pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
2 edits | I Call Bull$#!+
quote:
The network owners counter that some Skype Technologies users use a VOIP connection to monitor their children at home, leaving call sessions open for hours or days on end.
I got a bit of a laugh out of this passage of the article. Anyway... so what if people do this? Aren't we paying for the Internet connection which enables to do this?
I say any ISP that wants to implement this sort of thing should go ahead and do it immediately. Go ahead and block access for Google, Skype, online gaming and any other online content provider which refuses to pay up. Do it right now so that you can quickly fall by the wayside.
quote:
I, for one, don’t want to pay the same amount of money for bandwidth while a 15-year old neighbor spends all day sucking most of it up with his limitless, gray-market BitTorrent downloads.
Anyone who thinks this is perfectly free to cancel said Internet service. This way, he/she won't be paying the same amount of money as the other user.
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
 ·T-Mobile US
| Playing home?
"62 percent of Light Reading readers (largely industry insiders and investors) think that broadband network operators have every right to ask for a "QOS fee" from content providers wanting to ensure smooth delivery of their IP services. Being a consumer-centric site, we'll assume the results of our poll will look drastically different."
I guess it explains everything about this Light Reading piece of... article.  |
|
odog
Cable Centric Vendor Biased
Premium
join:2001-08-05
Norcross, GA
clubs: | Hmm
how about a sliding scale... the more bits you push... the lower the priority they become?
Talk amongst yourselves  |
|
MxxCon
join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY
clubs: 
| So WTF am *I* paying for?
if those greedy bustards will demand money from content providers to have access to their network, WHERE DO MY $50/MONTH GO?
------------------------------
if I'm starting a new website and i want my users to have NORMAL access to my website, I'll have to CONTACT EVERY SINGLE ISP IN THE WORLD and negotiate deals with them?
how much is it going to cost me?
------------------------------
if I'm a NPO running a website/service, it's impossible for me to pay for NORMAL network access, am i supposed to charge my users to recoup those costs?
so in the end consumer will endup PAYING TWICE FOR THE SAME INTERNET.
GRR!! this drives me beyond mad!
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: Signature can not exceed 20GB] |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | And again...
All the bandwidth is already paid for on both ends. The telcos are the ones that need to stop whining. Oh, and call a price increase a price increase. That's what they really want anyways. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit |  Sounds like LR editor advocating per byte bb
The Light Reading editor may not be advocating a pure version of paying by the byte. But in his suggestion of a tiered service based on "bandwidth used" vs "all you can eat" tiers based on speeds, he is coming pretty close. I wonder how that suggestion will be received?
»www.lightreading.com/document.as···tease3_2
And the people who pay for better experience should get it, rather than those who don't. I, for one, don’t want to pay the same amount of money for bandwidth while a 15-year old neighbor spends all day sucking most of it up with his limitless, gray-market BitTorrent downloads. If my adolescent neighbor wants to spend all day playing high-quality real-time online gaming, he should have to pay for it. Downloading illegal Widespread Panic bootlegs and playing multiplayer Quake doesn't mean you are carrying forward the cradle of democracy
Would charging more for such activities mean extortion? Please. Are the airlines extorting you because they require you to pay $300 for a seat to fly across the country? Well then, go Greyhound.
The industry has to create value by aggregating the capabilities of the network, coming up with new services, and generating additional revenues by charging customers for them.
In the end, tiered services, or quality of service (QOS), is inevitable. It's not a dirty word. And it won't threaten democracy. Surfing the Web has already been established as the baseline for Internet service – which is in fact a best-effort service that shouldn't require any special engineering or fees.
As far as I can tell, nobody's proposing to charge you extra so that you can read Bawdy Bill's Blog.
Tiered services? Get over it. It's the way the world works. As for me I have no problem with tiers based on bandwidth consumed instead of speeds.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page
Conrail Photo Album |
|
David
No,there is another.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
clubs:
 ·DIRECTV
 ·magicjack.com
 ·AT&T Midwest
|  I am still up in the air..
I am still up in the air on this, on one end the backbone providers bill by bandwidth consumption. On the other end consumer does not. They do make a good point, should grandma that surfs and checks e-mail pay the same price as a 15 yr old downloading illegal bit torrent, or MP3's? I believe there are some ISP's out there that implement the "invisi-cap" and one started throttling bit torrent downloads. I am guessing it is because of cost control.
--
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this. Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!! |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by David  :I am still up in the air on this, on one end the backbone providers bill by bandwidth consumption. On the other end consumer does not. The flip side of this is that as a customer, I couldn't give a rat's @$$ about the costs to my ISP. They advertise a service, set the price, and I pay the bill. I don't care how many rats in a wheel they have to run to get me the bandwidth they promise. If they run into issues on their end, that is their problem, not mine.
