Bandwidth Cap Analysis: Why Bandwidth Caps Are Robbery

naveen_reloaded

naveen_reloaded

>
Messages
1,777
Location
NA
ISP
BSNL Fiber 750GB
Even though its from U.S about thier ISP ATT , this study clearly states the oversell by ISP`s

Those who are in favor of cap in return for quality are giving a weapon to ISP to use upon others who believe ISP`s are reaping profit from current scenario , further more support for cap in return of service is going to be disastrous.

Just look at the following example and calculate what you get for your current FUPed up Plan

We're in the era where greedy ISPs are starting to enforce arbitrary bandwidth caps, and unfortunately companies such as Comcast and AT&T are leading the pack. Here's a dive into the current bandwidth caps, and why, in my opinion, they are blatant robbery.


I am a subscriber of the U-verse Max Turbo internet service (rated at 24Mbit down/3Mbit up), for a total of a theoretical max throughput of 27Mbit (the enforced bandwidth caps apply to downloads and uploads, so I will no longer make any differentiation between the two).

27Mbit per sec. = 1,620Mbit per min. = 97,200Mbit per hour = 2,332,800 Mbit per day. Converting that to bytes, you get 291,600 MB per day = 284.77 GB per day.

The allocated MONTHLY bandwidth is 250GB, and at 100% usage, it is theoretically possible to use 114% of your monthly bandwidth allocation in a single 24 hour period. So how bad could the damage get? AT&T's current policy is that for every 50GB over the 250GB limit a customer goes, they will be charged an additional $10.

So, in your typical 30-day month, one could theoretically use ~284.77 GB per day, which over the course of 30 days is a total of 8,542.96 GB; a whopping 8,292.97 GB over the allocated limit. At $10 per 50 GB, that would net a customer a surplus charge of $1,658.59 for using the bandwidth they're paying for by signing up for the highest speed option!

That is completely and utterly ridiculous. What is the benefit of the speed if one cannot use it to it's potential?



This huge imbalance begs the question as to how much bandwidth one is actually allocated from the perspective of the cap. This can be worked through similarly:

250GB/month = 2000Gbit/month = 2,048,000 Mbit/month. Again assuming 30 days in a month, a month consists of 2,592,000 seconds. Thus 2,048,000Mbit / 2,592,000 seconds = 0.79Mbit/sec. Keep in mind this
 
that's why bsnl evdo is the best in the world 3mbps unlimited at 750Rs approx 16USD without any caps...download to the full potential... 😎
 
We bunch in this forum are more enlightened than this guy. Useless analysis is useless. It does not take into account the profitability and cost per GB. This can only be established after finding out how much the company pays per GB to seller and how much they charge the customers. That would give a clear picture of robbery scenario and not just mere speculation.
 
I agree , but it depends on the number of people using EVDO at the same time in a particualar tower. I have heard that in coimbatore , there are loads od EVDO users and no one gets beyond a decent 512kbps. Still the idea is good. But shared connection like this have its down effects too.

----------

We bunch in this forum are more enlightened than this guy. Useless analysis is useless. It does not take into account the profitability and cost per GB. This can only be established after finding out how much the company pays per GB to seller and how much they charge the customers. That would give a clear picture of robbery scenario and not just mere speculation.

edited :

calcualate for half the bandwidth which can be used. still they are profiting
 
edited :

calcualate for half the bandwidth which can be used. still they are profiting

Profiting is the wrong word. Every company has to profit in order to survive. As I mentioned, the calculations in the article mean nothing to me. It's the cost per GB to company VS charge per GB to consumer analysis which is more important to me. The author of the article has got it completely wrong.
 
sure , Just tell me If this kind of crap was happening when we were using dial-up( that was also capped for pre-paid users) , do you think we would have got broadband ? Fortunately FUPtel was not there at that time. The company should move forward and increase infrastructure and lay down more fibres , if possible OF , and keep moving. right now ISP`s have found a sweet spot and they are having nice honeymoon.

----------

Leave home users , If you are a webdesigner or someone who works on internet for living and want to start thier own hosting or a startup , is there any ISP providing good platform to start ? I mean they all have FUPed plans , restricting the progressiveness of internet.
 

Like others have said, the analysis of the situation is completely off. It should be very clear that residential broadband is oversold (worldwide), and with good reason. You've heard of the "contention ratio" - that's what that means. For example, in India every 1mbit/s we buy, we can sell a maximum of 50x 1mbit/s connections (oversimplifying it, but that's the jist).

