Jeff Wheeler wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Dave Temkin <davet1@gmail.com> wrote:
I disagree. Even at $1/Mbit and 6Tbit of traffic (they do more), that's still $72M/year in revenue that they weren't recognizing before. Given that that traffic was actually *costing* them money to absorb before, turning the balance and making that kind of money would be very favorably looked upon in
Yeah, because it makes a lot of sense to fuck with a billion dollar a month revenue stream so you can extract a few million dollars more per month from IP carriers. This definitely makes more sense than, say, running the billion dollar a month side a little more efficiently.
You need to understand the scale of comcast's expenses and revenue on the access and transport side of their business, in order to have a remotely intelligent opinion about whether or not they are doing anything smart with the peering/transit side, in these conditions.
I do. And yes, they are happy to "fuck with a billion dollar a month revenue stream" (that happens to be low margin) in order to set a precedent so that when traffic is 60Tbit instead of 6Tbit, across the *same* customer base they have today that's insisting on getting that $19.99/month promo deal for life they make up the infrastructure investment on the backs of the content providers and not their customers. $1B/month from your customers + $1B/month from your content providers is what they'd ideally like to see and this is just laying the groundwork for it. They have a captive audience. What percentage of their customers who they're offering 10Mbit+ connections to do you think have a 10Mbit+ alternative? It's not very many. -Dave