FWIW, I recently heard someone ask the question - "how do you go to your investors and tell them you need more money for more bandwidth because you don't want to efficiently manage your existing capacity?"
This is the business case for QoS, IMHO.
Irwin
From what I've seen, there isn't a simple answer. In places where bandwidth is exorbantantly expensive (such as outside the United States), simply over
Which costs more, wholesale, raw bitpipes or qualified engineering talent to create/police the policies needed to maintain QoS? --bill That's the $64k question. :-) provisioning isn't an acceptable answer. However, in some places in the U.S. & Europe, over-provisioning may certainly make more sense. In our area, we're also seeing a lot of pushback against the continued tearing up of streets to lay additional fiber, so QoS may become the only option to meet required service levels. Irwin
FWIW, I recently heard someone ask the question - "how do you go to your investors and tell them you need more money for more bandwidth because you don't want to efficiently manage your existing capacity?"
This is the business case for QoS, IMHO.
Irwin
Which costs more, wholesale, raw bitpipes or qualified engineering talent to create/police the policies needed to maintain QoS?
--bill
That's the $64k question. :-)
From what I've seen, there isn't a simple answer. In places where bandwidth is exorbantantly expensive (such as outside the United States), simply over provisioning isn't an acceptable answer.
Why does BW cost so much? --bill
From what I've seen, there isn't a simple answer. In places where bandwidth is exorbantantly expensive (such as outside the United States), simply over provisioning isn't an acceptable answer.
In Europe it's becoming cheaper too - especially to major cities.
Why does BW cost so much?
My personal feeling is "because people pay the price". This can be seen from talks with a few carriers who are bringing up additional long-haul fiber capacity, and when asked how that will affect the pricing, they just say "We'll stay ahead of the competition". Simon -- Simon Lockhart | Tel: +44 (0)1737 839676 Internet Engineering Manager | Fax: +44 (0)1737 839516 BBC Internet Services | Email: Simon.Lockhart@bbc.co.uk Kingswood Warren,Tadworth,Surrey,UK | URL: http://support.bbc.co.uk/
Why does BW cost so much?
My personal feeling is "because people pay the price". This can be seen
I think at some point in the not-so-distant future, we are going to reach a point where it can't get cheaper. Why? Well, simply, there is an actual, fixed cost as to how much it costs to provide the service, such as: a) dig, b) lay fiber, c) light the fiber, d) pay for muxes, e) have people to build it, manage it, fix it, and monitor it. The only correlative to this is that you will be able to do more with less, but we're bumping our heads on the 40 channels of OC192 these days, and will for a while.
At 03:37 PM 5/29/01 +0000, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
Why does BW cost so much?
It might make more sense to ask "Why is bandwidth so cheap (and getting cheaper so fast) in the US?" The simple answer is: Moore's law, competition (leading to a "fiber glut") and economies of scale. If you're across an ocean from the US, you have to factor in the cost of running underwater cable.
At 03:37 PM 5/29/01 +0000, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
Why does BW cost so much?
It might make more sense to ask "Why is bandwidth so cheap (and getting cheaper so fast) in the US?" The simple answer is: Moore's law, competition (leading to a "fiber glut") and economies of scale.
If you're across an ocean from the US, you have to factor in the cost of running underwater cable.
Actually, this was/is a troll. BW costs outside the US are high because of two things: ) International tariffs based on voice traffic profiles. )local tariffs from monopoly carriers that contribute significant % of a soverigns GDP. The first is a legacy holdover that should be revised. The second is a tough nut to crack. Trans-oceanic capabilities will remain a bottleneck, but they are not as problematic as in the previous decade. Witness Tyco or any of the other folk that have cable-laying capability. Last year they had waiting lines for boats. Now the boats are idle. Too much capacity in water and no-one taking it up. (see first point above) YMMV. --bill
Trans-oceanic capabilities will remain a bottleneck, but they are not as problematic as in the previous decade. Witness Tyco or any of the other folk that have cable-laying capability. Last year they had waiting lines for boats. Now the boats are idle. Too much capacity in water and no-one taking it up. (see first point above)
Transatlantic bandwidth is becoming surprisingly cheap. It's now 50% cheaper to get from New York to London than it is to get from New York to San Jose. Simon -- Simon Lockhart | Tel: +44 (0)1737 839676 Internet Engineering Manager | Fax: +44 (0)1737 839516 BBC Internet Services | Email: Simon.Lockhart@bbc.co.uk Kingswood Warren,Tadworth,Surrey,UK | URL: http://support.bbc.co.uk/
Trans-oceanic capabilities will remain a bottleneck, but they are not as problematic as in the previous decade. Witness Tyco or any of the other folk that have cable-laying capability. Last year they had waiting lines for boats. Now the boats are idle. Too much capacity in water and no-one taking it up. (see first point above)
Transatlantic bandwidth is becoming surprisingly cheap. It's now 50% cheaper to get from New York to London than it is to get from New York to San Jose.
Simon
Yup. However, have you priced an STM1 from Sydney to Tokyo vs STM1 from Sydney to US and Tokyo to US? The two STM1s are about 75% of the cost of the direct STM1. Please repeat the exercise between Rome and Stockholm vs Rome/US & Stockholm/US. --bill
Yup. However, have you priced an STM1 from Sydney to Tokyo vs STM1 from Sydney to US and Tokyo to US? The two STM1s are about 75% of the cost of the direct STM1.
