Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC |  Fiasco
This whole fiasco irritates me. I already pay for my connection, why should someone at the other end who also does have to pay a 3rd time? |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Stupid
Content providers already pay for bandwidth from their internet providers.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
Mactron
el camino Real
Premium
join:2001-12-16
CM94sv
| reply to Matt
Re: Fiasco
said by Matt  :... why should someone at the other end who also does have to pay a 3rd time? Cellphone billing model ?.. 
--
If only the Verizon CSRs worked this well.  |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
1 edit | said by Mactron :said by Matt :... why should someone at the other end who also does have to pay a 3rd time? Cellphone billing model ?.. If you think about it, this is a step BEYOND even draconian cell phone billing. With a cellphone (just like data transfer) both parties pay for the call (or a fixed amount of data transfer, or per byte, or even via a mutually beneficial peering arrangement) but there is no 3rd charge because you talk to Cousin Joe a lot unless you have an overage.
These companies want to institute an additional charge because the majority of their customers want to view a certain website service. It makes no sense. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to pnh102
Re: Stupid
said by pnh102 :Content providers already pay for bandwidth from their internet providers. not to mention that at least SOME of the money we pay on our bills should be used to improve infrastrucuture. |
|
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
 ·Skype
| Forgotten?
Apparently ISPs have forgotten about the revenue stream they get from their CUSTOMERS to pay for these operating, maintenance, and expansion costs.
I guess they've gotten so caught up in other revenue streams, they consider customer payments for the use of their network resources to be an entitlement now that's part of their baseline and they feel they deserve more money from any entity that would dare make content available to their customers.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to Matt
Re: Fiasco
what ironic is if it wasn't for all those sites with all that content I wouldn't have a need to have a 20 Mbps connection. If all I'm expected to do is check e-mail, sports scores, weather, do online banking and bill pay and that kind of stuff, well I'd just drop down to 756 kbps DSL for $20 a month. |
|
BloodRoses
Gods lend wings to tainted hearts
Premium
join:2003-03-17
clubs: | No.
No. I can't be bothered to waste any more time on such a moranic (sic) 'issue'. Just, no. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| reply to Matt
Re: Fiasco
said by Matt : I already pay for my connection, why should someone at the other end who also does have to pay a 3rd time? Because what you pay doesn't cover all the costs to expand the network to cover the new video viewing activities. Either you pay more or they do. What's your preference? And making the ISP have no profits isn't an option.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
tim_k
Buttons, Bows, Beamer, Shadow, Kasey
Premium
join:2002-02-02
Stewartstown, PA
·Millenicom
 ·WildBlue
2 edits | said by TKJunkMail :said by Matt : I already pay for my connection, why should someone at the other end who also does have to pay a 3rd time? Because what you pay doesn't cover all the costs to expand the network to cover the new video viewing activities. Either you pay more or they do. What's your preference? And making the ISP have no profits isn't an option. The ISP's are cutting their own throats. They keep raising speeds in order to make it sound like they are better than the competiton, but they don't want to increase capacity in order to allow their customers to use those speeds. Did you think that if the content providers have to pay the ISPs, you'll be able to use their services for free anymore? I doubt it.
--
RIP my babys Buttons 1/15/94-2/9/07 & Beamer 7/24/08, Buttons, Buttons video, Beamer
|
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to TKJunkMail
Who is "they" the ISP or sites like google? If google use more than it pays for I think they should pay more. If they don't use more than the y pay for they should not pay more. Am I the only one who thinks like this? |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by me1212 :Who is "they" the ISP or sites like google? If google use more than it pays for I think they should pay more. If they don't use more than the y pay for they should not pay more. Am I the only one who thinks like this? This particular question arises here over and over at BBR. Yes, video content providers(especially P2P sites), pay for their connection to the internet and the data they move. But a lot of it is delivered thru one straw at their end and thru thousands of straws at the ISP's last mile end. So, while they generate tremendous demand at the ISP end, they pay only a little at their end.
Now that model does keep costs low at the content provider end. But it generates very high costs at the ISP end of the connection. So costs at the ISP end will rise as more and more users start watching video(especially using P2P delivery mechanisms). Someone has to pay for the increased costs at the ISP end. It will be you directly thru higher monthly flat charges or thru bill-by-byte tiers. Or indirectly thru fees levied on content providers who then use advertising models to pay more at their end. And, of course, advertisers mean higher costs for all the goods people buy that are being advertised.
