 DaSneaky1Done wall to block them allPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou | The Internet use to be fun It's sad that the people who will side with this type of thinking are those that understand the impact of it the least.
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: |
|
Reviews:
 ·PHONE POWER
| I am one of those who believe that telcos and cablecos should be permitted to do what they suggest.
The prevailing thinking here at BBR is that the glass is half empty. Meaning, cablecos and telcos will take their existing products and make it worse.
Fact of the matter is TWC already does something similar. The Digital Phone product they offer is a dedicated, completely separate pipe from the RoadRunner Internet product TWC offers.
Perhaps that's what the telcos and cablecos ultimately want to do. Create an overlay network, or overlay datachannels, for those items or products or requests that get preferential treatment, either because it is offered by the cable/telco themselves, or the requestee has paid the cable/telco for preferential treatment. What you get today doesn't change, just that for some things your experience gets better.
Other industries have instituted preferential treatment programs for vendors and/or customers. For example, how is this any different from the institution of a frequent flier program for the airlines?
This doesn't have to be a bad thing.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. |
|
| said by NGOwner:I am one of those who believe that telcos and cablecos should be permitted to do what they suggest. I agree with you. What they are arguing is that other companies don't get a free ride on the EXTRA capabilities they build into their infrastructure. If they want to stick to the regular priority internet, then fine. But if they want expedited thruput then they pay extra. Comcast does this with their Digital Voice(sort of a prioritized VOIP). Now should every other VOIP vendor get the right to ride on Comcast's enhanced voice hardware without cost - I say not.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page |
|
Cyron
join:2002-09-24
Charlotte, NC | reply to NGOwner
I think the main concern is that I pay for my connection and bandwidth. If the content provider has to pay (keep in mind they already pay a boatload for their own access) extra because I want to access their content, why should I be paying the same amount?
What if the majority of the content providers I access decide not to pay? Does that mean I'm over-paying for all that bandwidth?
I think the ISP's see it as an easy way to generate revenue without all the negative PR that comes from raising consumer prices. However, there won't be nearly as many free content providers if they have to start shelling out extra to every telco/cableco company. |
|
Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
You have got to be kidding. We have no choice, it is either the bandwidth extorting phone companies or the bandwidth extorting cable companies. You can choose 1 or the other since there is only 1 phone and cable line going to each house. This is another reason that we need MUNI internet and phone access. |
|
 ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to Cyron
said by Cyron:I think the main concern is that I pay for my connection and bandwidth. If the content provider has to pay (keep in mind they already pay a boatload for their own access) extra because I want to access their content, why should I be paying the same amount? Exactly. This would be akin to paying to drive on a toll road, but then also having to pay your vehicle manufacturer a fee for having a fee-compatible car to drive as well.
What these ISPs are proposing is literally double-dipping for the internet. Not only are we, the customers, paying for our 'net, but now they wish to charge the services we do use the net for a "service charge" (which will undoutably be passed along to the customer). You can't have it both ways.
Either these ISPs should drop this idea altogether, or they should propose they pump this new "subsidized" broadband to their customers for free. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
I completely disagree..
This equates to extortion.
They knew what the internet was when they started to offer it.
I wonder is AL gore has anything to say about this.
--
Who do you want to pay off today? |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Exactly- and I think what they are REALLY concerned about is tv. SBC will segregate their iptv traffic when they roll out Project Lightspeed. They don't want somebody else to say that they should be allowed to use that segregated bandwidth to offer a competing video service. Same thing with voice. They are saying that the segregated area is THEIRS, and if somebody else wants to use it, fine, but they'll have to pay for that privilege. This does not hurt the 'regular' internet at all. |
|
 roamer1sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA | reply to Cyron
said by Cyron:I think the main concern is that I pay for my connection and bandwidth. If the content provider has to pay (keep in mind they already pay a boatload for their own access) extra because I want to access their content, why should I be paying the same amount? It's the old Bellhead mentality -- in a nutshell, it looks like AT&T and BellSouth want to apply the PSTN access charge scheme (where everyone involved in a call, including both calling party, called party, and any LD carriers involved at both ends of LD calls, pay the LEC) to the Internet. In other words: it's an unjustified money grab and nothing more.
