how-to block ads
|
Comments on news posted 2008-08-01 11:52:38: The Wall Street Journal this week lashed out at Kevin Martin for his decision to sanction Comcast for their use of TCP packet forgery to throttle P2P. In addition to completely missing some of Martin's underlying motivations for roughing up Comcas.. ..
| |
page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4  |
sousademiami
join:2003-02-04
Hialeah, FL
 ·Comcast
 ·AT&T Southeast
|  Open market with no competition doesn't work.
Everyone likes to spout off about how a free market will create the most innovative products at the lowest price and be good for everyone. And it is quite the novel idea (look at Wal-Mart, cheap stuff all over that place) but much like Communism, it just doesn't work in it's purest form. When huge companies with no competitors have complete control over what is becoming a daily necessity, huge profits and greed control prices and consumers lose. Deregulation on these fronts only leads to a less for more business model.
--
OASAASLLS | |
Bill Dollar
@cwa-union.org
 from:
packetscan 
thumbs down from:
TKJunkMail
| Metering is a Scare Tactic
There's an old tale about 2 economists walking down the street. One sees a $20 bill on the ground, and says to the other economist "hey, there's a $20 bill." The other economist says back, "no, there's not. If there were, someone would have already picked it up."
Metering is the same thing. If ISP's thought metering would increase their margins, they would have already done it.
The history of telecom is towards pricing simplification. While some companies are floating trial balloons about metering, they are not likely to implement it.
And no NN advocates are for metering. Tim Wu has spoken on this issue elsewhere... in this case he was just clumsy when talking to a reporter. | |
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Just an aside
I don't believe for 2 seconds that the "AVERAGE" broadband price paid in the US is over $50. | |
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
|  Go USA!
Just look at all those super-power countries we're ahead of! Yeah! Go USA! Oh, wait ...
Metered billing is nothing but a concerted push to kill off competing video services and reduce capital expenditures; hidden behind the "P2P pirates are teh warez hax0rz" baseless mantra. While I don't believe some of the selfish people who trumpet "their right to 1TB a month of Bitorrent at 1,000 simultaneous connections", I have to call a spade a spade and those users should simply be warned, then booted.
Comcast's 250GB a month is a very reasonable cap, for the moment. If caps are going to be introduced, especially with hefty overages, I expect to see the ISPs review and RAISE the caps each year ... and then provide the data to an independent 3rd party to review. I think dbmaven will fly before any of that ever happens though. | |
badtrip
East Bay
Premium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA
 ·Unwired Ltd
·Comcast
| aGREED!
I agree completely that usage based billing and overage charges will be implemented in order to mitigate cable companies' competition with VOD.
It is common knowlegde that as a technology matures, it's cost decreases. Cable ISP tech, however seems to buck this trend and instead of costs decreasing, they rise.
If any industry needs regulation, it is the cable ISP industry. These guys are running monopolies in what is quickly becoming a necessary utility. $70 per month for 16/1 service with caps and overage charges is too high a price IMO. I don't have a problem with cable ISPs going to usage based payment like electricity/gas/water. I also don't care if they do a flat rate like local telephone service. I do care, however when they do both. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| disagreed!
Look, the internet is NOT an infinite resource and there is cost involved to transport data - that's a fact. Many of the greed pushers here don't like to hear that because they think the whole world should be laid at their feet.
Your biggest mistake is assuming that technology HAS in fact matured, when it hasn't. You see a cable modem on your desk and you think that's technology, however, there is much more to running a network than your modem. There are updates that go on in a NOC all the time before you even get to your cable modem. There are updates and upgrades to the backbone, hardware, etc. People like you (in your views) assume that what you see in your world is reality when it's far from it.
