Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sirkali Rural Tamilnadu
    Posts
    738

    Will bandwidth prices be back to sanity?

    Bandwidth and consequently dedicated server prices have been plummeting every day primarily because of Cogent

    If this article is true, will it mean that bandwidth prices and overall web hosting prices will become reasonable?
    http://www.americasnetwork.com/ameri...l.jsp?id=21161

    Cheers
    Balaji
    I am now happily selling Natural Herbal Hair Oil - happy to be so far removed from technology!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    382
    I really don't think Cogent is going to go under. Not anytime soon anyways.

    What I could see however... may be Cogent working on getting most of these lines setup, and these clients on board, and then raising their prices.

    So you may be right, prices may go up yet, but I think it will be a long time before that happens, and chances are somebody else will try to offer the lowest cost fiber connectivity before too long.

    Just my 2 bits.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Posts
    367
    i see more of the same

    cheap bandwidth
    newbies
    burn outs

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    852

    Re: Will bandwidth prices be back to sanity?

    Originally posted by MotleyFool
    overall web hosting prices will become reasonable?
    Web hosting companies all but give their hosting away, how much cheaper can it get?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sirkali Rural Tamilnadu
    Posts
    738
    my goodness!

    I was telling we need to see higher prices to make a decent living

    Cheers
    Balaji
    I am now happily selling Natural Herbal Hair Oil - happy to be so far removed from technology!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    141
    I dont understand why your complaining! It's like you want to pay more! It's simple economics: The more capacity bandwidth providers have the cheaper they will sell bandwidth for! Providers spend the late 90's expanding their data pipes because they though there would be huge demand for them because of the internet explosion. Now thousands of miles of "dark fiber" lay there so they have to do something with it. I'm not sure why you didnt expect this, I think in 10 years we will be buying a terabyte for $1 not a gigabyte. It might sound crazy now but it's not. As routers get faster and faster and more fiber gets laid bandwidth will get cheaper and cheaper.

    I sort of know where your coming from though as I myself am starting a hosting company I understand that competitors are selling hosting for dirt cheap, and you know what? I dont care! Because I know that in 6 months they will be gone and i'm still going to be here.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    2,422
    Originally posted by TheException
    I really don't think Cogent is going to go under. Not anytime soon anyways.
    Hmnn... I never, ever, assume anything about the financial state of companies - especially those who have big capital investments and uncertain cash flow.

    http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/qui...d=0&o_symb=coi

    Enron and all the other blow ups just go to show you that cooking the books is not a rare event. So I trust charts more than financials and certainly more that gut feel.

    Could turn into
    http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/qui...d=157372&time=

    Level 3 looking poor, a failed test of top and poised to test the recent significant lows and watch out.

    http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/qui...d=102815&time=

    Genuity, yikes.
    http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/qui...=1152908&time=

    Clearly there is more bandwidth than costs and revenue justify. That can't go on forever.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Glika Nera - Athens - Greece - Europe
    Posts
    2,295
    Originally posted by mlip129
    I dont understand why your complaining! It's like you want to pay more!
    Yes, indeed that's what I would want. It sounds funny but is also simple. Me as a dedicated server provider I can say that I make more money (in relation to quantity) form 270$/mbit Yipes bw then 30$/mbit Cogent. Profits are percentages of the costs and therefore the best thing that could happen to me is that Cogent went Chapter 11 and prives returned to an 200$/mbit average... then it would be profitable again.

  9. #9
    As an out of work telecom guy lemme let you in on a few things...

    ALL transport is overbuilt!!!

    AT&T has rings upon rings upon rings and in each ring are HUNDREDS of little pieces of glass called dark fiber...why is it dark? cause they can't sell it!

    Why can't they sell it? because they are now using spectrum multiplexing to make a single strand carry not an OC3, not an OC48 or even an OC192. No, now they can put (give or take working from memory) 48 seperate beams, on a single fiber. That's so much bandwidth that it'll be YEARS before they can even come up with ways to use it all....

