« When Even Hackers Don't Want To Connect To the Network | Main | Traffic Shaping When Using more than 60 Gbytes a day »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c34f69e2017616f95324970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 6 Pounds for a Terabyte of Data Volume:

Comments

Christian

I assume there's a huge difference between transit prices of a server farm located in the proximity of a large peering point and the costs broadband providers have to bear for running a nationwide backhaul. As long as you are not a former state monopolist and own a fibre network reaching every local exchange you will have to rely partly on leased capacity to the local exchanges and if you are an ADSL reseller like 1&1 (in Germany they also offer ADSL besides server- and webhosting), who leases all the infrastructure from third parties, traffic costs are probably even higher. Actually I have only heard of 1&1 bothering data hungry subscribers so far but e.g. I've heard that Vodafone Germany do not offer broadband service based on Deutsche Telekom's bit-stream access platform (which they only did in rural areas where it didn't pay off to install their own DSLAMs) because of the high pricing and the growing overall data volume which rendered such subscriptions uneconomical. Another reason why providers may want to get rid off leechers is the administrative expenses when right holders or law enforcement agencies start inquiring for subscribers' identities or even start to sue you if you refuse to share the desired information. On the other hand if you share such information too loosely with right holders, you run the risk to get sued from your customers besides suffering a damage of reputation.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

The Books to this Blog

Prepaid Wireless Wiki

My Pictures on Flickr

  • www.flickr.com
    martin.sauter's photos More of martin.sauter's photos

Android Cell Logger App

Misc

  • Clicky
    Clicky Web Analytics