UK ISPs Whine About People Actually Using Their Product

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.

Do you want a dumb pipe or decent mail and news servers?

Dumb Pipe only please. There are enough companies out there that can supply me with mail and news thanks.

Great, but that's not what pokesph was asking for. Also, I would venture to guess that most "typical" users are fine with their providers' mail servers. You aren't going to find many "dumb pipes" around the Internet these days, but that doesn't mean that you can't make it a dumb pipe as much as possible and do your own thing. That's one of the things that makes the Internet so great

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

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.

For level of service you get these services are hardly inflated.

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.

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.

Business connections arent priced on speed. You dont pay way more than resedential because its faster, you pay way more for it because they have minimum service garuantees, more competent techs and fast problem resolution.

THATS why business class connections cost so much more, it has nothing to do with not being "subsidized".

Exactly. You forgot about the SLA of 99.9 percent. Basically, if my internet goes off, they bring a tech out immediately. We're both given the same line. One has a guarantee to be fixed immediately (Business) and the other just has to be repaired in a reasonable time (home).

I didn't say anything about "speed". If anything, your comment reiterates what I stated. The lack of guarantees, overselling, latency, etc. on residential connections allow them to be priced lower than business connections.

How so? If you are implying a dedicated line, that's a whole new argument. It's not speed we're bantering about, it's the fact ISPS are wanting to be compensated for usage in general. Basically, ISPS are sick of being the pipe. They now want handouts in conjunction with performing their duties. Wrong. They need to either raise prices and expand their networks, or quit moaning. Simple. It has nothing to do with your line and the speed given. It has everything to do with ISPS not wanting to live up to their end of the bargain. the web is just that, a network and collection of MANY IDEAS big and small. I don't want the ISP moaning at which idea they like and which they don't. It's not their job. Their job is to provide me with the capability to access whatever. If they need to adjust their business model, so be it. Let it be adjusted in terms that resolve the issue (better capacity as I said) versus ignorance and moaning at the people who write said content.

quote:

---

They need to either raise prices and expand their networks, or quit moaning.

---

That's precisely it.

Notice the year or two of constant complaining, yet they don't want to take the marketing hit from raising prices, imposing per-byte-billing or telling Google they'll now be paying a "congestion charge."

I still believe you're being disingenuous. You'd contribute to that "marketing hit" by slamming them for any of the above. But, if a content provider offloads the expense of their business model to ISPs you praise them for "innovation."

Mark

quote:

---

I still believe you're being disingenuous.

---

Well then we are at a "disingenuousness" stale mate because the feeling is mutual.

quote:

---

You'd contribute to that "marketing hit" by slamming them for any of the above.

---

Actually, so far I've only hit them on behavioral advertising when they don't clearly alert customers, but if you say so.

quote:

---

But, if a content provider offloads the expense of their business model to ISPs you praise them for "innovation."

---

Yes, well we're only talking about BitTorrent, perhaps the most revolutionary media distribution concept created in the last decade.

You'd be ok with metered billing? I've gotten the impression from the editorials that you wouldn't. Or, at the very least you'd contribute to the customer angst rather than pointing out through your editorials that it's a valid business model in the face of "revolutionary media distribution" changes. I.e., I *didn't* get the impression you'd provide balance on that topic.There's no need to be churlish. I'm sincerely asking what ISPs should do to offset costs which would have been paid to the content provider's ISP before this "revolution." I always get the impression ISPs can't do anything to avoid criticism.

Mark

quote:

---

You'd be ok with metered billing?

---

Sigh.

Are you saying you support content taxes?

Are you saying you support per-byte billing?

Are you saying carriers cannot survive under the current flat-rate pricing model?

Are you saying all content providers who already pay for bandwidth should now be double dipped, and pay ISPs an additional fee for reaching the consumer?

I'd rather see that than my bandwidth reduced because of new content distribution models which some people benefit more from than others.No. I'm saying we don't get something for nothing in this world. The BBC obviously knows this or they would have delivered their content the traditional way. It was clearly in their financial interest to use p2p. They are getting something for nothing.

Clearly someone has to pay. The BBC has shifted its costs. You seem to be saying it's not significant enough. To turn your reasoning back on you, are you saying carriers cannot survive by giving me my connection for free? I'd like the same deal the BBC got.

Mark

Are you saying that a consumer who freely chooses to use their bandwidth for the iPlayer, sends a check to his ISP, and that check somehow gets lost in the time/space continuum?

It may well be revolutionary...but revolutions aren't necessarily good things (the October Revolution for one).

It is revolutionary in the way that it uses bandwidth far more efficiently.

The problem with this efficiency is that current business models for residential customers rely on a certain amount of inefficiency—not every customer can be using their connection at all times or else the network crashes.

Incidentally, this isn't a problem limited to MSOs, nor is it a new model. Again, going back to the '90s, dial-up ISPs consistently "oversold" their service because they could safely assume that not all of their customers would be online at once.

