pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
Premium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| dumb pipes
That's all an ISP needs to be. I myself don't want the portals and other _advanced_ content crap.
All we want is a good connection to the net, decent email and newsnet servers.
Stop trying to be content providers, we can find that stuff on our own. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| said by pokesph  :All we want is a good connection to the net, decent email and newsnet servers. Do you want a dumb pipe or decent mail and news servers? |
|
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | reply to pokesph
You can get that dumb pipe in the form of a T1, DS3, Metro Ethernet, etc. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to pokesph
ISPS have something to moan about! It's called not living up to their end of the bargain. Customers PAY THEM for the service. If they can't afford or aren't able to provide it, then changes have to be made on their end. IT IS NOT the content provider's responsibility to limit what the user sees, nor is it the ISPS's. Their sole job is to provide the connectivity so that access can be gained to the internet. If they need to raise prices or expand their network, so be it. However, don't cry when other's point out the obvious flaw in your model. Just because you chose to skimp and now can't provide the bandwidth, is no one else's fault. Live with it ISPS. You set yourself up for the problems you face. |
|
Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
·Comcast
| OT: Why Flash 7 anyway?
Why exactly do all the consoles (Wii, PS3, PSP, etc) only support flash 7 anyway? If Adobe would update flash for the consoles, then the BBC wouldn't have to modify anything.
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. |
|
fatmanskinny
Premium
join:2004-01-04
Wandering
 ·Comcast Digital Vo..
·Comcast
1 edit | Guess who is going to pay for this battle?
Give me a C - C!
Give me a O - O!
Give me a N - N!
Give me a S - S!
Give me a U - U!
Give me a M - M!
Give me a E - E!
Give me a R - R!
Give me a S - S!
What does that spell? Consumers!! Big business simply finding another way into consumers' pockets. We are on our way to experiencing this in the States. Coming soon to a state near you.
--
The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary. |
|
pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
Premium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to battleop
Re: dumb pipes
said by battleop :You can get that dumb pipe in the form of a T1, DS3, Metro Ethernet, etc. Of course but at extremely inflated prices not suitable for most home / small business users.
Now IF they would offer a best effort service with limited support and a relaxed SLA @ competitive prices, I'd be all over it. 2GigaE FTW |
|
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
1 edit | To move to a dump pipe model, the consumer must pay the cost of bandwidth as it grows (look at T1, etc prices)... Not the flat fee of high speed residential broadband. As bandwidth usage grows, it has to be subsidized somehow.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik |
|
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
1 edit | Karl's Content Lobby
[edit for clarity]
"ISPs trying to get a chunk of content provider revenues even though they're already being well paid for bandwidth"
Karl, you forgot about how content provider's are moving their bandwidth distribution to p2p... who is going to pay for that?
Content providers EXPECT bandwidth to be "free". This means as bandwidth drastically grows - infrastructure is required to be massively upgraded. Someone will have to foot the bill.... who do you want that to be?
The Content Providers make money the more bits they send but no additional spending from the Consumers with a flat fee pricing structure. The broadband ISPs are in the middle and have to address the costs.
Karl, you really need to think this through as your thinking and editorializing is highly flawed.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| ISPS are in their full right to UP PRICES. I agree. However, maybe they should use the expanded income to UPGRADE capacity to support their users versus pocketing it and waiting until another rainy day to moan. It's like the billionaire claiming he or she doesn't have any money to spend. While I doubt these ISPS are cash cows. It's their job to keep up with users. If they can't then the next guy will come in and find a way to do it. Simple business. |
|
Dread
Proud member of Scott's tots
Premium
join:2005-02-28
Bronx, NY | Waste of time
Too bad the wii sucks |
|
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
| reply to jc100
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
The BBC expects unlimited free bandwidth distribution for high volume video... They should share the cost of delivering this content. It should not all be on the ISP to extract from the consumers.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to jc100
Re: dumb pipes
said by jc100 :IT IS NOT the content provider's responsibility to limit what the user sees, nor is it the ISPS's. Their sole job is to provide the connectivity so that access can be gained to the internet. Says you. There are a lot of providers out there that disagree with your viewpoint. telcolackey's comment above is a good one. If you don't want a "subsidized" connection, then you need to be willing to pay for it. |
|
kcblack
Premium
join:2000-09-11
Chicago, IL
·RCN CABLE
| I Cry Crocodile Tears for the providers
The day that Comcast, ATT, etc and other providers starts losing money and can't afford to pay their executives outrageous salaries and bonuses anymore is the time I'll start to worry.