Now for the reasoning: cost. Sure, ISPs buy bucketloads of bandwidth, but riddle me this: ISP-X currently has lit up capacity of about maybe 200gbit/s (or less) - for 2 million customers, that's essentially 0.1mbit/s per customer. Even if they're paying say Rs1,000 per mbit/s (it's less than that, but let's keep the numbers clean), that doesn't factor in the cost of staff, real-estate, taxes or the equipment needed to handle all that bandwidth, let alone the last mile. Let's be generous and say the cost is then about Rs2,200 per mbit/s delivered to the home after everything. Add a little profit margin (25%) and you've got just short of Rs3,000.

Now, how many people are willing to pay Rs3,000+ a month for 1mbit/s? Not many. So how is ISP-X going to be an attractive option to it's customers? Offer say 4mbit/s for about Rs1500. But oh no! If that 4mbit/s is uncontended, they're going to lose Rs6,300 per customer per month at that price.

Enter the Fair Usage Policy.

4mbit/s allows roughly 1,200GB a month of data transfer. For ISP-X to break even, they can have a maximum of 300GB per user if the contention ratio is 1:4. But ISP-X doesn't want to break even, they want to make a profit. With contention ratios of between 1:12 and 1:20 is common in India, the indirect result basically causes an FUP of between 60 & 100GB per month. For 1:12, this means revenue of say Rs18,000 minus costs of Rs8,000 minus any other costs that may be incurred such as subsidizing modems, maintenance, DoT licence fees and in many cases, bribes or revenue sharing - the margins are still only between 30 and 50%.

The situation is slightly different in the US, and given that you've got a line that's "up to" 24mbit/s, the numbers actually get better (not by much, but the premise is kind of what we're working on) - where although bandwidth and peering is cheaper, I don't think the last-mile is, and staffing definitely isn't: then you've still got a cost of say $15 per megabit delivered (*24mbit/s = $360), contention ratio of say 15 = $750 of revenue less $360 of direct costs less incidentals leaving similar margins and similar FUPs which are dollar to gigabyte a bit similar to India. Again, oversimplifying it here (and perhaps in the ISPs favour, especially in this example), but I hope the point is made: bandwidth by itself only makes up a relatively small fraction of the total cost of supplying these services.


Leave home users , If you are a webdesigner or someone who works on internet for living and want to start thier own hosting or a startup , is there any ISP providing good platform to start ? I mean they all have FUPed plans , restricting the progressiveness of internet.

Residential broadband is NOT designed for anyone to start their own hosting company, and in many cases it's even against the T&C. Business connections are a bit better in this respect if you're willing to pay for them, but there are plenty of
 
that doesn't factor in the cost of staff, real-estate, taxes or the equipment needed to handle all that bandwidth, let alone the last mile.

1.)Arent many of these are one time paid.. I mean like real-estate , equipments , laying of fibres..? also not to forget the deposits we pay , just in case and in many cases the modem is rented one , so it goes back to the ISP. Also we all know these modems to the ISP come at dirt cheap prices . that too on bulky orders ... they come even cheaper and a customer who uses it for >6 months would have got you back the cost of modem and will from there onwards reap you profits.


2.) Lets be even too .. even if you sell a unFUPed plan of say 1mbps @ 2000 Rs or so , how many of them are going to use it fully ? Not to forget , i am on a 512kbps plan and i am supposed to get download speed around 64kbps , but i get an average of 50~55kbps , so already the connection is degraded . its usually said maximum of 80% of the speed is sure confirmed ,a customer can get on a connection. virtually on 1mbps plan , when its supposed to be 128kbps , he will be getting around 90~100 kbps. So full quota can never be used.

3.) All i am saying is instead of advertising it as a 4mbps plan with FUP , why cant ISP simply give a straight forward plan with xxxx Rs ? This gives customers like us , a big relief while browsing , instead of worrying when we will reach the cap. Indian net users are willing to pay preimium for good speed with no limits. I paid 1500 RS + tax for 512kbps UL 1 year back and to be honest , AFAIK , i was the one customer in my village to have subscribed for it.

4.)as for the second quote , i missed the the word "bussiness plan"

5.) Lastly , If the pipes are owned by FUPtel and reliance , if my memory serves me right , about 80% is owned by FUPtel. If that is the case , they have all other ISP by thier throat and all other ISP have to dance to FUPtels tune. ITs not like govt is distributing the bandwidth. If thats the case , we can argue the prices are high . Why should we believe that price for 1mbit/s is Rs2,200 ? when the price is determined by a private company ? FUPtel can easily CARTEL with others to keep prices high to reap profit .. cant that be true ?

