duder
@rr.com | how
how do we keep up with all this crap tell me how ? |
|
yt
Premium
join:2008-06-03
2 edits | BT comments Redux
While I think BT's approach is wrong, their concerns have some business merit. Bit's cost money to deliver end to end. Both Content and Users pay their costs of Transit. Content pays based on volume or peak traffic and Users pay a flat rate for Speed. When a provider only receives 1/2 (or less) of the revenue (and that is a flat rate) for new video, and have 99% of the end to end delivery costs, the economics get a bit challenged.
The problem is the legacy peering infrastructure built when all ISPs had equal costs. Today, there are questionable intermediate ISPs that are peered with BT and sell transit to Content to reach BTs subscribers (at very low rates). They can do this because that intermediate ISPs costs are low as they will just hand the traffic directly to BT. BT makes no money on that side of the equasion, but has to increase capacity to all the desinations of this traffic.
P2P makes this even more challenging. With content providers using P2P for distribution the ISP has to foot the cost for both sides of the traffic with 1/2 the revenue and at a flat rate.
Supportable traffic growth requires a supportable business plan. Content providers are pushing their costs onto the ISP/Consumers and the peering infrastructure of the 90's does not match the Internet economics of today.
Content companies are the ones driving this in the wrong direction and need to pay their fair of bit delivery. Not the consumers. |
|
mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28
 ·magicjack.com
| Customers generally expect their ISP to provide access to today's Internet, not the Internet of five years ago (or of the even more distant past--when dial-up ruled). If an ISP cannot do that, then it should consider other business opportunities that don't require keeping up with the changing times and technologies. Live in the now. |
|
yt
Premium
join:2008-06-03
2 edits | They can. They just need to change the business model to recover the costs as Content changes (video is really a game changer as far as bandwidth). Do you think Consumers should pay or Content should pay?
Content thinks that the Consumers should pay which is why they are pushing the costs to the broadband ISPs via bandwidth arbitrage, exploiting peering relationships and P2P. |
|
Agent 86
@comcast.net | Propaganda vs reality
ISPs have total control over how much consumers use and pay. They can charge by the bit if they want, and some do. Who is forcing them to "give away" bandwidth? Nobody, it's entirely their choice to offer an all-you-can-eat service. |
|
Agent 86
@comcast.net
| The "free ride" that ISPs get
One can just as easily ask why ISPs should get a "free ride" on all the content.
In fact, if money ever ends up changing hands between ISPs and content providers, it's far more likely to be from ISPs, not to ISPs. Think about how cable TV works. The channels don't pay for bandwidth, they get paid. |
|
yt
Premium
join:2008-06-03
1 edit | said by Agent 86 :
One can just as easily ask why ISPs should get a "free ride" on all the content.
In fact, if money ever ends up changing hands between ISPs and content providers, it's far more likely to be from ISPs, not to ISPs. Think about how cable TV works. The channels don't pay for bandwidth, they get paid.
That may be a workable model for the Content owners to offer exclusive content to partner ISPs (see ESPN360). If Content moves more from exclusive Ad revenue to ISP revenue, these costs will be passed on to consumers and the same issues with increase costs on TV could happen. This process and any new costs will be driven by Content owners.
There are still the CDNs that need to pay the network costs for delivery of bits. |
|
Use Multicast
@ntl.com
| Use Multicast and save vast amounts of bandwidth and costs
perhaps its time to remind the BT executive that infact ALL UK ISPs can and have been given the chance several times to freely peer directly with the BBC on the MULTICAST trials of several years in order to save vast amounts of bandwidth and costs.
BUT BT VM and CPW etc, HAVE CONTINUALLY REFUSED TO freely PEER, OR Unfilter the Multicast protocol and the massive savings that the BBC MULTICAST traffic brings ,to and from their own end users/customers paying the monthly bills CPE kit sat on their desks.
keep in mind also, the official free Multicast peering came on line on the 23/02/06.
thats over 3 years ago now, so there is no excuse to the major UK ISPs not to have implimented this purpose made massive bandwidth saving Multicast protocol and peered with any video streaming providers such as the bbc already payed their fees to their co-location providers for their bandwidth.
there is infact no reason they couldnt use multicast as ALL ISP grade routers and related kit the world over has this generic multicast protocol capability as standard and even comes from the vendors fully activated, the worlds ISP actually have their core network departments take the time and effort to turn the Multicast protocol OFF and filter it from and to the end users certified Multicast capable Cable and *DSL modems.....
