Quote:
|
Originally Posted by erol
The costs of 'getting internet' into your house are not generaly refered to as 'bandwidth costs' in my experience. The cost of getting a pipe / wire into your house are infrastructure costs. These are the same if you have just cable TV, 150k service, 600k service, 1meg service and beyond (if and when NTL decide to add higher service tiers).
It costs the same to NTL to deliver a 150k service as a 1 meg service - except for the external bandwidth costs (assuming a 1 meg users uses more external bandwidth than a 150k users). However these external bandwidth costs are a tiny tiny fraction of the overall costs and are falling faster than processing power is falling.
So if you double the bandwidth available to the end users, you do not have to put in a new bigger pipe - you just use the existing one. Thus cost impact is negliable (upto the limit of the pipes max capacity - which with cable is far beyond the 1 meg top tier currently offered). You may also have to upgrade the UBR's if people use more data on a higher tier service (as opposed to using the same amount quicker). Again though this would not normaly be considered a bandwidth cost but rather an infrastructure cost and the 'pipe' into your house remains the same.
|
I think you're misunderstanding me. Of course the cable between your house and ntl is no bigger - I mean that would be crazy if every time you upgraded your service they had to lay another cable!!
What I mean is that if you double the size of the potential capacity, you would have to assume that, even sporadically, more actual data will be consumed en masse.
This will cost ntl more money, this means the concept will not work.
Also, I don't see how providing an email server (or two) can cost more than the data transfer from ntl's provider.