Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?

> > Comparative to Milwaukee, I'd be guessing delivering high performance
> > internet and making enough money to fund expansion and eat is harder at
> > a non US ISP. It's harder, but there's nothing wrong with it. It compels
> > you to get inventive.
> The costs to provide DSL up here in Milwaukee are kind of insane,

Insanity is a relative term :slight_smile: Try to deliver Internet outside of the
US in countries that share western culture and you'll start to
understand why caps are seen as an excusable form of treatment for the

Okay, so, let's pretend that today I'm sitting in Sweden. Go.

Extremely high speed connectivity, uncapped, well in excess of what is
delivered in most parts of the US. I was just informed that Road Runner
upgraded locally from 5 to 7Mbps a month ago, and has a premium 15Mbps
offering now, but there are folks with 100Mbps over there.

So, your point is, what, that it's easier to deliver Internet outside of
the US in countries that share western culture? That could be true, we're
tied up by some large communications companies who don't want carrier-
neutral networks to the residence.

If we just want to start making up claims that fit the observed facts, I
would say that the amount that a user can download from the Internet in
countries that share western culture tends to decrease with distance from
Sweden, though not linearly. AU gets placed on the far end of that. :slight_smile:
(That's both a joke AND roughly true!)

Clearly they're not something we'd prefer, but they are useful
to manage demand in the context of high costs with customers who
benchmark against global consumer pricing (or those who think that the
Internet is a homogeneous thing)

...Hmm, that's a good idea, perhaps you should do that (get out of the
US) before you start saying what we're doing is "wrong with your
business" or "insane" or perhaps unreasonable.

And I agree with Mark Newton's sentiments. It's completely delusional of
you to insist that the rest of the world follow the same definition of
"reasonable". We're not the same. Which is good in some respects as it
does create some diversity. And I'm quite pleased about that :slight_smile:

Well, since I didn't insist that you follow any definition of "reasonable",
and in fact I started out by saying

: Continued reliance on broadband users using tiny percentages of their
: broadband connection certainly makes the ISP business model easier, but
: in the long term, isn't going to work out well for the Internet's
: continuing evolution.

it would seem clear that I'm not particularly interested in your local
economics, no matter how sucky you've allowed them to be, but was more
interested in talking about the problem in general. I *am* interested
in the impact that it has on the evolution of the Internet.

That you're so pleased to be "diverse" in a way that makes it more
difficult for your users to join the modern era and use modern apps
is sufficient to make me wonder. There's certainly some "delusional"
going on there.

... JG

With respect, Joe, you also said this:

# Of course, that's obvious. The point here is that if your business is so
# fragile that you can only deliver each broadband customer a dialup modem's
# worth of bandwidth, something's wrong with your business.

Now, I don't know what you think you've trying to achieve by throwing around
doubts and aspersions about other peoples' business viability without the
faintest idea about the constraints said businesses are working under, but
whatever it is I doubt you're achieving it :slight_smile:

Thought experiment: With $250 per megabit per month transit and $30 - $50
per month tail costs, what would _you_ do to create the perfect internet

Be warned that the industry is already full of sharks who don't know what
they're talking about, and if what you suggest happens to match the business
model deployed by one of those guys who has subsequently gone broke, I
reserve the right to point and laugh derisively.


  - mark

I would fix the problem, ie get more competition into these two areas where the prices are obvisouly way higher than in most parts of the civilised world, much higher than is motivated by the placement there in the middle of an ocean.

Perhaps it's hard to get the transoceanic cost down to european levels, but a 25 time difference, that's just too much.

And about the local tail, that's also 5-10 times higher than normal in the western world, I don't see that being motivated by some fundamental difference.