Probably because their wireless equipment is the bottleneck and they are utilizing a mesh network topography which means bottlenecks impact other customers. The article stated that their backhaul uplink was on 70Mbps for the whole island.

Seeing as they're using Ubiquiti equipment, I'm not sure why they are not using of their Gbps setups for the backhaul at least.

Probably because they can't afford the backhaul. They pay $900 for 100M.

According to the network diagram in the article they do not appear to run a mesh topology. They run a hub and spoke topology. Each repeater has multiple radios.

Even so, they have serious problems if they can't sustain their 30 Mbps peak usage with their wireless equipment.

> I'm not sure why they are not using of their Gbps setups for the backhaul at least.

Considering they received a loan to purchase the necessary equipment to start this operation up, I'm guessing it's because they don't have a need for it -- yet, at least.

Bandwidth isn't cheap. But they should impose a traffic shaping policy to bring their users' transit levels in line with the fees they pay, rather than poking around into who is doing what on the network.

Disclosure: I built and run a small wireless ISP.

> Bandwidth isn't cheap. But they should impose a traffic shaping policy to bring their users' transit levels in line with the fees they pay, rather than poking around into who is doing what on the network.

That's the curious thing. The users are paying more than enough to cover all costs, so there is no need for all this tomfoolery. I guess they have either have mentality or technical issues.

Sure, bandwidth is cheap -- when you're buying tens of gigabits at a well-connected facility. The further from one of those you go, the more the price tends to go up. They're buying, tops, 100 Mbps, and having it sent to them via microwaves from a tower on the mainland.

> Sure, bandwidth is cheap

Indeed it is, especially when you consider their fees and costs. Based on the information in the article their monthly free cash flow is $2150, so they certainly can afford their current bandwidth usage be it at $9 or $30 per Mbps without playing silly games and spying on their users.

Why would you assume that they're spying on their users?

Because they implied so in the article, accurate as that may be or not.

A bit of an inconsistency in the article, perhaps?

First:

> The monthly fees also cover the $900 a month DBIUA pays StarTouch for bandwidth.

Then:

> The StarTouch link uses burstable billing, with prices going up the more they use.

I don't think I've ever had any links that were, basically, a flat rate for n Mbps with the ability to burst over that for an additional amount, although that certainly doesn't mean they don't exist.

> "The Netflix example is really wierd, as usage is at it's lowest during the night."

Netflix usage or this particular network's usage? How can you know?

Burstable billing is where they use the 95th percentile as the basis for the bandwidth you used, so the top 5% are ignored and form the "burst".

I guess $900 is just the average bill for their usage right now.

Right, I understand how it works. I would have expected, in this particular case, though, that they have a fixed amount of bandwidth available at a fixed dollar amount per month (just for the consistent/predictable monthly expenditure). It may very well be that burstable billing was their best option, though.

> at peak usage times, total bandwidth usage across the entire network is 30Mbps or so.

The microwave backhaul is connected to a 100 Mbps port which would come out to $9/Mbit/month. From what I've seen, that's higher than what you'll pay if you're connecting to an upstream in a well-connected facility. If we then assume 95% billing and peak usage at 30 Mbps, that's an obscene per-megabit rate.

It's quite possible that you're right, of course. I'm making some assumptions based on my experiences which very likely are different from those on a small island in the PNW.

> I would have expected, in this particular case, though, that they have a fixed amount of bandwidth available at a fixed dollar amount per month (just for the consistent/predictable monthly expenditure).

Wholesale bandwidth is sold with a commit and burst. The commit is your fixed monthly charge (and bandwidth) you pay for each month regardless of how much you use. Overages, calculated with the 95th percentile formula, are paid at the burst rate.

> The microwave backhaul is connected to a 100 Mbps port which would come out to $9/Mbit/month. From what I've seen, that's higher than what you'll pay if you're connecting to an upstream in a well-connected facility. If we then assume 95% billing and peak usage at 30 Mbps, that's an obscene per-megabit rate.

Well, yes. I remember Hurricane Electric running a promotion for 1 Gbps of IP transit for $360 a month, but then again they are not present at a HE PoP.

As to pricing, it sounds like run of the mill rural charges. Also we don't know their commit, so can't really calculate with Mbps rate. Perhaps they just decided to go with a zero commit and $30 burst rate instead of paying a flat fee of $1500 for the 100M port. Would make sense at their very low usage rates.

>> "The Netflix example is really wierd, as usage is at it's lowest during the night." > Netflix usage or this particular network's usage? How can you know?

Both. Because that's how ISP bandwidth usage universally is. Peak usage starts after people get home and peak usage ends as they go to sleep. Few stay up during the night and even fewer schedule nightly downloads.

In many places in the country, especially in rural areas, backhaul bandwidth is actually both expensive and metered. "Bandwidth is cheap" is a rule of thumb that really only applies to places close to the major fiber routes.

This particular location is quite well connected, despite being an island. They have a local fiber co-op, a subsea fiber cable and line of sight to several mainland backhaul sites.

Are you familiar with physical internet infrastructure pricing, or are you just assuming? I don't think access is priced as bandwidth. I used to work at a small business isp and that was not how physical access was priced, particularly over relatively bandwidth limited physical connections. Though perhaps you work in the industry?

> Are you familiar with physical internet infrastructure pricing, or are you just assuming?

Yes, I am familiar and no, I'm not just assuming. I actually RTFA and I checked their upstream providers service offering terms.

and that upstream provider doesn't share pricing, plus if they are the only alternative to an isolate community, it's a sellers market

But the article shares pricing information and as I wrote in a sibling comment, the location is rather well connected for being an island.

It's going to differ around the world but in Australia for business connections I'm used to paying a separate fee for the physical connection (which will have a maximum throughput) and a separate fee for the bandwidth allocation and a third for the monthly data cap.

Australia is a bit of an outlier, mainly due to Telstra and the Gang of Four. I believe the polite expression for their actions is "maximizing shareholder value".