Now, back to another topic as well - network management. The so-called "liberation fighters" want to tie the hands of the networks every day! They'd like to see no caps, no meters, no restricts, run servers/services of any kind, transmit any kind of data then want, when they want, and how they want including pirated software, and do it wide open 24/7 because "they own the line." Then they come back and bitch obsessively that their connections are too slow. (Scratches head) WTF?! Further, they want it all and a reducing cost, and in some cases some of them feel the internet should be free, or government operated. (Anyone that knows anything about the government knows that the government has no money of its own - the gov is nothing but wealth redistribution; this, nothing is free.
Now, what do we have here? A group of fighters who want hands-off the internet and want more. The ISPs are tired of getting backed into a corner and are doing like any animal being confronted; eventually they get pissed and pounce back as they are today.
The model of the internet IS changing. People want it to be a pipe that anything can be tossed onto, well, guess what.. it DOES reduce some revenues for the providers as the internet is a SECOND line product. (another reality) We've also proven that internet only companies never survive. (another reality) So, what's the answer.. evolution.
.. Welcome to billing by the the KB. It's what you all wanted.
You asked for it every time you guys said "hands off my line" you asked for it every time you screamed for so-called network neutrality, you got what you asked for when you said "define what is too much" (because once they did, it would affect EVERYONE which it didn't have to and gave them a right, so to speak, to charge for overage)
Reap what you sow.
Myth: The internet is a utility. Myth: $70 a month for such an important utility is too high. (ESPECIALLY for 16/1 which is NOT "matured technology") Myth: Cable is the only one in this boat. and the biggest myth... : The internet is matured technology. It is always evolving. And, maturing and obsolete are two different things. Dial up isn't mature, it's obsolete. Broadband today has shed its skin several times. I do believe you are confusing the "concept" with "technology" and they are in fact two different things.
Sorry to have to wake you up and open your eyes, but this IS actually greed, I agree.. but not on the side you may thing. Let me put this in simple terms.. you're at a so called "all you can eat buffet" and you're sitting there telling the owner "you said it's all you can eat so I'll be here all day.. it's my right!"
And, one other thing I picked out of your post. You know how you are ok with usage based billing like electricity, gas, and water? and you're o.k. with unlimited just not both.. I've got news for you... you make it clear that you don't really read any of those bills. There is always a base charge and then usage. So, I guess you ARE ok with that model.
What a sad age we are moving into. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Matt
Re: Go USA!
said by Matt :Metered billing is nothing but a concerted push to kill off competing video services and reduce capital expenditures; hidden behind the "P2P pirates are teh warez hax0rz" baseless mantra. Yea.. that's why so many countries use it. | |
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| said by fiberguy :said by Matt :Metered billing is nothing but a concerted push to kill off competing video services and reduce capital expenditures; hidden behind the "P2P pirates are teh warez hax0rz" baseless mantra. Yea.. that's why so many countries use it. Would it perhaps be any of the countries that have a lower cost than us in that pretty graphic? Because I don't remember hearing about our prices going down when this is implemented. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
3 edits | reply to Bill Dollar
Re: Metering is a Scare Tactic
No, it's the only way they CAN manage their networks now. Believe it or not, people have been screaming for this and been demanding it.. now they get it and don't like it.
Network neutrality folks ARE in fact for it.. it's kinda like making a deal with the devil. The NN people didn't think this through. There is NO way anyone is going to force the ISPs to operate flat.. they need to make a profit. NN people would all but, and damn near, kill ISPs.
NN people want the internet as fast as can be, always upgraded, not managed, and anything goes... they don't say it all at the same time, but when you take all their arguments, put them together, and you have the largest group of idiots on the planet.
Sorry to say, but NN people are socialists BECAUSE of how they want things to operate. They WANT unfettered access at a small, and I do mean, small price.
The NN people are getting what they want.. hands off internet.. but that comes with caps or meters. You can't have it all. | |
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to fiberguy
Re: aGREED!