»support.bbc.co.uk/multicast/peering/
»www.uknof.org.uk/uknof4/Rice-BBCmcast.pdf
»www.bbc.co.uk/multicast/
until the UK (and all the worlds, even that US place over there on the left of Europe  , remember guys THIS IS A UK story) ISPs (are forced? to) re-activate this long standing, existing, currently powered, and currently unused Multicast protocol inside all the ISPs router kit all the way to and from the end users, we the end users can never take advantage of these massive multicast broadband bandwidth upload/download savings, or re-innovate the old MBONE multicast backbone apps and retofit for todays P2p DHT streaming AVC video and related high bandwidth data market place....
put simply, the UKs ISPs have had the choice to use the existing multicast peering o noffer for free, save vast amounts of bandwidth with Multicast, and help REAL innovations to and from the end users of this country.....
the largest UK ISPs such as BT and Virgin Media have refused to take this simple exist Multicast peering option for their own reasons, and its clearly not cash related as Multicast clearly save vast amounts of bandwidth compared to the antiquated unicast point to point video they force us to use as the only option they provide...... |
|
yt
Premium
join:2008-06-03
2 edits | Why should it be free for the BBC?
Also we have a generation of users that watch less and less linear/live video. People want on-demand these days which multicast does not solve. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to yt
Re: BT comments Redux
said by yt  :While I think BT's approach is wrong, their concerns have some business merit. Bit's cost money to deliver end to end. Both Content and Users pay their costs of Transit. Bit for bit, these costs are reduced by half every couple of years or so, a trend that's decades old and has no end in sight and keeps up with year-over-year increases
There is no bandwidth crisis, except the one being invented by the boardrooms of last-mile ISPs trying to put the squeeze on.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL |
|
mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28
·magicjack.com
| reply to yt
I pay for my Internet access; each customer pays for his/her Internet access--this includes sites that host content. Which sites I visit is my business, not the business of my ISP. I pay for my access, something for which the sites I visit have no responsibility or liability. If my ISP wants more money to pay for supporting my usage, then it can raise the rates it charges its customers (or try to). The suggestion that any site which I may visit is in some way responsible to my ISP for supporting my access/usage is, in a word, silly. |
|
yt
Premium
join:2008-06-03
3 edits | reply to funchords
said by funchords :Bit for bit, these costs are reduced by half every couple of years or so, a trend that's decades old and has no end in sight and keeps up with year-over-year increasesThere is no bandwidth crisis, except the one being invented by the boardrooms of last-mile ISPs trying to put the squeeze on. I agree on the past. While costs have reduced, demand has increased at about equal levels. What is different is speeds have dramatically increased over just the last few years and content is finding ways to shift their network costs drastically via P2P technologies, bandwidth arbitrage and questionable intermediate ISPs "reselling" broadband. Add to that a generation of users moving to all content, on demand, on the Internet.
You can perpetuate the "evil board room" theories (as that is very easy to do here on BBR). However I think a logical person who works on large scale networks would see the future is going to look very different than the past.
EDIT: The question is, if future traffic DOES change drastically with new video, who should pay for the network portion? Content or Users (ISPs)? |
|
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
| reply to yt
Re: Use Multicast and save vast amounts of bandwidth and costs
The BBC pays for their bandwidth... Why do you keep saying they don't? Sure they don't manage the pipes, but that's because they're not in the business of it. Even if they did pay for pipes, they wouldn't make any revenue (and profit) off of it the way BT does.
You do understand end users pay BT for their connections *because* of the content providers, right?
It's not free for content providers to produce and manage content. Their business of making and providing content itself costs money. BT is in the business of providing bandwidth. They already make a hefty profit off of this, and over the last several years have failed to invest that profit into upgrading their network.
Why do you think no ISP is willing to shake a stick at this silly argument? |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
1 edit | reply to yt
Re: BT comments Redux
said by yt :You can perpetuate the "evil board room" theories (as that is very easy to do here on BBR). However I think a logical person who works on large scale networks would see the future is going to look very different than the past. This is not new to the Internet. This is a very recurring theme. It comes in waves, but often struggled with something new sucking up the capacity. In the late 80s, it was large FTP archives. In the early 90s, it was images (pictures). Five years later, it was the web-boom itself and the popularization of online music. This "crunch" IS NOT ABOUT P2P*, it's about video.
How did we get out of each one? We grew the network's capacity. Nothing else truly works -- it all amounts to denying or delaying service in one way or another. To meet increased demand, increase supply.
*Oh, we've blamed the technology before, too. FTP used to be the hated protocol. Then it was PointCast and "push" technology that people loved and networks hated.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL |
|
DrModem
Premium
join:2006-10-19
USA
·EarthLink
 ·1and1
 ·PeoplePC
| reply to yt
Re: Use Multicast and save vast amounts of bandwidth and costs
said by yt :Why should it be free for the BBC? BBC pays for the bandwidth they use. Your point was? |
|
yt
Premium
join:2008-06-03
1 edit | reply to funchords
Re: BT comments Redux
Draw a graph of consumer Internet speeds and look at the last 2 years vs the last 20. Now add the wholesale price / mb change over the same period with the last 2 years driven by questionable peering and intermediate ISPs selling a router port hop (vs real transit).
No one can predict the future and I don't think the past is a good judge with as many changes that have happened very recently. My main point is there is a cost to deliver bits and if, I repeat IF, these costs drastically change, either Content or Users (ISP) will need to pay for it. Content wants to shift network costs away from their books in preparation of this. They have been working that angle and PR pretty effectively. |
|
yt
Premium
join:2008-06-03
2 edits | reply to DrModem
Re: Use Multicast and save vast amounts of bandwidth and costs
said by DrModem :said by yt :Why should it be free for the BBC? BBC pays for the bandwidth they use. Your point was? See above |
|
yt
Premium
join:2008-06-03
2 edits | reply to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin :The BBC pays for their bandwidth... Why do you keep saying they don't? I didn't. I was asking why it should be free since it was stated that they should "freely PEER".
said by sonicmerlin :It's not free for content providers to produce and manage content. Their business of making and providing content itself costs money. BT is in the business of providing bandwidth. No argument with that. My statements are around the fact that the BBC now wants to change the model where they get unlimited bandwidth for free (peering) or they will threaten BT and other ISPs with shutting off content to their subscribers (reverse net-neutrality) or they use questionable intermediate ISPs that peer with BT and offer well below market rates / costs required to deliver end to end traffic. They exploit the peering relationships |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
 ·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| reply to yt
Re: BT comments Redux
Wow. Just ...Wow. So, which telco do you work for? This sounds EXACTLY like what I've seen telcos spew.
So, it's your assertion that peering agreements are always done as peers of equals? That, when there's an imbalance between the two parties to a peering point, that the peering agreements either don't get renegotiated or out-right terminated? That the poor, overburdened big guy, just sits there and "takes it" when someone else offloads through the peering?
Funny: I seem to remember a few front-page articles on DSLR about various Internet blackouts being caused by big guys terminating peering with "free-loader" peering partners. Perhaps my memory is faulty on that, though.
When it comes to money, telcos do nothing for free. If their expenses go up, they pass them along to their customers. If their existing peering contracts are imbalanced, they re-do or terminate those contracts.
This "they're making money off our pipes" BS is simply a grab for income. It ignores the whole fact that, were those content providers not out there, their own customers likely wouldn't be there, either.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
yt
Premium
join:2008-06-03
2 edits | Funny thing is, I don't dispute what you have said. Content is critical and it makes money off of subscriptions and/or advertising. It is a symbiotic relationship.
That said, the network still has costs. It has had costs in the past and has costs in the future. Those costs are not always flat and increase with any abnormal increase traffic. The costs shifts also have impact with any loss of because of ISPs selling each others routes. Someone needs to pay for the bits. Right now users pay a flat rate and Content has historically paid / Mb.
Why does Content all of a sudden want the Users to pay for all traffic by strong arming peering or other traffic tricks? |
|