    Telcom's biggest problem is they have to protect old buisiness. If they want to charge you a grand a month for a T1 for phone lines, they have to charge 15k or more for a T3. If they charge that much for a T3, they can't verywell sell you an OC192 for anything even within reason.

    My point?

    It'll be a long time before the bandwidth glut is over.

    Will Cogent make it to the end of the glut? Maybe, Maybe not....
    Last edited by Shin; 06-12-2002 at 03:12 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    141
    Originally posted by Shin
    As an out of work telecom guy lemme let you in on a few things...

    ALL transport is overbuilt!!!

    AT&T has rings upon rings upon rings and in each ring are HUNDREDS of little pieces of glass called dark fiber...why is it dark? cause they can't sell it!

    Why can't they sell it? because they are now using spectrum multiplexing to make a single strand carry not an OC3, not an OC48 or even an OC192. No, now they can put (give or take working from memory) 48 seperate beams, on a single fiber. That's so much bandwidth that it'll be YEARS before they can even come up with ways to use it all....

    Telcom's biggest problem is they have to protect old buisiness. If they want to charge you a grand a month for a T1 for phone lines, they have to charge 15k or more for a T3. If they charge that much for a T3, they can't verywell sell you an OC192 for anything even within reason.

    My point?

    It'll be a long time before the bandwidth glut is over.

    Will Cognet make it to the end of the glut? Maybe, Maybe not....
    Ok, but it wont be like that forever, a T1 wont cut it in 5 or 10 years and thats when prices will drop. Also I dont think providers will let dark fiber lay around forever. There will come a time where a average person will use a 100mbit line. I know that sounds insane but when tv on demand and similar high bandwidth services such as high quality video streaming come out people will need it. Think of how many people use 56k modems right now, you have to wait for everything but why? The capacity to for very high bandwidth is here! People will soon realize they need more, and dsl and cable wont cut it!

  11. #11
    mlip129,

    Do you know what the cable that the "cable company" brought into your house can do?

    It can do at LEAST 45MBPS or = to a T3. (remember that before people wanted it phone lines could only do 300baud)

    It'll be a LOOONNNNGGG time before we have fiber in our houses. It is just too expensive to lay the "last mile"

    What you are saying is the exact reason that we are in the situation we are in....

    All the companies had people like you saying the same things that you are so they built and built and built some more....

    We were all supposed to be using a meg a second as I type this...But what am I gonna use it for?

    I'm one person, even on 4 PCs, am i really gonna download mpegs, listen to internet radio, while playing an online game, talking on an internet phone, while watching CNN and checking my "online streaming quotes"?

    I could really go on and on with this thread...in the article they talk about what basicly comes down to missed deadlines of getting the fiber to the actual customer...

    I'd bet that 99.999% of that is not the fault of Cogent...

    Maybe they are going by poles. Well the phone company or the power company owns those poles. So they need to get rights to use them. Maybe they need to dig, they need digsafes from the power company, the phone company, and the gas company.

    Install dates are never firm in the telecom industry. They are missed every day by every company. There are too many variables for it to be any other way.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    1,593
    I am by no mean a networking expert, but I read an interesting article in Network Computing that while the bandwidth available is huge, the real bottleneck is the core of the internet connection, which is not too broad. They gave some examples on how a couple thousand people downloading movies could jammed the core of the internet. (Not sure about the number, can't remember)

    Peter

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    141
    Originally posted by Shin
    mlip129,

    Do you know what the cable that the "cable company" brought into your house can do?

    It can do at LEAST 45MBPS or = to a T3. (remember that before people wanted it phone lines could only do 300baud)

    It'll be a LOOONNNNGGG time before we have fiber in our houses. It is just too expensive to lay the "last mile"

    What you are saying is the exact reason that we are in the situation we are in....

    All the companies had people like you saying the same things that you are so they built and built and built some more....

    We were all supposed to be using a meg a second as I type this...But what am I gonna use it for?

    I'm one person, even on 4 PCs, am i really gonna download mpegs, listen to internet radio, while playing an online game, talking on an internet phone, while watching CNN and checking my "online streaming quotes"?

    I could really go on and on with this thread...in the article they talk about what basicly comes down to missed deadlines of getting the fiber to the actual customer...

