Stephen Shaw sshaw at
Tue Aug 21 09:35:56 MDT 2007

On 8/21/07, Steven Alligood <steve at> wrote:
> The issue here isn't what services should or should not be open, but
> what makes the company providing the service money, and what looses them
> money.
> Say they charge $30/month for the cable modem service.  After
> infrastructure costs (helpdesk, installation, fiber runs, routers,
> servers, etc) and bandwidth costs, what is left is profit.  You cannot
> change most of the infrastructure costs, but you can affect how much
> bandwidth people use.  Add to this the need to stay competitive and
> constantly show users that you allow them tons more than their
> competitors, and at the same time not wanting any user to cost you more
> than you make.
> It is true that most users do not come anywhere near the limits, but the
> 5% that do cost a lot of money.
> Example.
> Suppose that Internet bandwidth costs $20/megabit.  Now suppose that
> your top 5% bandwidth users mostly are using torrents (or any peer to
> peer), and averaging 6 megabits of traffic each.  That becomes
> $120/month of cost, whereas they only make $10/month on that customer.
> Sure, the other 2000 customers on that router blade combined are only
> averaging 20 megabits (together) and the company overall makes money.
> Now put pressure on the CEO to make even more profit, and where can it
> be found?  Again, the top 5% of the customers, each of which can be
> charged more (profit) or restricted to lower bandwidth (lower expenses)
> or annoyed enough to leave (lower expenses).  Even worse is if they have
> to add another router to handle the traffic on that particular hub, and
> they will be even more inclined to let the peer to peer users go away.
> -Steve
> Clint Savage wrote:
> > My friend Christer Edwards posted an article about how he is getting
> > the shaft when it comes to torrent traffic.  He's just sharing his
> > torrents for Ubuntu.  I disagree with Comcast charging him for his
> > bittorent traffic as if its not appropriate.  There are a lot of
> > reasons we need to keep them from doing this, but I think Christer's
> > article says it best.
> >
> /*
> PLUG:, #utah on
> Unsubscribe:
> Don't fear the penguin.
> */

Not to agree or disagree, but bandwidth costs money.  As worthy a cause it
still costs money.   Maybe xmission has a better approach.  Give a cap.
Once the cap is used up, allow the customer to purchase more.  Then it
really doesn't matter what the customer, to a certain point, is doing with
their connection.


PS  I don't like comcast anyways, they cut my fiber, :/

More information about the PLUG mailing list