they are already milking it like nth else.