Re: Why accept mobile daps but not residential......
Also you throw out cost-based arguments without backing up your assertions. A Cisco C9300X-24Y costs around $25K today. That's a 24-port switch, so my slice of it is 1/24th of that. So roughly 1K of that
Except your switch is dumb, and just (mostly) suitable for aggregation. This is intentional on Cisco's part because even though it's switches used to be able to route (ie the good'ol Cats could be persuaded to run IOS), that functionality was disabled. However, cheaper switches are available that don't have Cisco's margins or management overheads slapped on..
That puts the ISP's hardware costs, to recoup their 5K investment, at 120 months, at about $41/month to give me a 1GB link without caps for 10 years. I pay $90/month for half that, with traffic shaping/data caps on top of that.
That ignores many costs, like taxes (UK still has rateable values applied to 'lit' fibre), staff costs, wayleaves, cost of capital.. And as I said in my post, it only gets you as far as a 24-port switch. One of the reasons sane ISPs don't use Cisco (other than cost, management complexity) is they're office kit. They don't like being plonked inside a cheap street cabinet, so costs are increased in either providing an 'office in a box', or locating the switch in a PoP somewhere with a more stable environment. Which then means renting a rack in an existing exchange, or leasing/buying/building a PoP somewhere convenient.
Then you completely skip over any of the backhaul and other cost components. So you've filled a switch in mid-Wales. Now, you just have to plumb that into the Internet (well, your AS). So you have 24Gbps of uncontended capacity into.. what? You could contend and lease a 10Gbps circuit towards London. But then you need (or should need) diversity, so find that. So no problem, just lease 6x 10Gbps.. Except your 'cheap' Cisco* 24Y doesn't have an enough ports. So no problem, you could use a 25Gbps uplink, except then you need to find a supplier of 25Gbps for your WAN. Or someone who'll lease you dark fibre, but then you need to also find/build regen sites every 40-80km or so.
But at some point, you're also going to need a router to do the IP thing. Those are really expensive, especially when you're needing multiple 100Gbps interfaces. They're also pretty power hungry, need cooling, need someone to poke them with a stick and stop them crashing etc. Plus you'll need some kind of solution for mail, DNS, oh.. and peering or transit. Oh, and staff who can answer that age old question "Is the Internet down?". Oh, and maybe a lawyer, because your customer is now running VoIP, the Internet is down, and their house is on fire..
So there are a lot of costs involved, and it's still back to the same issue. Absent any other funding sources, the only people who pay those costs are their subscribers. It's a strange business given it's pretty unique in it's funding model, ie ISP pays all the delivery costs. Most households have a similar service delivered over wires, and are 'happy' to pay a standing charge + usage charge. The telephony world sorted out (mostly) a setllement system for origination & termination cost sharing. The postal system has been charging for delivery based on usage for far longer..
*WTF is '48 mGig'? milli-Gigabits? And 'ThousandEyes Enabled'? Surely you only need to support Five.. It's a shame Cisco switched from being a tech company to a marketing machine.