You'd think the telegraph companies would have included some sort of "Bandwidth Consumption Surcharge" fee to cover this.
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to David
Aren't there already really tiers that support this? (I think of Verizon's 768kbps tier, or cable lite tiers that often are offered if you threaten to cancel). Is this really the same argument as an incumbent trying to charge Google Video or World of Warcraft a QoS tariff to reach customers more quickly?
I'm not entirely sure the LR author has his debates squared up. |
|
digitalis99
join:2003-07-26
Bellevue, WA
| Charge the end user, if anyone
Why not charge the end user for what QOS they want to have? If the end user knew coming into an agreement with a service provider that they were lumped in with "everybody else", then there should be some understanding when it comes to bandwidth crunch time. The end user should then have the option of a higher priority tier, which would escape some of the problems of being lumped in with "everybody else".
Of course, the ISP better be prepared to deliver to the higher tier... |
|
King P
Don't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul
Premium
join:2004-11-17
Inman, SC
·Windstream
·Charter Pipeline
1 edit | reply to pnh102
letter to the editor...
said by pnh102 : quote:
The network owners counter that some Skype Technologies users use a VOIP connection to monitor their children at home, leaving call sessions open for hours or days on end.
I got a bit of a laugh out of this passage of the article. Anyway... so what if people do this? Aren't we paying for the Internet connection which enables to do this? I say any ISP that wants to implement this sort of thing should go ahead and do it immediately. Go ahead and block access for Google, Skype, online gaming and any other online content provider which refuses to pay up. Do it right now so that you can quickly fall by the wayside. quote:
I, for one, don’t want to pay the same amount of money for bandwidth while a 15-year old neighbor spends all day sucking most of it up with his limitless, gray-market BitTorrent downloads.
Anyone who thinks this is perfectly free to cancel said Internet service. This way, he/she won't be paying the same amount of money as the other user. Amen!!!!
If this guy doesn't like the fact that his 15 year old neighbor is "sucking" all his bandwidth away, then he should find a different provider. Does he even know how the internet works or does this guy know anything about BitTorrent?
The simple fact of the matter is that the gas station doesn't charge extra for unleaded gasoline because you want to speed on the interstate, so why should we pay for "premium" services when the providers of those services have already PAID for their internet connection, and we have already paid our provider for our connection.
This guy (LR Editor) needs to get over it and move on with his life. As a content provider myself, I don't expect any customer to have to pay extra to download free music from my music store, because I ALREADY paid for my connection to provide that music to them.
This practice (of QoS tariffs) is not fair to the consumers, or the content providers...period.
--
Forget 'em, Support the Indies.
»www.ind-music.com |
|
MxxCon
join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY
clubs:
| reply to David
Re: I am still up in the air..
said by David :should grandma that surfs and checks e-mail pay the same price as a 15 yr old downloading illegal bit torrent, or MP3's? just because it's "illegal" he have to pay more?
paying per byte will greatly hurt internet industry.
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: Signature can not exceed 20GB] |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Sounds like LR editor advocating per byte bb
said by TKJunkMail :The Light Reading editor may not be advocating a pure version of paying by the byte. But in his suggestion of a tiered service based on "bandwidth used" vs "all you can eat" tiers based on speeds, he is coming pretty close. I wonder how that suggestion will be received? » www.lightreading.com/document.as···tease3_2And the people who pay for better experience should get it, rather than those who don't. I, for one, don’t want to pay the same amount of money for bandwidth while a 15-year old neighbor spends all day sucking most of it up with his limitless, gray-market BitTorrent downloads. If my adolescent neighbor wants to spend all day playing high-quality real-time online gaming, he should have to pay for it. Downloading illegal Widespread Panic bootlegs and playing multiplayer Quake doesn't mean you are carrying forward the cradle of democracy
Would charging more for such activities mean extortion? Please. Are the airlines extorting you because they require you to pay $300 for a seat to fly across the country? Well then, go Greyhound.
The industry has to create value by aggregating the capabilities of the network, coming up with new services, and generating additional revenues by charging customers for them.
In the end, tiered services, or quality of service (QOS), is inevitable. It's not a dirty word. And it won't threaten democracy. Surfing the Web has already been established as the baseline for Internet service – which is in fact a best-effort service that shouldn't require any special engineering or fees.
As far as I can tell, nobody's proposing to charge you extra so that you can read Bawdy Bill's Blog.
Tiered services? Get over it. It's the way the world works. As for me I have no problem with tiers based on bandwidth consumed instead of speeds. What a surprise: you sided with the more-money-for-corporations opinion?
