dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2010-12-16 17:11:18: For years during the network neutrality debate, some supporters warned of a future that involved customers paying more money if they wanted to access certain content. ..

prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5
ophelus
join:2004-01-11
Kansas City, MO

ophelus

Member

Plan a

I have a plan..

Let's all argue amongst ourselves and let corporate american win.. ohh that's what were doing already!

My bad

cork1958
Cork
Premium Member
join:2000-02-26

cork1958 to sapo

Premium Member

to sapo

Re: The highest appeal

said by sapo:

The freedom and unrestricted nature of the internet is why I use it. Once you make tiers that make like it TV I will just lose interest in it. Youtube and Facebook are not that big of a deal to me.

Exactly correct on the first part and I don't do much Youtube and Facebook should be against the law anyway!!

Still, it would be totally wrong to charge for it.

t3ln3t
@rr.com

t3ln3t

Anon

the phone/cable companies are full of somethin'!

Back when I was still willing to work and do buisness with at&t, I couldn't believe they were doing this net nutrality bru hah-hah. Sounds to me like a bunch or horse hockey!

wait a minute, you want the companies that use your network, and ALL goto real popular sites, to pay more for the privilage of accessing those customers?

Don't they already pay to access the Internet?

I remember back in the day ... installing web caches in Pacific Bell's network.
You wouldn't think customers in VERY affluent areas of California would prefer farm-sex.com! huh ...
So does farm-sex.com pay more for access to the Internet? They already pay out the nose for all the bandwidth, and the phone/cable companies are getting money to connect the pacbell customers to the Internet? Kinda sounds like double dippin', and they want a third dip.

Maybe I'm wrong, but sounds to me like the phone/cable companies are full of somethin' and still asking for more via enema?

JKM
join:2009-06-08
Seymour, MO

1 recommendation

JKM to WHT

Member

to WHT

Re: What If I Charged You Extra to Download Movies?

Consumers seem to think they are entitled to unlimited everything for almost nothing. As a small Wireless ISP, I can tell you that the Internet capacity is nowhere near ready for unlimited streaming content. Netflix has a business model that can't be supported with the present Internet infrastructure, period. We are only starting to see the problem.

The Internet is a shared resource. At the present time it is estimated that Netflix is 20% of the total traffic. I suspect it will be half the traffic in a few years. Think about that......this means over a few years it has doubled the traffic. This means one content provider will have as much traffic as all the rest of the millions of content providers. Will all the level one providers, ISPs and content providers sit still for this while Netflix makes millions for an under-priced content that breaks the Internet for the rest of us and pays nothing for the transportation of their product, I doubt it.

Here is an article I wrote about the specific of a wireless network:
For years contention based ISP business models have made Internet service affordable to consumers. This business model is in grave danger due to the increasing amount of streaming content becoming available. The consumer thinks they can acquire a dedicated service for a contention-based price. We must work to educate them.

I believe the average consumer does not understand the cost of Internet products very well, if at all. The cost from least to most is content, bandwidth and transportation. In my area 60 - 70% of bandwidth cost is transportation. Then it must be transported from the providers PoP to my network and across a couple more links to the AP. In my opinion all of this is still not the real problem.

The one hurdle that is the hardest to overcome is last-mile network capacity. This can only be overcome with technology. Technology like most things in life is a trade-off. We can have somewhat better technology for much more money and much less range. What this means is we can have the capacity to stream video to many but it will raise the price of the Internet service for all on the network. It would easily double the cost of the network in last-mile hardware costs alone. Now factor in the bandwidth. If one-third of the customers on the network stream video, the demand for bandwidth will increase to 360% of normal. This does not account for the fact that with 33% of us watching streaming TV on a 1.5 Mbps connection during prime time we will exceed the capacity of the Access point by 3.6 times. Another drawback to technology that supports more bandwidth is that range will be greatly decreased and coverage to as much as half the customers in our area will most likely be lost. I made these calculations based on an access point serving 100 users. But just 10 customers streaming TV on a 1.5 Mbps connection during prime time can use all the capacity of that access point. This means that the ISP could need as much as ten times the equipment to keep up with demand. This will exceed the load capacity of the tower, not to mention the lack of spectrum to accommodate that many APs. So now I hope you are starting to see the value of your present TV service. It is transportation not content that makes your cable or satellite TV cost so much. I can't see a way to design a wireless network that will support 30% - 50% of it's customers watching streaming HDTV, even one channel per household during three hours of prime time viewing, and be affordable enough to remain in business. I know in our household, various family members watch two or three different channels at once.