Please correct me if i am wrong or my understanding is flawed..
 
wrt to the article....looks like things hav started to go wrong in US now of late. caps have started to come up in moblie,wireline everywhere but resentment has also grown manifold. I think there was news/reports of senators complaining to this new development. It is only a matter of time when lawmakers will take this issue and ban it up/fix it up. unlike India where i think our Telecom minister does not even know what a fup is.
 
1.)Arent many of these are one time paid.. I mean like real-estate , equipments , laying of fibres..? also not to forget the deposits we pay , just in case and in many cases the modem is rented one , so it goes back to the ISP. Also we all know these modems to the ISP come at dirt cheap prices . that too on bulky orders ... they come even cheaper and a customer who uses it for >6 months would have got you back the cost of modem and will from there onwards reap you profits.


Oh dear. Welcome to Economics 101.

I'm not talking about equipment that the users ever see, but all of these things have ongoing costs. It depends on the ISP, but even if we buy/build real-estate there are ongoing costs for it such as maintenance, taxes or mortgage payments, and even if it is a one-time cost (that is, the company pays for it up front), that cost has to be amortized over some period of time. In the case of smaller ISPs, the real-estate is rented and thus has a fixed monthly cost.

Cables may have a one time cost but as with real-estate, that cost has to be amortized, and even then, the payments to the municipality are also recurring, and even then, the cost of the actual cabling is minimal compared to the cost of the payments to the authorities and the civil works (where the burying of cables is concerned, that is), but if I spend 1000-crore on my network today, I'm expecting to get that money back over the period of say 5 or 10 years, not 1 month.

You are right that the typical ADSL modems provided by most ISPs are dirt cheap and that at least half the cost is paid for by your deposit. This is where we in particular at a disadvantage: our modems are way not cheap, but we don't want to charge a Rs5000+ deposit!

2.) Lets be even too .. even if you sell a unFUPed plan of say 1mbps @ 2000 Rs or so , how many of them are going to use it fully ? Not to forget , i am on a 512kbps plan and i am supposed to get download speed around 64kbps , but i get an average of 50~55kbps , so already the connection is degraded . its usually said maximum of 80% of the speed is sure confirmed ,a customer can get on a connection. virtually on 1mbps plan , when its supposed to be 128kbps , he will be getting around 90~100 kbps. So full quota can never be used.

The same argument can be put forth that if the FUP is calculated correctly, most users should never reach it. As for the degraded connection, this is one of those things that you must put up with in the world of the copper (or wireless) last-mile.

3.) All i am saying is instead of advertising it as a 4mbps plan with FUP , why cant ISP simply give a straight forward plan with xxxx Rs ? This gives customers like us , a big relief while browsing , instead of worrying when we will reach the cap. Indian net users are willing to pay preimium for good speed with no limits. I paid 1500 RS + tax for 512kbps UL 1 year back and to be honest , AFAIK , i was the one customer in my village to have subscribed for it.


I don't disagree with you there - the way the plans are advertised in India has often felt wrong to me in the past because the FUPs were so tiny. However, with caps slowly becoming somewhat more "reasonable", this is becoming less true and again, if they are calculated correctly, then the majority of users should not reach it and in such a case only the heaviest of downloaders should be affected.

Also, the fact that you were the only one who subscribed to the Rs1,500/month plan says something too: the ISP is going to have to get a lot more subscribers paying for the Rs500 plans to break even. From there, the numbers are a juggling act as to how much is needed to supply the whole village etc.

In our case, we need something like 250 subscribers to break even on fibre in a given area, and that's at our prices: forget the sub Rs1k prices other ISPs have. Fortunately, in metros this is quite easy because of the density, and in villages it's not as bad because the costs to the municipality (etc) are less, so a larger geographical area can be covered for the same amount of money (which ends up balancing out the numbers).

4.)as for the second quote , i missed the the word "bussiness plan"


Fair enough.

5.) Lastly , If the pipes are owned by FUPtel and reliance , if my memory serves me right , about 80% is owned by FUPtel. If that is the case , they have all other ISP by thier throat and all other ISP have to dance to FUPtels tune. ITs not like govt is distributing the bandwidth. If thats the case , we can argue the prices are high . Why should we believe that price for 1mbit/s is Rs2,200 ? when the price is determined by a private company ? FUPtel can easily CARTEL with others to keep prices high to reap profit .. cant that be true ?


