While I always believe that if cost effective, peering should be done. We saw our transit demands drop by 70 percent when we did it. Having said that, bandwidth costs were only 8 percent of the expense side. Labor was always the biggest, then equipment depreciation, and so on. I guess I am just repeating what has already been said. If your sole plan to deal with cost increases is to lower your bandwidth costs then you are tripping over dollars to save dimes. It is an expensive business. We found that aggressively upgrading equipment while reusing the older stuff for the half of our customers that didn't want more bandwidth was one key. Every market is different but my bet is that most people's bandwidth is not the big not to crack.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017, 1:29 AM Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> wrote: > So focus more on the importance of peering to help unburden your transit > costs. Transport will be what it is until you can do something about that. > > Peer directly with the major content providers and your costs can very > likely go down. > > For those of you where locality or other factors exclude easy peering, > that seems to be the next step in your region. Form an IX :) > > On Dec 16, 2017 5:37 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <lewis.berg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The content providers are what the ISP users are demanding. Users are not >> demanding bandwidth to run speed tests... Ok, most of them aren't. They >> want the content to watch from those providers. I would say the content >> providers are still in the driver's seat. >> >> On Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 5:31 PM Jason McKemie < >> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote: >> > >>> >>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, <fiber...@mail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "Jason McKemie" <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote: >>>> > When I said bandwidth, I was referring more to internet egress. >>>> Sure, I get that, but how is that related to the size of the >>>> consumer's bill, given that bandwidth prices have declined in sync with >>>> usage growth? >>> >>> >>> Bandwidth prices per customer have not really dropped much at all based >>> on how much more people are using. >>> >>> >>>> > Then there is more support time associated with streaming usage, >>>> inflation, etc etc. >>>> At the same time the customer base has grown, offsetting any other >>>> costs. So, tell me again, why should consumers expect a larger bill? >>> >>> >>> Labor costs, taxes, everything else associated with doing business is >>> more expensive now. >>> >>>> >>>> > This would also allow the ISP to charge less to the consumer while >>>> recouping that money behind the scenes from the likes of Netflix - >>>> > basically the reverse of what they currently do. >>>> I don't think the ISPs are wearing the pants in this relationship. >>>> Wait until Netflix decides to charge the ISPs a carriage fee instead :) >>> >>> >>> I'm not going to get Netflix to pay me, but Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon >>> are definitely wearing the pants, and the content providers know it, hence >>> the huge fight over NN. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Jared >>>> >>>