No way...
No way we should pay by bandiwdth in 2006. There's no such billing anywhere on this world, the available bandwidth is already there but these greedy motherfuckers simply want to avoid spending a fuckin dime on long-overdue upgrades.
It's clear as 1-2-3. |
|
joshpo
join:2002-09-24
Philadelphia, PA | reply to Karl Bode
Re: I am still up in the air..
This is exactly what I was thinking. Deprioritizing some kid's Bittorrent bandwidth is a totally different topic from charging QoS tariffs to content providers like Google or Skype. Sloppy article. |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| reply to pnh102
Re: I Call Bull$#!+
said by pnh102 : Anyone who thinks this is perfectly free to cancel said Internet service. This way, he/she won't be paying the same amount of money as the other user. Why is it that there are quality levels in every other area of life - food, cars, houses, call girls, drugs, sports teams - but internet access must somehow be immune from those market realities?
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| reply to David
Re: I am still up in the air..
said by David :I am still up in the air on this, on one end the backbone providers bill by bandwidth consumption. On the other end consumer does not. They do make a good point, should grandma that surfs and checks e-mail pay the same price as a 15 yr old downloading illegal bit torrent, or MP3's? I believe there are some ISP's out there that implement the "invisi-cap" and one started throttling bit torrent downloads. I am guessing it is because of cost control. Don't eat their BS - they don't pay by the BW you use. They already bought plenty of bandwidth, the backbone cost went down since 2000 yet they don't want to upgrade their tiers because it'd cost money - so they rather work together to make sure they don't have to invest back but simply set up new rules to make sure their higher profits. |
|
David
No,there is another.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
clubs:
·DIRECTV
·magicjack.com
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to Karl Bode
Well if that is the case then why "invisi-cap"? Why throttle then? Why do it at all and waste the time doing it?
They are doing those things for one reason: cost control. it makes sense.. If you collect say $17.99 from 10 customers and one downloads enough to consume the bandwidth the other 9 would ever use in say 50 years where is the cost recovery then?
I am not stating I am on a side, but then again where are the limits? ISP's still pay bandwidth by byte too, don't think they get a flat fee like we get as consumer. Tell that to your ISP as you pay them a monthly fee while downloading 600GB a month while grandma uses 500Mb for one month.
--
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this. Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!! |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to digitalis99
Re: Charge the end user, if anyone
quote:
Why not charge the end user for what QOS they want to have?
Because the goal here is to increase income to subsidize next-gen network deployment without making it obvious they've raised prices. Get their cake and eat it too.
They charge content providers more, who then pass those costs on to you. You blame the content provider for higher-prices, while getting only marginal improvement in your connectivity quality. Not entirely unlike the "regulatory recovery fee" tacked on your phone bill, which is really just a rate hike, but disguised as an official fee so you direct your ire at Uncle Sam, not the provider.
These are men who have made a delicate and beautiful art out of screwing you. |
|
lgkahn
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Londonderry, NH | new bus op.
I smell a new bus. op.
when these jackasses start charging a tarrif to reach google or other high use sites and some refuse.. I will start a service that redirects packets from my network to google etc. and back ... |
|
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| reply to MxxCon
Re: So WTF am *I* paying for?
I've wondered this too.
I've got a band site. So what if there isn't much content, a few songs, a few pictures. What, am I supposed to ask EVERYBODY to pay up another 'access' or 'quality' fee just so some random fan out in nowhereville can look/listen? Should that same nowhereville person get more 'quality' from google, which displays mostly text, instead of just wanting to listen to a song or two?
I'm really confused by this.
What the heck did I just pay for hosting for?
Where does that monthly bill go for my isp?
Answer: To connect people. Straight up. If I want to host video's, I'd probably have to get a dedicated server, and pay more, and more for more bandwidth. This would be for the fans, not me, but guess what, I (yes I, Me, Myself) would PAY FOR THAT!
Those fans also pay for their link to the WORLD wide Web.
I fail to see where this imaginary "QUALITY" comes into play ANYWHERE!
If they're so bent that they just spent a load of money on fancy new routers/fibers/what the heck ever, TOO BAD! Just raise rates by $.25 for everyone and be done with it! Explain that it's to cover upgrades, and people will understand.
Why did they "upgrade" to begin with? To provide FASTER more RELIABLE, QUALITY, HIGH SPEED INTERNET! Otherwise, yeah, we'd all be stuck on dial up I guess.
Really, would ANY competent network engineer like to explain this one clearly to an average user? To an average owner of a website? To any company that hosts websites? To anyone besides greedy telco's???
This is getting really tired. |
|