I think you didn't read what I wrote: I wrote that Rs2,200 might be some fictional cost of *delivered* bandwidth - that is, including all the equipment, staff, last mile etc. In real life the numbers are different but of course they also vary widely based on how well the ISP has negotiated with the upstream provider and how much they buy. The cost of *wholesale* bandwidth is under Rs1,000/mbit/month for the big ISPs but that only gets it as far as their offices in either Mumbai or Chennai (and it costs more for smaller ISPs). The distribution network that takes it from there to your home costs money too, ya know.

Airtel either owns or co-owns roughly 65%, Tata owns or co-owns about 34% and Reliance owns or co-owns roughly 11% of the international capacity. Keen mathematicians will notice that this adds up to more than 100%: Bharti & Tata in particular are in separate consortiums with other ISPs on all of their cables bar one each, which causes their % of ownership to overlap but it must be said also that in these cases, the prices are set by the consortium which includes ISPs from each country connected to the cables, which in some cases also includes governments.

Not to mention that these cables are not cheap to build - we're talking hundreds of millions of dollars each here - they don't exactly take suitcases of cash to the cable construction company and tell them to go forth - they either finance the build with large banks or if they do pay up front then they do the same as I've been talking about with everything else: the cost of building is amortized over time.
 
Oh dear. Welcome to Economics 101.

I'm not talking about equipment that the users ever see, but all of these things have ongoing costs. It depends on the ISP, but even if we buy/build real-estate there are ongoing costs for it such as maintenance, taxes or mortgage payments, and even if it is a one-time cost (that is, the company pays for it up front), that cost has to be amortized over some period of time. In the case of smaller ISPs, the real-estate is rented and thus has a fixed monthly cost.

Cables may have a one time cost but as with real-estate, that cost has to be amortized, and even then, the payments to the municipality are also recurring, and even then, the cost of the actual cabling is minimal compared to the cost of the payments to the authorities and the civil works (where the burying of cables is concerned, that is), but if I spend 1000-crore on my network today, I'm expecting to get that money back over the period of say 5 or 10 years, not 1 month..

you are right ... there are maintanance cost ..etc ..

I thought VAT is supposed to do that . I mean as hte name implies Value added at each level. Doesnt VAT , we pay include the maintance / tax (doubtful) / staff charges too ?
You are right that the typical ADSL modems provided by most ISPs are dirt cheap and that at least half the cost is paid for by your deposit. This is where we in particular at a disadvantage: our modems are way not cheap, but we don't want to charge a Rs5000+ deposit!

thanks for the inside information. I knew it when i got a Netgear modem in place of BSNL`s crappy modem.



The same argument can be put forth that if the FUP is calculated correctly, most users should never reach it. As for the degraded connection, this is one of those things that you must put up with in the world of the copper (or wireless) last-mile.

Is that a vicious cycle we are setting in today ?
Lets say all ISP implement FUP. and lets say on a 512kbps speed plan (i download around 100+GB) and set FUP CAP at 50GB/month. Normal users , heavy downloaders will automatically tune to the ISP`s CAPing over a period. When more users come to know , particularly normal users , particualrly in India where literacy about internet is very poor , people will think that watching few youtube videos will exceed the CAP and will have to pay more at the end. Or if one bill lands them beyond the said price for downlaoding more than the CAPd limit... these normal users will thier internet usage far below even 25GB. ISP can again take this sample and push the FUP futrther down , stating that avg usuage is now 25GB and we are setting CAP at 30GB .. cycle continues.

Please dont tell me this wont happen. In India i know lots of people who will shift to these measures.

We heavy users are asking just one thing. You ISP know how many users are average and how many are heavy downlaoders. normal household connection( i mean to say the house hold mothers who use for few skpe chat or emails and father to see thier company emails.. etc) can have these FUP conenction and i agree , they wont cross the limit , i can even assure you that they will utilise only half of FUP CAP. My mom has a connection around 1GB/month for 250rs and i think for the last 4 months or so , she would have used 100 MB Max. (250Rs plan is the starting plan). ISP can offer such starters plan and ask these users to move accordingly based onthe usage.