In addition please check the following links to start to understand the magnitude of the streaming content dilemma:
»www.businessweek.com/mag ··· 7708.htm
»gigaom.com/2010/12/01/fc ··· -access/
»Level3 Accuses Comcast Of Net Neutrality Violation

This is a real problem that few understand. I know many will think this is a lie from an ISP to control traffic. Seriously, I started a WISP to provide service to rural Americans with few if any other options. In my service area about 35% of us do not have access to anything but dial-up, satellite and if we are lucky wireless. Now I have to watch the Digital Divide grow because I can’t acquire affordable technology to provide streaming content to my customers.

As more consumers use a streaming content, the quality of everybody’s Internet experience will decline at an amazing rate. Fiber is the only answer, but I honestly do not think we can expect it in many rural areas for at least fifty years. I will continue to pay $80.00 per month for my satellite TV. As the owner of my network I cannot transport the content for what the satellite provider can. In addition, it would be selfish of me to monopolize the shared resources of the network.

Hopefully when you see the contrast of what a large percent of Americans have for Internet service you will appreciate your situation more. And yes, the rural/wireless situation is unique. However all that uniqueness does is make the real problem easier to understand. The Internet is not ready for full-blown streaming content. Another competitor will make things even worse and that is bound to happen. Wait and see.

james16
join:2001-02-26

james16 to wifi4milez

Member

to wifi4milez

Re: The highest appeal

said by wifi4milez:

I had never actually heard of Godwin's 'law' until now, but it is so very true (especially on this site!). I especially like the etiquette surrounding what to do when someone breaks this 'law'.

quote:
"there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress."

First of all... how the hell have you never heard of Godwin's law?
I'd welcome you to the internet but your join date suggests you've been here for a while.

Secondly, no one actually follows that retarded etiquette. Try pulling that shit and see what happens.
Expand your moderator at work

kw0
Premium Member
join:2004-06-12
New Albany, OH

1 recommendation

kw0

Premium Member

What If Your ISP Charged Extra For YouTube?

I'd go to whatever alternative took it's place. It's not rocket science.

If they implemented something like this, alternatives would pop up to eat up the users of whatever was just taken away.

They've already done it with torrent sites (albeit, in a different manner), I don't see this being much different.

ctceo
Premium Member
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN

ctceo to WHT

Premium Member

to WHT

Re: What would I do?

Missing the point.

How much is all that ACTUALLY worth, other than the resources and manpower to make it happen? Think "Fruits of our labor" for a hint.

The figure of ~$10k is only an imaginary measure of drones, ahem, employees needed to accomplish this task.

Money is Debt and a measure of complacency. If you eliminate all your debt than you no longer need money. Do you want more debt?
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Sammer to Kamus

Member

to Kamus

Re: The Consumer is in Charge

said by Kamus :

But if it's really true that the cost of bandwidth for backbones halves every 9 months, and will continue to do so for a while... they're just doomed.
At some point it will get cheap enough so that new players enter the arena, and offer compelling data only flat rates.

I mean, if it wasn't for the "last mile" problem, we could already take advantage of all this unused bandwidth.
So i guess what we need is for prices to drop for "last mile" deployment a lot more before we can take advantage of all the bandwidth they'd rather never have us get.

If unregulated corporations insist on schemes that rip-off consumers someday voters will insist on the government funding a competitive fiber optic based last mile that will be the feared dumb pipe!