    I'd bet that 99.999% of that is not the fault of Cogent...

    Maybe they are going by poles. Well the phone company or the power company owns those poles. So they need to get rights to use them. Maybe they need to dig, they need digsafes from the power company, the phone company, and the gas company.

    Install dates are never firm in the telecom industry. They are missed every day by every company. There are too many variables for it to be any other way.
    I'm not saying that we need all this bandwidth now, but within the next 20 years we probably will. The problem is that the internet is built around dial up modems. People are using a 100k and under per webpage rule and thats why we still dont need it. But when the majority of people will have broadband things will change. When everyone has broadband there will be a demand for high quality video streaming and etc... I'm also not saying that every home needs a fiber connection, but the fiber will atleast be a good high speed backbone for when it needs to be used.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    3,407
    Originally posted by ckpeter
    I am by no mean a networking expert, but I read an interesting article in Network Computing that while the bandwidth available is huge, the real bottleneck is the core of the internet connection, which is not too broad. They gave some examples on how a couple thousand people downloading movies could jammed the core of the internet. (Not sure about the number, can't remember)

    Peter
    This is actually a good point. The Internet is getting more and more meshed into a big soup. Can any regular user really tell the difference between AT&T and Sprint or Level (3)? It seems everyday that there are less and less small peering points, and more large ones where everyone goes.


    People are using a 100k and under per webpage rule and thats why we still dont need it. But when the majority of people will have broadband things will change.
    This is like saying, once we do away with paper, books will be longer. Also, traffic for sites will get harder to come by. Your site on Teletubies might be popular now and drawing 100 GBs of transfer, but as soon as 10 more Teletubies sites appear..........

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    141
    Originally posted by UmBillyCord


    This is actually a good point. The Internet is getting more and more meshed into a big soup. Can any regular user really tell the difference between AT&T and Sprint or Level (3)? It seems everyday that there are less and less small peering points, and more large ones where everyone goes.




    This is like saying, once we do away with paper, books will be longer. Also, traffic for sites will get harder to come by. Your site on Teletubies might be popular now and drawing 100 GBs of transfer, but as soon as 10 more Teletubies sites appear..........
    I'm not talking about how long a webpage is, but the quality of images and movies, look at how crappy streaming media is, but why? Becase bandwidth is expensive and even if it wasn't people dont have the connections to view high quality video.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    220
    Originally posted by UmBillyCord
    This is like saying, once we do away with paper, books will be longer.
    I have disagree with you and agree with mlip129. Once the majority of people begin using high speed connections everyone will start designing their sites for them. I have already seen many sites the say "optimized for high speed internet access".

    People will fail to realize that even though they have high speed internet access and they can load the page in less than a second that not everyone will have that luxury. There are probably still people connecting using Baud rated modems.

    It is just the course of the internet. When you were using a 14.4K modem did you see alot of graphic intensive sites? Probably not, but now you do.
    Joel Strellner

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    3,407
    Once the majority of people begin using high speed connections everyone will start designing their sites for them.
    Why?? What is the benifit to the average Joe Blow? Do you think every person who has a web site is some over-the-top, sharks with lazer beam, type person? No. Most sites are for content. They don't need streaming. They don't need crazy crap on their web site. Do you think the majority will say, "hey, everyone has high speed access. Lets design a 1 GB - Flash, streaming intro with a full version of In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida playing"? Sure some will. So be it. However the huge percentage will not. Look at your subscriber base. How many actually use streaming or other high bandwidth use content? So many people get wrapped up in what they like and want, and use this train of though on the masses. Simple numbers prove this wrong.

    Am I saying no one would use more bandwidth intensive contant? No. But I am saying there will ntoi be some huge shift to high bandwidth use content. Unless of course so new software or technology comes around that everyone must have and it is the host who can deliver.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    38
    What is called "high bandwidth content" today will be the "everyday use" content tomorrow - just look at the past years up to now.

    Our expectations rise with advancement of technology and so does the normality with which we use this technology.

