you could consider using something like this. 
Home :: Hexagon.cc
Home :: Hexagon.cc
-
Amazon Deals - ToS - Like us?
Canada got FUPed so freaking hard.
- Thread starter Sushubh
- Start date
- Replies 45
- Views 21,936
mgcarley
Founder, Hayai Broadband
while u r right from cust point of view i would really suggest to read mg's quote below with a calm mind and u will understand that what he said is not wrong. Besides he was talking abt charging youtube and not the cust
Are we really "vampiric" from the customer's point of view? Surely that would mean bloodsucking and charging excessively for services, would it not?
The point here is that even if we'd be charging Youtube it would only be whatever is needed to recover any costs incurred in doing so - since the customer wouldn't be paying for the bandwidth as it would be inside the network, somebody has to - and with the amount that would be transferred, it would be a financial black-hole if their caches (designed to increase performance of their site to our customers) utilized 100 or 1000mbit/s of our bandwidth consistantly, that could be utilized for other traffic were the caches not there. Essentially then, they too would be customers.
Besides, that's why they take revenue from the customers (or in Youtube's case, advertisers) - to pay for bandwidth and all that.
---------- Post added at 06:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:15 PM ----------
you could consider using something like this. Home :: Hexagon.cc
That might work, but the point here would be so that we could essentially guarantee users a way of finding torrent peers within our network, thereby saving them cash money on data plans and saving US cash money on flat-rate plans... win-win.
Are we really "vampiric" from the customer's point of view? Surely that would mean bloodsucking and charging excessively for services, would it not?
The point here is that even if we'd be charging Youtube it would only be whatever is needed to recover any costs incurred in doing so - since the customer wouldn't be paying for the bandwidth as it would be inside the network, somebody has to - and with the amount that would be transferred, it would be a financial black-hole if their caches (designed to increase performance of their site to our customers) utilized 100 or 1000mbit/s of our bandwidth consistantly, that could be utilized for other traffic were the caches not there. Essentially then, they too would be customers.
Besides, that's why they take revenue from the customers (or in Youtube's case, advertisers) - to pay for bandwidth and all that.
---------- Post added at 06:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:15 PM ----------
you could consider using something like this.
Home :: Hexagon.ccThat might work, but the point here would be so that we could essentially guarantee users a way of finding torrent peers within our network, thereby saving them cash money on data plans and saving US cash money on flat-rate plans... win-win.
Are we really "vampiric" from the customer's point of view? Surely that would mean bloodsucking and charging excessively for services, would it not?
The point here is that even if we'd be charging Youtube it would only be whatever is needed to recover any costs incurred in doing so - since the customer wouldn't be paying for the bandwidth as it would be inside the network, somebody has to - and with the amount that would be transferred, it would be a financial black-hole if their caches (designed to increase performance of their site to our customers) utilized 100 or 1000mbit/s of our bandwidth consistantly, that could be utilized for other traffic were the caches not there. Essentially then, they too would be customers.
Besides, that's why they take revenue from the customers (or in Youtube's case, advertisers) - to pay for bandwidth and all that.
---------- Post added at 06:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:15 PM ----------
That might work, but the point here would be so that we could essentially guarantee users a way of finding torrent peers within our network, thereby saving them cash money on data plans and saving US cash money on flat-rate plans... win-win.
i was not implying u MG lol just agreeing in general that any ISP should not increase charges to the cust. Besides it was my fault coz i made it feel that i was agreeing with what he said abt u. btw i love Vampires lol :evil:
The point here is that even if we'd be charging Youtube it would only be whatever is needed to recover any costs incurred in doing so - since the customer wouldn't be paying for the bandwidth as it would be inside the network, somebody has to - and with the amount that would be transferred, it would be a financial black-hole if their caches (designed to increase performance of their site to our customers) utilized 100 or 1000mbit/s of our bandwidth consistantly, that could be utilized for other traffic were the caches not there. Essentially then, they too would be customers.
Besides, that's why they take revenue from the customers (or in Youtube's case, advertisers) - to pay for bandwidth and all that.
---------- Post added at 06:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:15 PM ----------
That might work, but the point here would be so that we could essentially guarantee users a way of finding torrent peers within our network, thereby saving them cash money on data plans and saving US cash money on flat-rate plans... win-win.
i was not implying u MG lol just agreeing in general that any ISP should not increase charges to the cust. Besides it was my fault coz i made it feel that i was agreeing with what he said abt u. btw i love Vampires lol :evil:
mgcarley
Founder, Hayai Broadband
i was not implying u MG lol just agreeing in general that any ISP should not increase charges to the cust. Besides it was my fault coz i made it feel that i was agreeing with what he said abt u. btw i love Vampires lol :evil:
I think that the idea of having all these caches in the networks of large ISPs is to try and reduce the overall costs so that we can get away with charging only say Rs2500 for a 5 or 10mbit/s connection (which would actually cost about 15x that much if you got that kind of speed dedicated at the same wholesale rates), rather than relying on things like contention alone (which doesn't work very well either and isn't a good measurement of performance, but that's something I've also gone over in other threads).
But otherwise duly noted
I think that the idea of having all these caches in the networks of large ISPs is to try and reduce the overall costs so that we can get away with charging only say Rs2500 for a 5 or 10mbit/s connection (which would actually cost about 15x that much if you got that kind of speed dedicated at the same wholesale rates), rather than relying on things like contention alone (which doesn't work very well either and isn't a good measurement of performance, but that's something I've also gone over in other threads).
But otherwise duly noted
mgcarley
Founder, Hayai Broadband
You could modify the same infographic to apply to any country - India or New Zealand would make for excellent comparisons.
Even though it has got some pretty horrible FUPs on most ISPs, at least one ISP in Australia is going in the opposite direction having released 1TB plans on ADSL2+ for AUD$130 (about $130 USD or Rs6000-ish), which frankly isn't too bad even compared to Europe.
Even though it has got some pretty horrible FUPs on most ISPs, at least one ISP in Australia is going in the opposite direction having released 1TB plans on ADSL2+ for AUD$130 (about $130 USD or Rs6000-ish), which frankly isn't too bad even compared to Europe.
mgcarley
Founder, Hayai Broadband
1TB for 6000 bucks is pretty good value for money deal.
Ya... hopefully Hayai NZ will be buying bacndwidth on the Australian market rather than the NZ market where it's about 5x as expensive... one upstream provider has this thing going on whereby we can plug our equipment in in Auckland and they'll carry our traffic to Sydney for nothing - and peer in Sydney with all the big Aussie ISPs to boot, as kind of a way to combine the NZ and Australia internets... maybe I'm not explaining it very well but that's the jist of it.
Ya... hopefully Hayai NZ will be buying bacndwidth on the Australian market rather than the NZ market where it's about 5x as expensive... one upstream provider has this thing going on whereby we can plug our equipment in in Auckland and they'll carry our traffic to Sydney for nothing - and peer in Sydney with all the big Aussie ISPs to boot, as kind of a way to combine the NZ and Australia internets... maybe I'm not explaining it very well but that's the jist of it.
i wish there was a compilation of average bandwidth costing in various countries with respect to the purchasing power of the people to give a better idea of how things are now that FUP is becoming a global phenomenon.
i dont know why but internet usage has increased by leaps and bounds over the years.. govt should ask these ISP to promote it even further and to encourage people to use internet.... whereas these ISP's are making full effort to make people move away from internet.... FUP sucks... by the way if the ISP's only decide that how much is "Fair" in FUP then for what are the customers there... just paying up the huge bills and always following up the "T&C subject to change "