Until then, give me the service I PAY for and don't oversell the nodes and nickel and dime us to death and throttle our legitimate access to that bandwidth that you advertise and I PAY for.
Kevin
--
"Because we’ve invested over $4 billion in building our MegaBand network so you can enjoy the internet the way it was intended to be – fast and uncapped." (RCN marketing Promo) |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to telcolackey
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
Wrong. It's the ISPS job to provide the capability of accessing content. Would you like the internet to be solely controlled by said ISPS? IE, all content must be first approved before uploaded? That's what you are advocating. For the rest of us, we enjoy being able to read, watch, or browse content at our leisure. Therefore, ISPS have a few options.
1) Raise prices and expand the network with additional revenue
2) Filter content and face alienating consumers.
3) Moan and do nothing.
4) This option (#4) of the content providers paying WON'T HAPPEN.
Therefore, pick your piece of cake. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :ISPS are in their full right to UP PRICES. I agree. However, maybe they should use the expanded income to UPGRADE capacity They are. Read some of the quarterly and/or annual reports from the public ISPs. They're spending billions of dollars to upgrade infrastructure. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
3 edits | reply to telcolackey
quote:
The Content Providers make money the more bits they send but no additional spending from the Consumers with a flat fee pricing structure. The broadband ISPs are in the middle and have to address the costs.
Hmm, Advertising via webmail, BVAS, selling user clickstream data, new DNS Redirection ad revenue, charging to get around spam filters, targeted behavioral advertising...
Seems to me they're coming up with ways to ramp up revenue.
On top of already very healthy broadband profit margins, dropping bandwidth prices, the dropping cost of hardware, nice TV and VoIP profit margins....and in some cases ISPs are getting into things like home and car sales.
They also need to impose a tariff on content providers and migrate to a per-byte-billing model? My, times sure are suddenly tough (and those hard times aren't reflected in quarterly earnings reports)...
I find the entire "we're not making enough money" to handle demand concept highly disingenuous. They want a slice of the content advertising revenue to please investors. It really is that simple. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to kcblack
Re: I Cry Crocodile Tears for the providers
said by kcblack :Until then, give me the service I PAY for and don't oversell the nodes and nickel and dime us to death and throttle our legitimate access to that bandwidth that you advertise and I PAY for. But that is the service you pay for. Do you seriously think you can get your connection for $50/mth on a non-oversold node or on an oversold node without some bandwidth management? |
|
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
| reply to kcblack
Umm... you can make all these same statements and much much more about the content companies or any other major company for that matter. Salaries are peanuts compared to capital spend for massive bandwidth growth.
As far as all the "give me what I pay for"... be careful what you wish for, you just may get it as pricing around T1's (for only 1Mb) is the cost of a real dumb pipe with full usage.
High speed broadband economics are based on historical usage models of residential service. With Content companies moving their bandwidth delivery to p2p and folks like the BBC paying no one, yet growing the bandwidth substantially toward flat fee broadband players, the only people that will lose is the Consumers!
Newer high volume bandwidth apps need to be paid for.... and if Content wants it to be free, be prepared to foot the bill.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik |
|
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
1 edit | reply to Karl Bode
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
said by Karl Bode :Seems to me they're coming up with ways to ramp up revenue. Some of your examples are accurate, some are tests, some are inflammatory and not applied to every provider and all are status quo to get the current profit margins which are not outrageous and which Wall Street expects to at least continue. If traffic 40% growth / year is about right and prices for broadband have stayed relatively flat with increase speeds then everything works well.
If Content moves to a p2p model - Content delivery bandwidth becomes "free" or if Content forces a mechanism to deliver huge amounts of video for "free", then this historical model breaks.
Someone has to pay for unexpected and exponential growth
»news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7116929.stm
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik |
|
