"While other players are just considering how they can upgrade their infrastructure to enable gigabit speeds ...."
I can see this sort of speed and consumption making the developing discussion in this thread
of who should pay for the amount downloaded become more widespread.
Have to love the PR fluff.
In places where gigabit is far more available there haven't been any real worries over who is paying the bandwidth bill - the end users in almost every case, apart from where poor regulation or lack of competition allow ISPs to double-dip.
As long as UK operators continue to carry on with settlement free peering and offloading of content onto CDNs they are hosting on-net it should be alright. The biggest cost is getting traffic from the core network to customers rather than the peering and transit.
- Sky make extensive use of CDNs on-net, other large operators do likewise. In the US some operators, in an attempt to defend their own TV revenues mostly, are actively hostile to such things.
Usage does not increase alongside maximum bandwidth particularly, the major increase is in burst capacity required to ensure customers can reach their full speeds at all times. Selling 10Gb would require a building to have enough capacity to handle peak usage + 10Gb. The actual peering and transit wouldn't see a massive jump. There will be enough customers sharing there that usage spikes are smoothed out by statistical contention.
Edited by Ignitionnet (Tue 13-Feb-18 13:06:09)