If the old assumptions no longer apply (i.e. that people will not be using their connection most of the time), then it's also logical to assume that the old sales model will disappear as well (i.e. cheap, always available, near-unlimited usage).

Why is it such a surprise to discover that the people who aren't interested in downloading most of the crap that Hollywood churns out really like things as they are and really don't feel like subsidizing people who are?

I don't want my prices going up and I don't want the hassle of tracking my usage and I really don't want to be arguing with my ISP over how much my connection has been used.

quote:

---

I don't want my prices going up and I don't want the hassle of tracking my usage and I really don't want to be arguing with my ISP over how much my connection has been used.

---

You really think, that if American ISPs start charging content providers a delivery tax, that the whole "debate" ends there? That they won't continue to pursue additional caps/charges/fees irregardless of real world network strain and operating expenses? That you won't still subsequently see low caps and overage charges?

This is about protecting turf and the ceaseless need for quarter over quarter stock results, far more than it's about broadband network topography. It's about executives using public relations to convince the world there's a looming bandwidth apocalypse that will only be cured if you allow them to do "X".

Who cares what X is, it changes from week to week (regulation, per-byte billing, new fees, Google delivery tax).

Surely any one of these folks that support such an idea would gladly show us real world budgetary impact, or the traffic impact of Vuze on Comcast's overall network performance?

If it is in fact such a dire situation that we need to begin taxing upstart entertainment developers before they've even cornered 1% of the video delivery market...

Of course not, although I'm not advocating a "delivery tax" or similar nonsense. What I am advocating is the status quo, where if you have content you want to sell or give away, you have to pay an ISP (any ISP) to host it. I'm sure you're well aware of how this works; no doubt the costs of hosting this site are substantial. That seems fair to me.

P2P gets around this by effectively hosting content on your consumers' computers and using their ISPs to deliver it. No wonder content providers love it so much. The costs of hosting content are almost entirely offloaded onto the consumer's ISP (and ultimately the consumer).

So let me reframe the question: do you want to pay someone for a TV show or movie and then have them offload the costs of distribution on to you on top of what you've already paid? That hardly seems very consumer friendly.

(edited second paragraph for clarity and grammar)

quote:

---

So let me reframe the question: do you want to pay someone for a TV show or movie and then have them offload the costs of distribution on to you on top of what you've already paid?

---

Again though, I disagree with the whole idea that it's anybody but the ISP's problem. I'm sorry Vuze is using Comcast's bandwidth to compete with Comcast, but why should the consumer care?

Correct or not, the consumer believes that bandwidth is theirs after a decade of marketing suggesting as much. They paid for it. The software developer developed a system that uses this bandwidth to provide a service to consumers.

If the service the consumer is choosing to use is consuming too much bandwidth, the ISP can charge them more. Move them to a higher tier. If the network is suffering from problems because the old architecture can't meet the realities of new delivery systems (and I think this isn't really a problem, but is overstated for political effect), it's time to upgrade the network, make the protocols more efficient and engage in some degree of sensible traffic shaping (all three are happening).

What the ISPs want here is to have their cake and eat it too: Hint at all you can eat connectivity while quietly throttling and booting high-consumption users, and have someone else pay for their network expansion without suffering the PR headache that comes from having to charge more to meet bandwidth demand. This is mixed with a desire to keep competition for video services at bay.

There's a lot of farmed FUD out there by think tanks and PR execs that get reconstituted by lower level employees as gospel...

And as an aside, I love how so many people preach about the free market ceaselessly, but then when it does something they don't like their first impulse is to tax, impose fees, and get Uncle Sam to pass laws protecting their interests...

Odd that you're using the "it will never stop" argument, and then apparently denying the legitimacy of that same argument if ISPs use it:They may have an interest in getting in front of this before it gets larger. And, if it wasn't an impact on them, why would content providers use this medium instead of traditional delivery via http (and all the bandwidth charges they would incur)?

Mark

Gasp...why is this so wrong?What handouts are you referring to? And their "duties"? I'm assuming you're referring to their "dumb pipe" duty. Once again, if you want a "dumb pipe", you're free to purchase access to one.Bring it. And then we can smack all of the whiners that will complain that the poor consumer is being picked on by greedy ISPs who keep raising their rates so that they can get a 20 Mbps connection to replace their 15 Mbps connection. Not so simple now. I personally like my lower cost service if it's subsidized by other revenue streams.

No, nobody wants ISPs to provide e-mail services. Specially if they are as bad as Comcast's.

The content providers pay for their bandwidth requirements as does the user. The ISPs collect on both sides already.

Asking them (content providers) to pay more for XYZ ISP to allow users to access said content is completely against what the internet was meant to be. We don't need thousands of AOL's folding up around us. We need reliable, cheap fast dumb pipes.

There are providers for email, news group access out there already. Their services in most cases are better than what ISPs provide.

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.

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.