I can see only one company readily paying for "priority access" -- Yahoo! -- and that's because they already have deals with the Bells. Everyone else on the content side will see this for what it is and refuse to pay...
-SC
--
"it seems like all you ever buy is Abercrombie and cell phones" --a friend |
|
Reviews:
·PHONE POWER
| reply to Cyron
said by Cyron:I think the main concern is that I pay for my connection and bandwidth. If the content provider has to pay (keep in mind they already pay a boatload for their own access) extra because I want to access their content, why should I be paying the same amount? The way I read and interpret the article, there are to be two "pipes" coming into the home for those people who choose to get IPTV and Internet from a telco. This won't effect those people who just have IPTV, or who just have Internet. It's a bundle deal benefit.
This is how it would work:
The IPTV pipe from the telco is substantially larger (due to the requirements of IPTV) than any sized pipe you can get from the telco for Internet services alone. You will not be able to get a 20 Mb/s pipe without IPTV (likely a business decision the telcos will make), but preferred Internet vendors will be able to use some of the unused capacity on the IPTV link IF you get Internet service from the Telco as well. In that case, you get the IPTV pipe that is 20+ Mb/s plus the 1.5 Mb/s DSL-esque Internet pipe.
As I read things, the Telcos would like to offer the ability to content providers to pay to have their traffic move over the 20+ Mb/s IPTV pipe (managed capacity) to the consumer rather than over the 1.5 Mb/s DSL-esque Internet pipe (unmanaged capacity) avoiding any congestion there may be on the smaller sized Internet pipe.
If the content provider decides not to pay for the premium transit to me, the content would still flow to me, albeit over the smaller Internet pipe. This is exactly how the traffic would flow if one did not have IPTV from the telco, and no different from today.
That's how I see it, and I don't have a problem with it. As a consumer, I'm not paying any more for my connection than I would otherwise, but am getting a better experience from those sites that have chosen to pay for better transit to me. The hope being that a better experience will translate into higher use levels of the sites that paid for the preferred transit to me.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. |
|
|
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Unfortunately, that probably means the "regular priority internet" will be deliberately stagnated while all improvements go into the new tiered side of the service. In the end, there's nothing usable left on the regular side and the new 2 tiered system becomes the defacto internet connection for the vast majority of high-bandwidth services. I'm talking about down the line a bit where we've got 50mbps as the standard on the tiered side while the regular side was left at 1.5mbps or maybe 3mbps.
While that's great for the ISPs and an obvious good business move, it's just not the right way to grow the internet. Since most last-mile providers are working through public right-of-ways, I don't feel it's wrong to forbid certain business practices which are, basically, monopolistic and detrimental to the public. In truth, a lot of the US is probably looking at a Verizon/Comcast duopoly in broadband/media/voice real soon now. Letting that duopoly become the gatekeeper for the internet is just a bad idea for everyone who's not Verizon or Comcast.
Some fair way of ensuring QoS does need to happen sometime soon. Right now, you purchase a last-mile pipe of a certain bandwidth and from there to the edge of the ISP network is basically best effort and varies greatly from ISP to ISP or even block to block (for cable). I obviously don't like the tiering idea. In a perfect world we'd have reasonable levels of QoS guaranteed to the edge of the ISPs network with the chance for the consumer to purchase a higher QoS pipe for a higher monthly price. That way the ISP could sell the QoS improvements without acting as a gatekeeper. I'd favor that solution since it maintains the basic open nature of the net as we know it. |
|
| reply to NGOwner
If that's how it would work, then I'd still be against it. Suppose I'm the operator of a small website that I operate out of my own personal funds (or user-donation supported... either way, the site doesn't make a profit). Now, further suppose that all of the big ISPs set up their access this way.
I can choose to let my site run on the "slow" pipe, or pay each and every one of the ISPs the "fast pipe fee." Obviously, I won't be able to pay, and my site will remain on the slow pipe.
However, I might have a competing site that's run by a big name company with a lot of funds at their disposal. They pay the ISPs the "fast pipe fee" and their site traffic spills over onto the fast pipe.
What do the users see? They see that my site is much slower than my competitor. This might lead them to choose my competitor over me. In short, this means that the "big fish" would get preferential treatment over the "little fish" and that is *not* how the Internet was designed.