On teh other spectrum , you can give heavy users , one who knows what they want from thier internet connection , full freedom and charge accordingly. As i said , we heavy users are not shying from paying a premium . I am ready to pay 1K~1.5K for 1MBPS UL ( currently reliance has this plan) even 1.5K~2K for 2MBPS UL if thats feasible


I don't disagree with you there - the way the plans are advertised in India has often felt wrong to me in the past because the FUPs were so tiny. However, with caps slowly becoming somewhat more "reasonable", this is becoming less true and again, if they are calculated correctly, then the majority of users should not reach it and in such a case only the heaviest of downloaders should be affected.

Also, the fact that you were the only one who subscribed to the Rs1,500/month plan says something too: the ISP is going to have to get a lot more subscribers paying for the Rs500 plans to break even. From there, the numbers are a juggling act as to how much is needed to supply the whole village etc.
In our case, we need something like 250 subscribers to break even on fibre in a given area, and that's at our prices: forget the sub Rs1k prices other ISPs have. Fortunately, in metros this is quite easy because of the density, and in villages it's not as bad because the costs to the municipality (etc) are less, so a larger geographical area can be covered for the same amount of money (which ends up balancing out the numbers).

same can be said in reverse. I am damn sure about 80% connection taken in my village by others use hardly 1~2GB / month. example i have stated above , so arent you guys making excess money from unused BW ?





Fair enough.
So am i right , there is no bussiness plan for startups ? 🙂



I think you didn't read what I wrote: I wrote that Rs2,200 might be some fictional cost of *delivered* bandwidth - that is, including all the equipment, staff, last mile etc. In real life the numbers are different but of course they also vary widely based on how well the ISP has negotiated with the upstream provider and how much they buy. The cost of *wholesale* bandwidth is under Rs1,000/mbit/month for the big ISPs but that only gets it as far as their offices in either Mumbai or Chennai (and it costs more for smaller ISPs). The distribution network that takes it from there to your home costs money too, ya know.


I agree . I have few things too , I have been a bsnl customer for 2+ years now , If you take dialup(landline) too , then it may well go into 5~7 years. all the way the line is same. So if you get a customer in , the intial laying cost may be high , but on a average say , a customer stays on yout network for 1-2 years , wont that cost be covered + you get profit too ? (monthly charge for these)

thats good and i think BSNL is giving a good plan 512kbps for 750+TAx ( actually it should be 500RS , but 250 for extra charges is very nominal)

Airtel either owns or co-owns roughly 65%, Tata owns or co-owns about 34% and Reliance owns or co-owns roughly 11% of the international capacity. Keen mathematicians will notice that this adds up to more than 100%: Bharti & Tata in particular are in separate consortiums with other ISPs on all of their cables bar one each, which causes their % of ownership to overlap but it must be said also that in these cases, the prices are set by the consortium which includes ISPs from each country connected to the cables, which in some cases also includes governments.

Not to mention that these cables are not cheap to build - we're talking hundreds of millions of dollars each here - they don't exactly take suitcases of cash to the cable construction company and tell them to go forth - they either finance the build with large banks or if they do pay up front then they do the same as I've been talking about with everything else: the cost of building is amortized over time

i am sorry , its not reliance ,its tata i was to mention next to airtel in owning the major network. my bad.

tell me why there is no cartel among them ? also when the server prices and hardware prices are crashing fast to dirt cheap level , why is the cost of BW increasing ? if you can pour in more info on this regard , it will be helpful.
I agree laying fibre via oceans are not cheap. but any company which have to start wont have much problem as they can raise through Public offering on market .


Many feel current practice of CAPing is very restrictive and will ultimately retard the growth of internet. ISP dont seems to care about future . As i said ,they have found a sweet spot.

I will add one more fact. Rewind 5-6 years back , internet moved from 128kbps (famous sify plans If my memory serves me right) to 256kbps , then to 512kbps , all teh while giving customers more room to breathe.

for the past 2 years or so i am stuck at 512kbps. If you call that improved of internet in india , then i have nothing to rebute your argument. If ISP`s are mainly aiming at bringing high speed internet which cant be even used properly and at the end day we customers feel dejected , what is the purpose of such improvement ?
 
naveen_reloaded said:
you are right ... there are maintanance cost ..etc ..

I thought VAT is supposed to do that . I mean as hte name implies Value added at each level. Doesnt VAT , we pay include the maintance / tax (doubtful) / staff charges too ?
Click to expand...

VAT (Value Added Tax) is a government tax on anything a company sells. The value is value as in "invoice amount" not value in any other context. ISPs can't benefit from that because that VAT gets passed on to the government (less any VAT paid on things the ISP buys).

naveen_reloaded said:
thanks for the inside information. I knew it when i got a Netgear modem in place of BSNL`s crappy modem.
Click to expand...