It actually seems more like anti-competitiveness to me, and could be subject to many, many lawsuits if such tactics are undertaken here in the United States. There is no way an ISP could win a case forbidding DirecTV from providing VOD services over a third party internet connection. Then the ISP's would start suing YouTube and Yahoo! Music and iTunes, etc.

It just will not stand up.

Good point. On a similar note, I feel our government is bought and paid for by corporations and they will eventually pass their additional charges off to consumers, as always.

[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.

Too bad the wii sucks

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

»UK ISPs Whine About People Actually Using Their Product [107] commentsAnd there is the main lie repeated over and over by those content providers using P2P software - that they pay their fair share of bandwidth costs. They don't pay their fair share. They buy a straws worth of bandwidth from the ISP and then offload a fire hose's worth of demand to the ISP, who has nowhere else to go to recover costs except from the ISP's customers, all the while collecting huge amounts of advertising dollars.

»www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/he ··· ms.shtml

Here is your internet connection.... You owe us us xx a month, pay up!

OH, And BTW, don't you DARE to actually *use* your connection for anything.... we will sue, overcharge, cap, throttle, and ban and blacklist you.

Have a nice day!

Comcast, Cox, Verizon, AT&T, whatever.

In all these cases these guys are just running a side business. "Oh you need high speed, we got that, and by the way..." I'm not knocking it, it is good for America, just be real about it and stop trying to crunch numbers and nodes for them.

If the speed makes sense for them to do and keep their competition away from the core business they will do it!

We tend to forget that the content providers also have to buy bandwidth to get this stuff to us. You think they are using 1-5 Mbps upstreams (LOL)

About 8 years ago some folks used to pay $45 a month for AOL dial-up and a second line at data rate of 56 Kbps. Now you can get 6-8 Mbps for $42.95 with Comcast, stop trying to your geometric progressions to calculate your "Provider's" side business.

Face it - in another 8 years we will be laughing at 50Mbps downstream.

This is a good point. I worry that the whole argument is not really about the cost of bandwidth, but about the dumb pipes replacing the TV-channel delivery business which is very lucrative.

Around 1999, during the dot-com "era" investors were pouring money into laying fiber and inventing laser transceivers. A lot of work was done, and the capacity was built. The telcos were hoping to deliver 'triple-play' services (why don't we hear that term anymore?) Trouble is, in the meanwhile, p2p and web 2.0 came about, and together they threaten to replace the good-ole TV channels.The internet is very young. In the past 10 years, the rate of growth of traffic has been relatively constant, doubling every 11 months. So far, only 20% of the world is connected (>70% in north America).

In the same 10 year span, hard drive capacity has also doubled every year.

Whether it be bigger OS's, service packs, games, movies, digital pictures, etc, all that content needs to at one point be transfered and shared with others. If you were to compare the rate of growth of capacity with the rate of growth of internet traffic, you'd find they are roughly parallel.

10 years ago, transfering a movie over the internet was un-thought of. Today, streaming a big screen movie to your own home theatre on release date is also unthought of (a legal, possibly paid streaming service).

I don't have good stats on the decline of bandwidth wholesale, but today in NA wholesale bandwidth costs about $0.07-0.30/GB.

So, I hope you too expect that in the next 10 years our internet connections will be 100x to 1000x faster than today, and able to support the applications that will emerge in the meanwhile.

And at $.07/GB and falling, why are people having reservations about paying for actual bandwidth used? Per-byte billing would take a big uncertainty out the ISP's business plan, and perhaps they wouldn't have to sign advertising deals to inject ads into your browser just to be able to sell 'unlimited' access for a fixed price.

But the companies we rely on for our connections need to plan for this rate of growth.

In 10years, the Internet should be as much a utility as water. Why can water engineer provision their piping for peak demand, as well as plan for growth, maintenance, etc, but network engineers can't do the same with their pipes?

All you guys complaining about p2p remember the Wii doesn't use the iPlayer download manager and probaly cant due to is low storage space/memory and processing power, its a flash web based version of the iPlayer form the iPlayer website .

Everyone here, consider this fact VERY carefully. The content providers are definately not freeloading off of ISP bandwidth. THEY are also shelling out thousands of dollars/month, for dedicated T3/DS lines, and they deserve to be able to reach their customers, without paying any premium access fee.
When you get down to how peering agreements work, you ISP shills will notice that Provider A (content provider's ISP) pays provider B (customer's ISP), to transmit a said packet to the consumer. These charges, in turn, are what is passed on to the content provider in the form of their monthly bill. There's no such thing as a free lunch. ISP's are already getting any payment they deserved, and should be 'content' (no pun intended) with it. I see no reason for them to moan and b**tch about it.

Also, concerning the p2p issue, it's the customer's decision whether or not to use a certain protocol through their connection. When I buy a cable/dsl line, I don't see any mention of me not being allowed to use p2p apps on my connection.
Finally, it's funny how, now that we're using p2p for LEGITIMATE applications, ISP's still cry foul, same way they did when p2p was used for 'piracy'. And yet, people still defend them.......