WHT
join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX

WHT to kw0

Member

to kw0

Re: What If Your ISP Charged Extra For YouTube?

said by kw0:

I'd go to whatever alternative took it's place.
If they implemented something like this, alternatives would pop up

Alternatives won't "pop up". There is a limited amount of radio spectrum that WISPs can use.
WHT

WHT to Kamus

Member

to Kamus

Re: The Consumer is in Charge

said by Kamus :

So i guess what we need is for prices to drop for "last mile" deployment

Actually prices are going to go up by at least twice as much, and at least a month wait time for installations.

2.4 GHz is a RF waste land with a dozen APs on 200 foot towers or 120 foot water towers, all within a few miles of each other, and then you have the -70 dBm noise floor from SOHO wireless gear. 5.8 GHz is getting to be the same way, but at least the more tighter beamwidth antennas is helping; as well as 200 watts for the PtP backhaul links.

The next stage is 3.65 GHz and the equipment costs twice as much and each user's radio has to be licensed (it takes about a month for the FCC to process your application).
WHT

WHT

Member

Re: What If I Charged You Extra to Download Movies?

Well, I bounced this idea off some of my subscribers and they said the potential of getting FAPed (what the HughesNet people say when they went over their daily FAP - Fair Access Policy - limit and got their speed throttled) was not something they would NOT like to see.

However they said a metered plan would be acceptable as it would not really affect them and it would keep excessive users at bay.

Considering 80-90% of our subs use less than 10 GB per month...

One of our original tiers:
Residential: $35 @ 2 Mbps, 30 GB per month

New Proposed DAILY cap tier:
Basic: $55 @ 2 Mbps, 18 GB limit at 600 MB per day

New Proposed METERED cost for 10 GB of usage:
Basic: - $25 @ 2 Mbps connection fee plus $.50 per GB

Guess what? The monthly cost to the typical subscribe is still $35 per month!

Now what if you used 200 GB per month (about what 20 typical subscribers use). You'd be paying $125 per month.

If you, your wife, and two kids all start downloading movies or watch TV programs all evening, that's going to suck up every bit of data that AP could transmit. The other 19 subscribers on that AP are going to get real crappy service and cancel. I've just lost $700 to earn your measly $125.
Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
Aptos, CA

Ulmo to sapo

Member

to sapo

Re: The highest appeal

said by sapo:

The freedom and unrestricted nature of the internet is why I use it. Once you make tiers that make like it TV I will just lose interest in it. Youtube and Facebook are not that big of a deal to me.

What this does to Facebook is amazing ("this" being content discrimination in data pipe companies):

Suddenly, everything anybody would ever want to do with Facebook, whether Facebook wants it or not, will be demanded of Facebook, since people wouldn't be able to just do it anywhere (forced to use Facebook). Facebook would AOLify, trying to be something to everyone, but even more so since carriers would REQUIRE you to use Facebook, whereas in theory you could STOP using AOL if you just canceled your credit card or bank account and stopped paying the credit card/bank account. The pressure on Facebook would be enormous. As soon as Facebook says "but we can do what we want", the users would dump the carriers to something that can do what the users want, and the carriers would bring big guns to Facebook to say "hey do what the users want, and damn your standards or individuality or desires for your site". The outcome would either be a watered-down weak Facebook, or the carriers would become more fractured when they start shutting out Facebook to choose their own systems. Either way, users would get 80% of what they want and 70% of what they need minimum, if not more. It would be screwed up, but it would not be exactly what the content-restricting types of entities want. Finally, all the control-types would find out that every ounce of control they attempt to put on it would bang back with tons of pressure.

Oh, they can do it. But the outcome would basically be to bankrupt the places doing it, or to overthrow the governments doing it, or both. In fact, if you want to tank a company or government, this would be one of the easy ways to do it. It would take a few decades, but it would not fail to tank them. But, they could be replaced with something that you don't want. Like a company that responds to the market, or a government that is for and by the people.
RJARRRPCGP
join:2010-12-17
North Springfield, VT

RJARRRPCGP to WHT

Member

to WHT

Re: come on FCC

2 Mbit costing $99 is like 2003 lol.
RJARRRPCGP

RJARRRPCGP to WHT

Member

to WHT

Re: What If Your ISP Charged Extra For YouTube?

Bummer.