It's hardly inside information - it happens all around the world. ISPs give equipment that will get the user connected - they don't really need to care about the quality of said equipment (wrt throughput and "extra features") so long as it outlives it's warranty period.

naveen_reloaded said:
Is that a vicious cycle we are setting in today ?
Click to expand...

A little bit.

naveen_reloaded said:
Lets say all ISP implement FUP. and lets say on a 512kbps speed plan (i download around 100+GB) and set FUP CAP at 50GB/month. Normal users , heavy downloaders will automatically tune to the ISP`s CAPing over a period. When more users come to know , particularly normal users , particualrly in India where literacy about internet is very poor , people will think that watching few youtube videos will exceed the CAP and will have to pay more at the end. Or if one bill lands them beyond the said price for downlaoding more than the CAPd limit... these normal users will thier internet usage far below even 25GB. ISP can again take this sample and push the FUP futrther down , stating that avg usuage is now 25GB and we are setting CAP at 30GB .. cycle continues.
Click to expand...

They could only really do that if that's what the actual statistics are, and unfortunately statistics are notoriously inaccurate when you take an average across 1+ lakh users (even 10 lakhs for the larger ISPS) - there are an awful lot of users on all plans that only download say 2, 5, 10 or 20GB per month, and that's fine: they know how much they are going to pay and they're comfortable that there will be no extra expenditure on Internet. What most ISPs do NOT have at the moment is plans with FUPs of 200, 500 or even 1000GB. Why not? Such plans exist in Australia, so it must be worth doing.

That's why our FUP is based more on the price than the speed of the service and given the speeds we're offering we can safely expect users to download what other ISPs might consider "hefty amounts", but we are fortunate that our higher starting prices and lack of
 
I really appreciate you for taking time and replying to each point.
quoting each para again will by itself will become a thread 😀

The last few para`s is all i was looking for and thanks for agreeing to it (sweetspot).

Unless we customers dont ask for more bandwidth and better speed , ISP`s in India and all around the world can easily make money what i would call a "Yesteryear`s Technology" . Just like Firefox came into action when IE was dictating terms on how a website should be created to look good in IE.

Only problem for customers like us in rural area are , your ISP and ISP like Beam will take atleast 2-4 years to each us. Not to mention even BSNL which is the only ISP here dont provide 2 mbps . maximum is 1 mbps. So stopping development and cutting on infrastructure and not actually upgrading to better equipments will only delay penetration in our areas.

again thanks a lot for that detailed reply.

I wish if you can comment or tell us more on the national gateway level CARTEL. Do you think taking it to media level will result in anything ?

----------

one more request . Can you tell us what equipments needed for running ISP ? Just the main ones ..
 
Only problem for customers like us in rural area are , your ISP and ISP like Beam will take atleast 2-4 years to each us. Not to mention even BSNL which is the only ISP here dont provide 2 mbps . maximum is 1 mbps. So stopping development and cutting on infrastructure and not actually upgrading to better equipments will only delay penetration in our areas.

It would help to know where you are. I've stated in my own threads that areas where there is only the single player (usually BSNL) are attractive: firstly because they have no other competition and secondly often they would be quite easy to deploy in. It could take as few as ~250 subscribers to break even.

I wish if you can comment or tell us more on the national gateway level CARTEL.


What can I say, really. They don't seem to co-operate with each other. They do compete with each other - when I first started talking to the providers I got the price of an STM-1 down from 2Cr to just over 1Cr a year in the space of about 3 weeks (this was in early 2009).

Do you think taking it to media level will result in anything ?

Not really. From what I can personally ascertain, it's due more to government policy than anything else. There are companies dying to build cables to India but they just get stymied at every turn.

one more request . Can you tell us what equipments needed for running ISP ? Just the main ones ..

It varies widely and depends on the size... that's kind of like asking "how long is a piece of string". It could be anything from a couple of servers & some wifi gear to 1 or more rooms full of servers, routers, switches, patch panels, ups' and other bits and pieces.

Here's medium-sized Australian ISP Exetel's POP & Core diagrams from a few years back:





----------

Here's another ISPs info (not very detailed, but maybe helpful nevertheless):

http://www.iinet.net.au/iinetwork/dslam-installation.html
http://www.iinet.net.au/iinetwork/network-diagrams.html
 

Top