Furthermore, what happens if my competitor signs up with the ISPs and, being a large company able to dictate terms, adds an exclusivity clause to the contract. So when I scrounge together the money to sign up for the fast pipe, I'm told that they can't sign me up due to contractual obligations.
And if you're thinking that 1.5Mbps isn't a bad speed for a user to access a website at, remember that access speeds are always increasing. It wasn't too long ago when a 40Kbps connection was thought of as super-fast. Five years down the line, people with 1.5Mbps connections (if any are left) will likely be laughed at by those running their brand new 1GB (or whatever) connections.
Now when the ISP does upgrades to its lines, which do you think that they will upgrade first? The "fast pipe" that carries services either offered by them or that earn them money or the "slow pipe" that doesn't earn them money (except for subscriber fees which pay for both)? The answer is: The fast pipe. You'll likely see the slow pipe lag behind after the big name companies sign up for the fast pipe. This will further push the small fish to the fringes of the Internet.
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com |
|
 sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by NGOwner:I am one of those who believe that telcos and cablecos should be permitted to do what they suggest. I agree with you. What they are arguing is that other companies don't get a free ride on the EXTRA capabilities they build into their infrastructure. If they want to stick to the regular priority internet, then fine. But if they want expedited thruput then they pay extra. It's very silly and I think they'll get a big surprise if they actually try this. Normal speeds are NOT an "extra capability". The content providers have already paid their ISPs to move their bits from their hosts to other hosts on the internet. SBC is trying to double-dip. Very expected from a telco (remember reciprocal compensation?) who would just love to bill by the bit. To these morons everything looks like a phone call.
If they really do this (although at this point I can only guess what "this" is) I imagine they'll find themselves cut off from a number of major backbones. That would be quite entertaining.
Perhaps they should also start charging a nickel to the sender of every email that enters their network.
Seems like a desperate move by a company that is selling at a loss to compete with cable to me.
--
enjoy zesty ranch man-flavored baby tacos responsibly |
|
| reply to Jason Levine
This is a valid perspective - but, all things being equal, wouldn't the price that the big company charged for their service have to be higher than the small company's price (since the big company is electing to pay for preferential piping of their product)? |
|
 calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | reply to NGOwner
said by NGOwner:... Fact of the matter is TWC already does something similar. The Digital Phone product they offer is a dedicated, completely separate pipe from the RoadRunner Internet product TWC offers. ... Completely separate pipe? So you mean they run a wire separate from the TV coax into your house? I don't think so.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
1 edit | said by calvoiper:said by NGOwner:... Fact of the matter is TWC already does something similar. The Digital Phone product they offer is a dedicated, completely separate pipe from the RoadRunner Internet product TWC offers. ... Completely separate pipe? So you mean they run a wire separate from the TV coax into your house? I don't think so. calvoiper I am sure he meant a LOGICAL pipe and not a physical one.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Ahhh, but therein lies the rub, for the separate LOGICAL pipes share the same PHYSICAL facility. In effect, you're just re-prioritizing (or re-allocating) timeslices at a different level.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
| reply to robscullion
Nooooooooooooooooo. The high bandwidth/priority pipe is for iptv and voip, basically. Web browsing would be done over the regular pipe. |
|
| reply to calvoiper
said by calvoiper:Ahhh, but therein lies the rub, for the separate LOGICAL pipes share the same PHYSICAL facility. In effect, you're just re-prioritizing (or re-allocating) timeslices at a different level. calvoiper Yes, and the cable company does this today. Do you complain about the fact that much of the potential bandwidth of your cable internet connection is being used exclusively by the cable company to feed you 200 channels? That is all we are talking about here. The only difference is that the ilecs are talking about potentially letting others into that protected area. The cable companies so far refuse to do so. |
|
| " Do you complain about the fact that much of the potential bandwidth of your cable internet connection is being used exclusively by the cable company to feed you 200 channels? That is all we are talking about here."
No, that is not at all what is being talked about.
That is a completely different and prior service. The comparison would be more accurately with the fact that dsl and a traditional voice service coexist on a copper line.
You can't compare that to rhetoric implying that google is a free riding leech on the bells networks.
|
|
