For the mainstream ISPs (the big RBOCs and MSOs), their bandwidth costs are very, very low and are a small fraction of their overall costs. However, that statement does ignore the costs of perpetually upgrading their network to handle larger volumes of bandwidth. From a cost perspective, that is the main motivation for the big players to shape traffic. However, even that is small compared to the potential loss of revenue if "over the top" video takes hold.
-Clint On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Matt <lm7...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It's back.... > > > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews > > I am just waiting for them to say bitcaps are a no no. When you think > about it with a bit cap you cannot really use the Internet to > completely replace the catv or dish service. Some consumers I am sure > are going to say that's not fair and some clueless law makers will > likely believe them. > > I have already heard some 'expert' IT people on blogs brag that > bandwidth costs ISP's virtually nothing and the only reason for > bitcaps is to prevent competing video services from taking market > share. > > Matt > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