All good points and ones that think all corporations are evil blood sucking vampires (Karl?) will never admit to. Well, they all will get what they deserve - pay by the byte tiers instead of speed tiers. And then we will see how many want to download movies and music 24x7(even if they will never watch or listen to 90% of it) when the bills start climbing up to 4 digits/mo.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy :Myth: The internet is a utility. Myth: $70 a month for such an important utility is too high. (ESPECIALLY for 16/1 which is NOT "matured technology") Myth: Cable is the only one in this boat. and the biggest myth... : The internet is matured technology. It is always evolving. And, maturing and obsolete are two different things. Dial up isn't mature, it's obsolete. Broadband today has shed its skin several times. I do believe you are confusing the "concept" with "technology" and they are in fact two different things. I agree with a lot of your post, but your reasoning here is flawed. I know what it costs for my local cable company to provide a residential and business class cable modem to the end user due to my involvement with several Non-Profit agencies. I've worked with Time Warner Business Class and had them donate symmetrical connections to projects. Part of the proposal was sitting down with them, crunching the number on cost vs benefit ... the actual cost for them to provide the connectivity vs. their benefit. I've had to get sponsors or sign agreements where after X amount of time "free", the non-profit would pay X amount of dollars for X amount of years.
The cost to provide a $70 residential connection is WELL under the 50% mark ...
The problem is, that profit margin is shrinking because the end users as a whole are starting to use more bandwidth. The "grandma's and grandpa's" use to help cover these costs with their 100MB a month of email traffic, but now even they are getting into pictures and videos. Additionally, my daughter is getting heavily into posting videos rather than pictures as cell phone and digital camera video quality improves.
Now, throw Hulu, DirecTV streaming, Netflix Streaming, XBox 360 marketplace (and the impending Netflix/360 partnership), and the PS3 VoD service and you have a serious competitive threat to their core business, while also increasing their costs on the internet traffic side.
Add in the losses from people who were paying for that $45-$70/month connection and moved down to the "Basic" tiers at $29.99 or $24.99 a month, and you can see how they are being affected.
To drive the point home, there were several times I was told to DONATE a 6x2Mbps Business Class Connection just so they could "get in there and offer TV service."
What does that tell you about what they are trying to protect and where the profit margins are? | |
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Ed Whitacre has a time machine!
said by Karl Bode :People need to remember where the net-neutrality debate really exploded. In 2005, then-AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre told Business Week that because people use Google, Google should help pay for AT&T's network deployment (or as Ed put it, Google ain't usin' his pipes for free). In short, ISP executives want to please investors by offloading necessary video-driven upgrade expenses on to others. Ed knew in 2005 that Google would acquire YouTube in 2006, and that YouTube would become a major source for Internet video?
Why stop at recent news? Surely we can prove how Nostradamus quatrains apply to modern broadband! | |
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to fiberguy
Re: Metering is a Scare Tactic
wow, more 'talking points' from a fat republican. Why am I not suprised.
Net Neutrality is NOT about unlimited speeds. Net Neutrality is about GETTING WHAT YOU PAY FOR. Is it the customers fault if comcast is overselling their network by a factor of 40? NO. If comcast can only provide a steady 1mb/sec download, and 256kb/sec upload per node, THEN THAT'S WHAT THEY SHOULD SELL. I don't care how fast comcrap claims to be. I WILL USE what I am promised, period. If they can't provide what they are advertising, then they should be punished.
What if honda advertised their civic as getting 160mpg, and the real world it only got 10mpg. Would you stand by and accept that? Of course not. So why does comcast get to advertise 'always on' speeds of 10mb/sec, when the reality is they can only provide 'always on' speeds of 1mb/sec? Guess people wouldn't be willing to shell out $60.00/month for 1mb/sec, so they LIE.
We don't want caps. We don't want meters. We WANT WHAT THEY ARE ADVERTISING.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
2 edits | I'm not a republican... get your facts straight.
And please, where did comcast advertise "always on speed"? If you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know what "always on" refers to. I suppose you recall the day of "always on" and "always available" broadband connections don't you? Always on meas just that.. always available meant you clicked an icon to "connect" your broadband, same as how mobile BB works today. They both have their speeds, however, their connection types do not dictate speed.