No, but I've priced from US to Tokyo. That's about 10 times the cost of New York to London, or 5 times the price of New York to San Jose. (Admittedly, my US <> Tokyo pricings are from "big carriers" who don't tend to be the most competitive. A quick browse of band-x shows a US<> Tokyo circuit 40% cheaper) Simon -- Simon Lockhart | Tel: +44 (0)1737 839676 Internet Engineering Manager | Fax: +44 (0)1737 839516 BBC Internet Services | Email: Simon.Lockhart@bbc.co.uk Kingswood Warren,Tadworth,Surrey,UK | URL: http://support.bbc.co.uk/
At 12:42 29/05/01, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
Yup. However, have you priced an STM1 from Sydney to Tokyo vs STM1 from Sydney to US and Tokyo to US? The two STM1s are about 75% of the cost of the direct STM1.
Please repeat the exercise between Rome and Stockholm vs Rome/US & Stockholm/US.
The trans-Pacific problem is being solved. Give it another 6-18 months and fibre between US/CA and ANZ or JP or SG should drop significantly in price. Now the problem of adding fibre in/out of China, that could still use some attention, IMHO. FWIW, Tyco (and presumably their competitors) still has/have ships busy in the Pacific Ocean. Ran rja@inet.org
Yeah I found that too Simon, in pricing up an STM1 London to NY not so long ago I found the cost of the two tails from the landing sites to be more than the actual transatlantic leg! Maybe fiber prices are low, so the cost of dropping a cable in water is low but the cost of labour etc to dig across a city remains high. Steve On Tue, 29 May 2001, Simon Lockhart wrote:
Trans-oceanic capabilities will remain a bottleneck, but they are not as problematic as in the previous decade. Witness Tyco or any of the other folk that have cable-laying capability. Last year they had waiting lines for boats. Now the boats are idle. Too much capacity in water and no-one taking it up. (see first point above)
Transatlantic bandwidth is becoming surprisingly cheap. It's now 50% cheaper to get from New York to London than it is to get from New York to San Jose.
Simon
-- Stephen J. Wilcox IP Services Manager, Opal Telecom http://www.opaltelecom.co.uk/ Tel: 0161 222 2000 Fax: 0161 222 2008
On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 11:59:12PM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Fooey!
If you're across an ocean from the US, you have to factor in the cost of running underwater cable.
If that is the case, why is it almost the same cost, if not more expensive, to get a LA<>NY OC3 then a NY<>LND STM1?
Depends on the terrain, and the rights of way you might have to purchase, but it's not uncommon for under-sea cable to be cheaper km for km than terrestrial cable. This is especially true in sparsely-populated island countries where target markets are on the coast, and where you can drop in for regen on land to avoid having to do it under the water [1]. I have heard of people ploughing fibre into riverbeds to extend coastal under-sea networks inland, rather than doing conventional in-ground builds. Joe [1] the expensive bits of under-sea deployment are at landing points, and in the shallow waters approaching them. However, powering active optics under the water involves dropping copper into the water to carry DC, and upgrading regen equipment deployed at depth is far more annoying than doing it on land.
At 12:15 AM 5/30/01, Joe Abley wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 11:59:12PM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Fooey!
If you're across an ocean from the US, you have to factor in the cost of running underwater cable.
If that is the case, why is it almost the same cost, if not more expensive, to get a LA<>NY OC3 then a NY<>LND STM1?
Depends on the terrain, and the rights of way you might have to purchase, but it's not uncommon for under-sea cable to be cheaper km for km than terrestrial cable.
This is especially true in sparsely-populated island countries where target markets are on the coast, and where you can drop in for regen on land to avoid having to do it under the water [1].
Couldn't prove it by me... We were quoted $30,000/month for an E1 to Bonaire (Netherlands Antilles). Every part of Bonaire is on the coast (max distance on land is about 4km). Nice hunk of fiber running over to Curacao (30 miles) then on to Miami. Nobody seems to know how to quote a circuit over that fiber, though, other than the ISP on Curacao who quoted $30,000/month. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Senie dts@senie.com Amaranth Networks Inc. http://www.amaranth.com
On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 11:59:12PM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
If you're across an ocean from the US, you have to factor in the cost of running underwater cable.
If that is the case, why is it almost the same cost, if not more expensive, to get a LA<>NY OC3 then a NY<>LND STM1?
i would imagine that the cost of trenching across a continent is somewhat more labour intensive than reeling cable out of the back of a boat. although slicing a cable break in the desert of Nevada is probably less labour intensive than hauling a cable up in the middle of the atlantic. but then again, there are probably far fewer errant backhoes in the atlantic. -- [ Jim Mercer jim@reptiles.org +1 416 410-5633 ] [ Now with more and longer words for your reading enjoyment. ]
On Wed, 30 May 2001 00:27:45 EDT, Jim Mercer said:
but then again, there are probably far fewer errant backhoes in the atlantic.
Well, we *did* learn our lesson and quit wrapping our cables in the waterproof paper that the sharks found absolutely yummy.... We *did*, right? ;)
No, just deep sea fishing boats... -C
but then again, there are probably far fewer errant backhoes in the atlantic.
-- [ Jim Mercer jim@reptiles.org +1 416 410-5633 ] [ Now with more and longer words for your reading enjoyment. ]
-- --------------------------- Christopher A. Woodfield rekoil@semihuman.com PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB887618B
At 11:59 PM 5/29/01 -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Fooey!
Haven't heard that technical term lately. Barry!
If you're across an ocean from the US, you have to factor in the cost of running underwater cable.
If that is the case, why is it almost the same cost, if not more expensive, to get a LA<>NY OC3 then a NY<>LND STM1?
Underwater cable isn't the only factor, and probably isn't the primary factor, but it is a factor. When you're across the ocean, other factors + UWCable > other factors alone.
participants (12)
-
Albert Meyer -
Alex Rubenstein -
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Christopher A. Woodfield -
Daniel Senie -
Irwin Lazar -
Jim Mercer -
Joe Abley -
RJ Atkinson -
Simon Lockhart -
Stephen J. Wilcox -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu