Shamayim
I already have a Messiah.
Premium
join:2002-09-23 | Love the picture
Lol, Karl  |
|
buzz_4_20
join:2003-09-20
Presque Isle, ME | WTF
Why do ISP's claim the content providers are part of the problem. They pay for bandwidth they send out? |
|
tlkudo
Premium
join:2007-09-20
Fort Pierce, FL | LOL
...Fiber to the press release |
|
Jim_in_VA
join:2004-07-11
Cobbs Creek, VA
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Millenicom
| Investors?
Do these investors not use the very service they gripe about? For example: why would an AT&T investor with an iphone complain about poor net speeds, and out of the other side of their mouth complain about spending money to build out the network? Idiots.
--
... need help? »evdo-tips.com/ |
|
kontos
xyzzy
join:2001-10-04
West Henrietta, NY
| reply to buzz_4_20
Re: WTF
said by buzz_4_20  :Why do ISP's claim the content providers are part of the problem. They pay for bandwidth they send out? Content providers have the advantage of a small (physical distance) network. The build a data center (or a few) and they make sure they locate it where they have cheap and easy access to the 'Internet backbone.'
The ISPs that cater to the eyeballs have a much bigger area with a lot more nodes to service. Think about how many hops that BT has to deal with...
BT has the DSL connection form you modem to the DSLAM, then maybe a DS-3 from the DSLAM to the aggregation POP, then an OC-3 from the POP to the backbone POP, and then an OC-12 from the backbone POP to the IXP.
The BBC rents space in the IXP building, and makes a few GigE interconnects inside the building, and they're done. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
 ·VOIPo
| reply to buzz_4_20
Because they(the ISPs) could have their own product and it mat not be making as much money as it could. And the CT providers are making money and the ISPs are jealous. They are cheap and do not want to pay to upgrade their own network, they want the content providers and or the people to do so and still be kept under a cap. |
|
Thane_Bitter
join:2005-01-20
London, ON | reply to Shamayim
Re: Love the picture
I concur, it is a fitting visual to what amounts to childish bawling.  |
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
·VOIPo
 ·Cox HSI
1 edit | F BT and all the whining telecoms
These idiots talk about the "free ride" video services get.
DUMBASSES, SUBSCRIBERS ALREADY PAY FOR THE DELIVERY.
And on the other end Google, Netflix and others pay zillions for their pipes.
These greedy ISPs just want to charge TWICE to deliver the same content. They can go S in their hats.
--
POKE 65495,1 |
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000 | reply to buzz_4_20
Re: WTF
And of course without content, why would anyone subscribe to an ISP?
--
POKE 65495,1 |
|
Killa200
Premium
join:2005-12-02
Spring City, TN
 ·AT&T Southeast
1 edit | reply to kontos
then perhaps they should get out of the isp business and into the datacenter business... You know, its only several hundred million dollars to get a good one up and running, 
Or they can actually make an effort to do good in the content business, and "give up" the "oh so hard" task of making sure the people have a way to view the content. That way later on when we have a few ISP's that actually do a fantastic job delivering connections to homes, they can charge them this fee they are trying to get content providers to pay,  |
|
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | They don't spend anywhere near that much money on a single POP. They lease space in that type of facility you are talking about but do not occupy the entire datacenter. |
|
R4M0N
Brazilian Soccer Ownz Joo
join:2000-10-04
Glen Allen, VA
·Comcast
| ISP's Weird Logic
Let me get this straight:
1. People use ISPs to get the content they want.
2. Without content there would be no need for ISPs.
3. Content providers already pay for the pipes to connect content sources to the internet.
4. Consumers already pay ISPs to access the content that is only available because content providers already paid for the pipes to make them available.
Conclusion: ISPs want to have the cake and eat it too.
TIP to ISPs: Want extra revenue? Find something people want added to their service, charge a reasonable price for it, and see if people will buy it. Rinse and repeat. |
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
| ISPs should shut the F up
They get to make BILLIONS on the backs of content providers like Google.
If not for content NO ONE would even bother subscribing to an ISP. Look at the Pay TV model. Cable operators have to pay big bucks for content to pass on to subscribers. And now these same telecoms think that the Internet is somehow different and that they should be able to charge twice for content delivery.
It is this same bit of stupidity that has Time Warner claiming that we need more 'education' about consumption based pricing.
--
POKE 65495,1 |
|
pat_lc2000
join:2006-02-04
Ottawa, ON | BBC
Given the Way British media works, isn't complaining about the BBC just asking for trouble? |
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000 | reply to R4M0N
Re: ISP's Weird Logic
Yeah and ISPs do come up with their own content but it always sucks. So to "compete" they will just traffic shape competitors into the ground while leaving their own crappy content alone.
--
POKE 65495,1 |
|
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
1 edit | reply to kontos
Re: WTF
said by kontos :The ISPs that cater to the eyeballs have a much bigger area with a lot more nodes to service. Think about how many hops that BT has to deal with... BT has the DSL connection form you modem to the DSLAM, then maybe a DS-3 from the DSLAM to the aggregation POP, then an OC-3 from the POP to the backbone POP, and then an OC-12 from the backbone POP to the IXP. The BBC rents space in the IXP building, and makes a few GigE interconnects inside the building, and they're done. All true, but the ISP's subscribers are paying for the ISP to build a network that can handle the data from the content providers. They're in the business of providing Internet access. If they can't do that, then they shouldn't be offering the service.
BT and AT&T's position would be like an airline asking hotels to pay for them (the airline) to transport passengers on the rationale that the hotels make money from these passengers staying there, yet they bear no cost in getting them to their front doors. So why should these hotels get a free ride when it's the airlines that are incurring the expense of delivering all these people?
If the ISPs want to charge the content providers for delivering their data, then what am I paying the ISP to do? It'd be like the USPS, UPS, or FedEx trying to charge both the sender and recipient of a package for its delivery. |
|
buzz_4_20
join:2003-09-20
Presque Isle, ME
·Great Works Internet
·GWIS Internet Solu..
| reply to kontos
I know the ISP has a higher per bit cost than a datacenter that's not the issue. But they are making it sound like it's YouTube's fault for being something that customers are interested in.
Some upgrades would drop thier per bit cost and improve service to customers. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to R4M0N
Re: ISP's Weird Logic
"Conclusion: ISPs want to have the cake and eat it too."
No, they already have their cake and are eating it, now they want the other guy cake too.
What ever happened to the cake being a lie...... |
|
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
| reply to Bit
Re: ISPs should shut the F up
It's not stupidity; it's greed. The ISPs are just high-tech delivery boys. What they want to do is to see if they can charge you for them to go get the content and also charge the content provider to bring the content to you. And they think they can get away with it because they're the only game in town. You want the content? You're going to have to pay for it. The content providers want to reach you? They're going to have to pay for that, too.
Kinda sounds like a shakedown, doesn't it? |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs | reply to Shamayim
Re: Love the picture
That picture makes me want to schedule a vasectomy... |
|