Further, they also never told you that you could use the service always on 24/7. They DID tell you that the service 1) could be managed and 2) that it was for typical residential use. Is it typical for residential use to be always on and used wide open? No!
I'm sorry that the AUP/TOS actually requires people to apply and use logic and that noodle between one's ears. I guess that's what people get for assuming. Maybe people will learn and wake up as to what happens when people want everything dictated to them.. oh wait.. you're getting it now!
Want to tango? | |
Bill Dollar
@verizon.net
| reply to fiberguy
I'm not sure why you are being so hostile; perhaps that's just a function of message board behavior.
You seem smart enough to realize that there are differences in the "metering" trial balloons floated by TW, vs. the practice of high bandwidth limits followed by throttling or overage charges. My point was the former would actually hurt the ISPs bottom line, while the latter is actually a more reasonable approach to the problem of congestion caused by the minority of users during a few hours of each day.
You grossly mischaracterize the positions of NN advocates, which isn't very productive. You also seem to be unaware that the Union's position on the issue of NN is opposed. The union believes in reasonable network management.
My point in posting was to highlight the fact that ISPs will always do what's good for the bottom line, and TW or Frontier style low-cap metering will not be a winner for them financially. They of course have the right to charge whatever they like, but I'm proffering that they will adopt a practice that is more in line with what comcast has leaked, or what other small cable operators do (small-time window limits, with temporary throttling).
And as to your point below comparing bandwidth to gas or electricity. You should be aware that those are industries where the marginal costs are not close to zero, unlike the data industry. It doesn't make economic sense for gas or electricity to be sold like bandwidth or cell minutes. | |
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
| reply to fiberguy
Re: aGREED!
ok buddy,
get off the soap box.
70$ a month plus 1.50$ per gigabyte over a 60gb cap is silly.
how can you argue with that? Especially when the cable nodes are so oversold that the conenction drops radomly.
Do you deny that Rogers exists as a company?
The poster above is obviously asking for a base charge of aprox 15$ and charge me a reasonable price per gig and him (and me)will be all over it (mcuh like water/hydro billing).
What these isp's want is to add another line to the accounting statment (keep the line "revenue from cable internet" just above it how it is and add revenue from gouging customers. They want to charge your grandma 70$ per month for her connection and then turn around and charge her grandson, who I might add is the future of the country, another 40$ without spending a cent on upgrades.
To finish up, You are completely ignoring the conflict of interest between cable internet and cable tv. Again, we'll go back to Acounting 101, what happens to the big boss of Rogers when the line "revenue from cable tv subscribers" starts to decline much like "revenue from phone subscribers" has been declining for much of the decade?
Where is the incentive to upgrade the internet? These companies know that by building out the internet they are shooting themselves in the foot. What we are experiencing now is the benefit of few (cable/telco) to the detriment of many (indy service providers, thousands of business models that can't exist under the current infrastructure, the list
goes on).
The internet is changing the world. The days of fat cats sitting in an office scheming on world domination are over. Much like Bittorrent your nemesis, production (of all kinds) will be more decentralized with moneys going to the people who actually produce something of value (and not organizations who seek to control distribuition). | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Matt
I have to disagree on one aspect with you, too. Knowing what it costs them because of the work you do and the negotiations is not accurate. The people you work with, honestly, may not even know either. Besides, when it comes to non-profits, you never know if they are taking losses on the product. Rather, they take tax breaks.
To be honest, I in one of my businesses, I will actually sell below cost a product to the local police house for two reasons... 1) I could, if I wanted, take a tax break. 2) It's a good gesture.
For the most part, I agree largely with your post.  | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to backness
I'll get off the soap box if you give up the tinfoil "buddy"... deal?
Not all cable nodes are "over sold" as you stated.. You, like many, act as if you have facts and stand behind them when in fact you have NO idea what you're talking about. I can pretty much tell you that you're spewing what USED to be true in large years ago. Times have changed.
Second, the very reason that connects are "dropping" (which is interesting) or, more appropriately slowing down, is because people are in fact pushing the node traffic faster than they can keep up.
I'm not ignoring a damn thing. I honestly don't care about TV and Cable conflicts. It's a personal issue that you have, as others do as well. You, like so many, trivialize this issue, again, all while living in some utopia. You see it as "the internet" and you want to use it as you see fit. The REALITY is that there are real costs as well as Cause and effect to a system (economical) that isn't as "simple" as you make it seem.
And now, to top this off and tear you apart.. "people who actually produce something of value".. are you an idiot? It's all the same content, just a different way to get it to you. The ONLY thing you seek to see different is that you don't want to actually PAY for that content.
You're transparent as the window in front of me.. "fat cats"... you make me laugh. You know, you can sit up north and try to throw daggers down at the United States all you want.. while everyone else is trying to "revolutionize the world" and bring about change "for the better".. please answer me this.. which country does everyone run to for help and money, even in the shrinking dollar at the moment, when they need it? yea.. enjoy your utopia as it only exists in your mind. It is YOU who need to expand your thinking beyond the "use" of the internet and look at the whole picture. I wish I had the money or a company I'd didn't care if it failed and let you run it. I'd enjoy showing you how people like you would destroy it, OR, how fast you turn into one of those so-called "fat cats" who seek world domination.
I've got news for you.. they could build the internet out to be a 1 gig line tomorrow and it won't change the fact that it's a model that requires billing by the byte. Like you said, the internet is revolutionizing the world.. however, you honestly don't want the internet to evolve with it other than speed. The REALITY is that as times change, so WILL the way you pay for the internet too. Deal with reality. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
1 edit | reply to Bill Dollar
Re: Metering is a Scare Tactic
Actually, I will admit that I DID mis-read something you said in your post which when re-reading it does make me see your post differently. (Sorry)
But, I do stand on my view of NN advocate's position. Indirectly, with out realizing it, they ARE asking for what they are getting.
Pulled this part of my post to rethink it.. it was deep and I don't think I gave it enough thought.. I'll rethink it and probably post it again later. | |
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to Matt
Re: Go USA!
said by Matt :Metered billing is nothing but a concerted push to kill off competing video services The problem with that statement is that there is no way for Internet video services to be any kind of serious competition to existing video distribution.
Comcast stated last year that they have 190 million VoD views per month.
Let's break that down for a second. The majority of VoD content is 2 hour movies, but there's quite a few hour long shows on there as well. Let's assume the average content length is 90 minutes. Let's also assume that the distribution of content viewed is 40% HD, 60% SD. By viewing capability I believe HD is actually lower than that, but folks with HD tend to have more disposable income to spend on VoD.
I estimate that 90 minutes of broadcast quality H264 encoded SD content is approximately 1.8-2.5GB. I also estimate that 90 minutes of broadcast quality H264 encoded 1080i HD content is approximately 6-10GB.
The peak time for VoD is 5pm - midnight, but longer hours of delivery can be seen on the weekends. I'll be generous and average the delivery over 12 hours 7 days a week.
40% of 190 million views is 76 mil.
60% of 190 million views is 114 mil.
76,000,000 * 6,000MB = 456,000,000,000MB or 456 Petabytes.
114,000,000 * 1800MB = 205,200,000,000MB or 205.2 PB.
661,200,000,000 MB (total for the month) / 30 days / 12 hours / 60 mins / 60 seconds = 510,185 MB/sec or 4,081,481 megabit/sec *AVERAGE* over the month. (peak will be higher)
There's no way to push 4+ terabit at any single point on the Internet using technology deployed today, so in order to distribute that content you'd need at least a point of presence in every major metro area to distribute the load. By the time you got done building out the infrastructure, paying for servers and content replicated to each regional distribution point, paid for large capacity Internet connections to all those locations, and paid the media companies for the content ... how is it realistic that you are ever going to compete on price with existing video sources (Cable/Sat/FiOS/Uverse) that only pay the media companies directly for content to distribute over their networks designed and built to deliver video? | |
|