    I personally think this is a good thing.
    These domains are for sale at NameSpirit.com:
    █ SafeVPS.com & SaveVPS.com (Package),
    █ TidyHost.com, ServerFans.com

    Contact us anytime | Get newly added domains on Twitter

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    3,407
    Our expectations rise with advancement of technology and so does the normality with which we use this technology.
    I know. Just look at wheel.

    I ain't saying we are not going to progress, but *I* don't think some huge content explosion will happen thanks to bigger pipes into our homes. Hell, look at CPUs. I find it hard to locate software or programs that my 550 GHz can't handle.

  20. #20
    I find it hard to locate software or programs that my 550 GHz can't handle.
    No wonder photoshop runs so slowly on my machine...I'm about 549 gigs behind the curve

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    220
    Originally posted by UmBillyCord
    Why?? What is the benifit to the average Joe Blow? Do you think every person who has a web site is some over-the-top, sharks with lazer beam, type person? No....

    (clipped)

    So many people get wrapped up in what they like and want, and use this train of though on the masses. Simple numbers prove this wrong.
    The problem is that the average Joe Blow may not realize that not everyone can connect to the internet as fast as him. I have a customer who I spoke to who thought that everyone had high speed internet access like him. It was only after I explained that not everyone is using current technology (high speed internet) that he decided to remove the 300K image on his home page and accept that not everyone likes/wants to wait for his image to load even though he thought it was worth it.

    It is the average Joe Blow that will make large pipes almost a requirement to go online. Large corporations and people who hire decent web designers are the only ones who will be able to keep things to a minimum and not require large pipes.

    Once everyone gets high speed internet access people will "forget" to make sure it works well on slower users; therefore making the users get frustrated and have upgrade to the latest high speed technology to have a pleasurable experience while online.

    It's also an evolution type of situation; When you were on a 286 and you started to see what the people could do with the "new" pentium computers, did you have to have one? Did you wait until you realized that certain things would work on your system but the could on theirs; eventually giving in and purchasing the lastest system?

    Everything that you utilize on the internet/computers have gone through an evolution type of situation, including bandwidth. I think that we are very far from ultimate goal of everything instantly, but we are slowly begining to accomplish it; and as we slowly accompish this task people will find a way to use it. Which then creates the loop called evolution; something great must come out to be greater than the current greatest thing.

    Just my... err $200.00 worth
    Last edited by xerocity.com; 06-12-2002 at 04:32 PM.
    Joel Strellner

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Orlando FL USA
    Posts
    1,315
    Taking a bit of U-Turn back to the first question in the thread...
    If this article is true, will it mean that bandwidth prices and overall web hosting prices will become reasonable?
    I believe the majority of prices are already "reasonable". Looking at the last part of the question however... "overall web hosting prices"... even if bandwidth became honestly FREE we still need to pay for the humans and the hardware etc... If site owners (and hosts) continue to push the prices down "because bandwidth is cheap/free" how do we plan to cover the costs of ... "everything else"?

    This thread is a good read.. no question about that. It's interesting to read the opinions of a variety of interests. The issue of bandwidth reliability and costs is important as well. However, I think we need to be careful judging the "overall cost of hosting" by the specific cost of bandwidth. Remember that the majority of hosts already charge less for the bandwidth then they are paying (with the assumption that their users wont use it all). If their costs were to go down it might actually put them in the position of making a "real" (as opposed to the perceived) profit. $5/month for 100 accounts may seem like a profit to someone paying $200/month for their server and sticking the extra $300 in their pocket but as they grow and/or the Biz/Tax laws get a hold of them the "profit" can quickly turn into a loss. Long story short, as I noted above.. We need to make a clear separation between the "cost of bandwidth" and the "overall cost of hosting.
    Just my... err $200.00 worth
    I'm not as rich as xerocity.com but there's my nickel anyway
    FutureQuest.net
    Quality Services & Professional Support Since 1998
    Click Here To Visit the Community

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    892
    As a consumer and student, I enjoy the low prices and the extra profit I make as a result. I can, however, sympathize with those who would like to see prices go up.