So, in the end, you will pay more for all this new video growth occurring on the internet. The big question is HOW you will pay for it, directly or indirectly, as shown above. As for me, I prefer that ISPs move to a bill-by-byte tier system. I watch very, very little video thru an internet connection and would love to see my costs contained. And for those who are downloading hundreds of videos online, their costs should rise in my opinion.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ | No they shouldn't.
Because then that will justify them charging subscription fees for content. The internet has to remain free and open. |
|
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
·Comcast
·Embarq
|  YES!
 The content providers should be required to pay for any synchronous type traffic that they generate. The Internet was never designed to carry time sensitive traffic. TCP/IP is basically an Ultra Asynchronous Protocol. Forget charging Google or any other website that generates typical TCP/IP traffic for usage. Downloading a webpage is quite different from downloading a 25Gb high definition movie. Only content providers like Netflix and other content providers that generate synchronous traffic should pay for the traffic that they generate. If ISP's are allow to charge content providers for traffic that they create, there would be no need to include caps in their rate structure. If ISP's continued to include caps, that fact would be a clear demonstration that caps were instituted to make downloads of entertainment content financially unfeasible. If a movie company wants to ship 1 DVD the price will be quite different than to ship 50,000 DVD's. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
·VOIPo
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Fiasco
I agree, if it cost the ISP $.10 a Gb then they charge us $.30 per gb(I don't know how much it cost them, just using easy #s) I would be ok with that IF and only IF they offer end their highest speed everywhere, or at least 3m. I have 512d 128u and its ok, but I would rather have embarqs 10m. If they want to charge me the max they MUST in return give me the max.
they would also have to get rid of throttles as that would be anti-productive. as people would not be able to use the bandwidth they can be will be charged for. I do not know if I use p2p, just youtube and veoh r they p2p? And I think if p2p is that bad it should be out lawed for the most part. granted the cablecos would loose money with tat plan because people like me would be all, "if they want to charge us fer each Gb I will go all iptv and use each gb I can". |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :Yes, video content providers(especially P2P sites), pay for their connection to the internet and the data they move. But a lot of it is delivered thru one straw at their end and thru thousands of straws at the ISP's last mile end. So, while they generate tremendous demand at the ISP end, they pay only a little at their end. I've seen bandwidth bills for Big Content Providers, and I don't think anybody would call it a little: the costs of providing the infrastructure to provide Big Content Sites would just take your breath away.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl | Unix Wizard | Microsoft Security MVP | Orange County, California USA | my web site |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
1 edit | reply to BF69
Re: Stupid
Unless the AT&Ts of of the world are willing to be just dumb pipes their arguments are nonsense and they should STFU! |
|
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs:
·BlueYonder Interne..
·Be There
| Just A Way To Use Public Money For Rural Coverage
Nothing more.
BBC is funded by the license payer, it's public money. I guess they were nervous about directly using taxes to pay for FITL so why not do some obfuscation and do it this way?
Worth mentioning that Lord Carter who made these comments is a former cableco executive, and as already stated Ofcom appear happy to fellate BT in return for deployment of outdated technology. |
|
bngdup
join:2007-02-20
Old Bridge, NJ
·Cablevision
| reply to Mr Matt
Re: YES!
The major ISP's were granted government subsidies to provide full internet access, not just HTTP port 80 access. You are arguing that because content providers are actually using the megabits that they pay per megabit for that there should be an extra surcharge because it eventually makes it back to my house?
What am I paying my ISP for then if not for synchronous access. So the ISP gets paid by end user for access and gets paid by content providers for access. Please explain to me who this mystery bandit is that is stealing all this money?
If I stream an HD video from netflix than I pay Verizon for the ability to download that. Verizon also gets paid by whoever hands that traffic off to them.
So this is just the ISP's bitching that they can't share in the profits being made by these companies that are using "their pipes" to run a business. They were paid by the government to provide a service, they build said service and now are whining that its not profitable enough.
I say then build your own non-subsidized network sans public funding and see if your new pricing model holds water then. |
|
axiomatic
join:2006-08-23
Tomball, TX
| DISAGREE!
What the fuck is my monthly payment for? These greedy ISP's need to stop with the ridiculous upper management and CEO bonuses and use that cash to upgrade networks. Thats how it was done forever until the last 10 years when board members and COE's started looting their own companies out of greed.
I officially don't give a shit about the ISP's money problems as they created the situation themselves with greed. |
|