StreetSpirit
This spot reserved for Xenu.
Premium Member
join:2002-08-13
Roslyn, NY

StreetSpirit to treich

Premium Member

to treich

Re: guys stop your fing b*tching please

said by treich:

guys you need to stop your fing b*tching please the internet is a privilege not a right you know that right? just driving is a privilege not a right. Also you have to think most of these ISP have to fork sh*t load of money for bandwidth so they have to come up some way to recover the dang cost for bandwidth. I can see down the future your going to pay per site if its not already doing it. Just think about it your 3meg dsl connection can be costing you 400 dollars or more a month your lucky they aint charging you for it intead you paying from 30-80 dollars a month.

Uh, I hate to say this but almost every point of your post is wrong.

Please educate yourself, especially on the cost of bandwidth and/or read some industry materials before you post something else completely devoid of reality. For an ISP, the big cost is not bandwidth. It's almost always capital improvement and last mile costs. And the "privilege not a right" spiel is completely out of place - where do I go to get my Innernette license? The reason that expression is used, often referring to driving is that you are an operator of a multi-ton fast moving hunk of metal. I doubt anyone has ever died of being hit by a packet.

--
Cheers!
Thanks for the comedy! Happy Holidays!
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC

jfmezei

Premium Member

Already happened in Canada

Wireless providers in Canada have already implemented this scheme and nobody cried foul.

There have wireless data packages that grant access only to specific web sites. Thery are called "social networking packages". I wouldn't be surprised if the web sites have to pay the wireless providers to be included in that package.

These packages are aimed at teenagers. Adults who want full internet connection to access any IP or any port need to pay a huge amount more money.

kw0
Premium Member
join:2004-06-12
New Albany, OH

kw0 to WHT

Premium Member

to WHT

Re: What If Your ISP Charged Extra For YouTube?

said by WHT:

said by kw0:

I'd go to whatever alternative took it's place.
If they implemented something like this, alternatives would pop up

Alternatives won't "pop up". There is a limited amount of radio spectrum that WISPs can use.

I was referring to the alternatives to Youtube, Facebook, whatever. Not the ISP.
razdamaschin
join:2010-08-18
Iola, WI

razdamaschin

Member

Already paying

I do keep seeing this question raised, but not the one related to the fact that we are already paying for that. Just begin to remember the TV ads just a few years back that were such a war on who has the fastest connection to offer and that cable is X times faster than DSL which is X times faster than dial-up and how cool it is that you can stream video and movies. THAT WAS the marketing strategy! Even now, with most companies (TDS & Charter for example) you can "chose" the faster (more expensive) pack. I do and I am happy, and now the same companies to say out loud "Well, yeah we said watching videos and movies is cool, but you're watching way to much and the fact that you're paying for the top bandwidth tear does not really mean you can actually use it" ... I can stop here for today