    The internet is becoming more and more bandwidth intensive. For the last 5 years I have been on the same 28.8 connection. Back in the day I could get by; there was no flash, or unsolicited (by me anyways) streaming media or hires images. Now surfing is an all day job.

    Just look at the internet growth over the last 10 years: http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet...Count_Host.gif
    http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/
    Think of what is to come. It's a hard one to predict, and as the internet becomes more and more a part of our lives for both work and fun.

    To tell you the truth, I liked the internet better back in the good old days.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Salisbury, UK
    Posts
    27

    Bottlenecks & Co.

    "There will come a time where a average person will use a 100mbit line. I know that sounds insane but when tv on demand and similar high bandwidth services such as high quality video streaming come out people will need it."

    I think 100Mbs is a bit extreme but the truth is there. There are so many examples of the technological march we have: 640Kb RAM, ~6Billion IPs, etc. etc. 100Mbs is a long long way down the line [excuse the pun]. However 512Kb will become standard in Euope and the US in the next 5 years. The next progression is surely, "telephone" calls purely over fibre, multiple simaltaneous pay per view/live TV, Radio, 'Internet Downloads', music steros direct downloads etc. etc. I'm sure a lot more can be pushed on b/w as well as new things thought up. The growth will continue and continue for end-user bandwidth. Just as 2.0GHz processors wwere inconcievable in 1975 so is 100Mbs home feeds.

    However sure there is loads and loads of dark fibre floating around but there are still one or two bottlenecks with ISPs, locally say for cable operators etc. etc. at the moment if we wanted too say use 50% of the dark fibre avaliable, bottlenecks elesewhere would prevent its efficient use.

    JS

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sirkali Rural Tamilnadu
    Posts
    738
    Originally posted by Deb
    Taking a bit of U-Turn back to the first question in the thread... I believe the majority of prices are already "reasonable". Looking at the last part of the question however... "overall web hosting prices"... even if bandwidth became honestly FREE we still need to pay for the humans and the hardware etc... If site owners (and hosts) continue to push the prices down "because bandwidth is cheap/free" how do we plan to cover the costs of ... "everything else"?

    This thread is a good read.. no question about that. It's interesting to read the opinions of a variety of interests. The issue of bandwidth reliability and costs is important as well. However, I think we need to be careful judging the "overall cost of hosting" by the specific cost of bandwidth. Remember that the majority of hosts already charge less for the bandwidth then they are paying (with the assumption that their users wont use it all). If their costs were to go down it might actually put them in the position of making a "real" (as opposed to the perceived) profit. $5/month for 100 accounts may seem like a profit to someone paying $200/month for their server and sticking the extra $300 in their pocket but as they grow and/or the Biz/Tax laws get a hold of them the "profit" can quickly turn into a loss. Long story short, as I noted above.. We need to make a clear separation between the "cost of bandwidth" and the "overall cost of hosting. I'm not as rich as xerocity.com but there's my nickel anyway

    Deb,

    I think I didn't word my first question well enough...

    When I came to WHT a year back, badnwidth prices at 2$/gb were considered good and affordable.. and Rackshack's 99$ for 300GB offer was incredible

    Now , thanks to Cogent, we have servers at 120$ and fairly good ones at that with 300-400gb /mo

    I am paying 130$ for a PIII with 35gb/mo bandwidth and having enjoyed 100% uptime for 130 days I do know that there are NOC's there are NOC's.

    But I am not able to compete on price with someone offering 250mb / 8 gb for 3$ or so.

    So when I mean reasonable, I mean resonable for all the parties.. NOC, Data center, ded server provider, host, and customer [for an economy/industry to be stable all players must get a reasonable profit and the customer should get a decent value for money]

    Price wars are a direct result of excessive supply over demand and it is happening just too much in WHT

    Those who can hold their own will come on top , provide great service, good plans and reliable servers with near 100% uptime and make money

    I am inclined to think that Cogent has contributed a lot to the glut in cheap servers [but I may be wrong ]


    Well just my 2c !

    Cheers
    Balaji
    I am now happily selling Natural Herbal Hair Oil - happy to be so far removed from technology!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •