Quote:
|
Originally Posted by erol
If I am it is not on purpuse and I appologise for it. I am getting a bit confused when you refer to 'bandwidth costs' but I am not sure we undersand the same thing from this.
|
Don't worry it's probably me! I'm not explaining myself very well I think.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by erol
It will cost NTL more money if they have to increase how much external connectivty they buy to support users, which is a reasonable assumption.
|
This is what I mean. I'm presuming that if the 150k customers suddenly had 10 times the capacity, then they would use at least a little more bandwidth than they do now.
As ntl would be paying by the mb/gb/tb then the costs would be higher to ntl.
You may be right in the fact that the additional cost would be tiny - not being an expert on the rate cards for connections through telehouse (assuming ntl go through telehouse) I wouldn't know - but I would have thought that this would be the highest cost to an ISP. But, like I said, I don't know, I'm only taking educated guesses.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by erol
The fact is, if external connectivty was a significant cost then you just would not see retail services at only a few pounds more than the BT wholesale IP Stream product, which only pays to get data from customer to ISP and nothing else (ie not external connectivity). The fact that many many companies can operated on BT wholesale prices + a few pounds more to cover everything else (external connectivity, staff and office costs, profit etc etc) is about the simplest clearest 'proof' that external connecivity is a tiny fraction of the cost of provision.
|
I guess that highlights what a mockery BT have made of the product! It costs more to put the line a short distance into your house than the global gigabits of lines circling the earth! Good example.
PS...I'd have repped you Erol, but it says I have to spread it round a bit, before repping you again (strange it must have been months since I last repped you!)