TimG
@comcast.net

TimG

Anon

"Net Neutrality" is a codeword for "make others p

The reaction to what the wireless carriers are doing is very uninformed. The religion of "network neutrality" is all about forcing the vast majority of us to pay for high bandwidth usage of a few companies and individuals - this drives up wireless internet pricing for all of us. This is NOT about changing the service we have now - those who want the existing options can keep them. This IS about making it possible to create service plans that are much less expensive for people who need basic connection to the internet and don't need to suck down a huge amount of bandwidth for video and pictures. The way things work right now, only 25% of the US population, and much smaller percentages in places like India, can afford wireless internet service for their cell phone. The reason is that carriers don't have a way to make specialized service plans for less expensive services. If they did, they could offer inexpensive services like basic search and browsing, location services, driving directions, all you can eat text, all you can eat email body (the words but not downlaods) with the option to pay a little extra when you need a download on your phone - all at a price everyone who has a phone can afford. The carriers could also charge facebook and netflix to get them to pay for the bandwidth they are using instead of forcing the rest of us to pay for their business expenses to get to the releatively small percentage of users who consume the vast majority of the data services for these companies - while the companies freeload. The problem with a "once size fits all" plan is that the 95% of us who use about 500 mega bytes per month end up paying $30 to $40 per month rather than a smaller amount because there are less than 5% of people who hog bandwidth by doing things like connecting their computer or even entire home network through their cell phone, camping on facebook or downloading DVD quality or even HD quality movies. Bandwidth costs the carriers money - about $0.04 per megabyte on 3G and half that or so for 4G AFTER the 4G $20 billion cost is paid for the spectrum and equipment. So, on 3G it costs a carrier about $40 if you download a standard definition movie on your smart phone during peak hours and about $200 if you download an HD movie. The way things work now, you and I pay for the people who do this by paying more every month for our service so that the users who are doing it and netflix get a free ride. My vote is to let people who want to do this kind of thing pay for it and the vast majority of the rest of us who use our smart phones for internet search, light internet browsing, text, email body, driving directions, location services etc. can get these services for less money - and people who can't afford internet now will become connected. Of course the other option is to let the government dictate terms on how the carriers charge for wireless internet service - then we can all pay a big extra price for our wireless service so that netflix's and facebook don't have to pay for the bandwidth their business models consume and so that the small percentage of us who watch movie downloads on cell phones can keep doing this without really paying for what it actually costs. Then we can get the government to make the utility companies give us "net neutral" power and "net neutral" cable TV - so we can all pay extra for those carrier services too. My vote is let the carriers offer more service options for those of us who want to stop paying for bandwidth hogging companies and individuals.
TimGdsnd
join:2010-12-20
Palo Alto, CA

TimGdsnd

Member

"Net Neutrality" really means "No Cheap Wireless Internet"

The reaction to what the wireless carriers are doing is very uninformed. The religion of "network neutrality" is all about forcing the vast majority of us to pay for high bandwidth usage of a few companies and individuals - this drives up wireless internet pricing for all of us. This is NOT about changing the service we have now - those who want the existing options can keep them. This IS about making it possible to create service plans that are much less expensive for people who need basic connection to the internet and don't need to suck down a huge amount of bandwidth for video and pictures. The way things work right now, only 25% of the US population, and much smaller percentages in places like India, can afford wireless internet service for their cell phone. The reason is that carriers don't have a way to make specialized service plans for less expensive services. If they did, they could offer inexpensive services like basic search and browsing, location services, driving directions, all you can eat text, all you can eat email body (the words but not downlaods) with the option to pay a little extra when you need a download on your phone - all at a price everyone who has a phone can afford. The carriers could also charge facebook and netflix to get them to pay for the bandwidth they are using instead of forcing the rest of us to pay for their business expenses to get to the releatively small percentage of users who consume the vast majority of the data services for these companies - while the companies freeload. The problem with a "once size fits all" plan is that the 95% of us who use about 500 mega bytes per month end up paying $30 to $40 per month rather than a smaller amount because there are less than 5% of people who hog bandwidth by doing things like connecting their computer or even entire home network through their cell phone, camping on facebook or downloading DVD quality or even HD quality movies. Bandwidth costs the carriers money - about $0.04 per megabyte on 3G and half that or so for 4G AFTER the 4G $20 billion cost is paid for the spectrum and equipment. So, on 3G it costs a carrier about $40 if you download a standard definition movie on your smart phone during peak hours and about $200 if you download an HD movie. The way things work now, you and I pay for the people who do this by paying more every month for our service so that the users who are doing it and netflix get a free ride. My vote is to let people who want to do this kind of thing pay for it and the vast majority of the rest of us who use our smart phones for internet search, light internet browsing, text, email body, driving directions, location services etc. can get these services for less money - and people who can't afford internet now will become connected. Of course the other option is to let the government dictate terms on how the carriers charge for wireless internet service - then we can all pay a big extra price for our wireless service so that netflix's and facebook don't have to pay for the bandwidth their business models consume and so that the small percentage of us who watch movie downloads on cell phones can keep doing this without really paying for what it actually costs. Then we can get the government to make the utility companies give us "net neutral" power and "net neutral" cable TV - so we can all pay extra for those carrier services too. My vote is let the carriers offer more service options for those of us who want to stop paying for bandwidth hogging companies and individuals.
prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5