 rideboarderwelcome to the socialPremium
join:2003-07-28
Snohomish, WA
1 edit | reply to sommerfeld
Re: Can you hear me now? said by sommerfeld:How is this significantly different from the cableco's using the bulk of the bandwidth on their coax infrastructure for a mix of analog and digital video? It's exactly the same thing. They are whining about Verizon using 80% of its own fiber pipe to deliver TV access. Hello, the cable co's are doing exactly the same thing! Multiple HD streams need lots of bandwidth, DUH! They are forgetting that the left over 20% is still more than enough to provide internet access considering that they are currently providing some of the fastest speeds available. The two will be independent of each other anyways, so the TV isn't going to take speed from your internet access, so it isn't going to slow down your browsing or downloading at all...
I'm starting to think Amazon.com & co. are getting a bit greedy on their part. Who cares if someone can access their website with 3 megs or 15 megs...that isn't going to hurt their business at all since websites won't load faster with the 15 meg connection anyways....they are just asking for verizon to set up QoS....talk about shooting yourself in the foot  |
|
| said by rideboarder:said by sommerfeld:How is this significantly different from the cableco's using the bulk of the bandwidth on their coax infrastructure for a mix of analog and digital video? It's exactly the same thing. All the main ISP companies have built their own fiber nets(not the ones shared with all others(Level3, Cogent, UUnet, etc). And they built those to deliver their own content at high QOS standards for VOIP, videos, etc. All they are asking is that if others want to ride on the limited access private turnpike instead of the public highway that they kick in a fee.
And if a law prevents that, then the costs to their users are going to rise. So the end user is going to pay more no matter what. Either to the content providers or to the network providers.
But we have 2 classes of users - those who will use these new bandwidth intensive apps and those who won't. Under the content providers pay model, only the intensive users will pay. Under the network providers pay model, everyone pays - even those who only do email and regular browsing. The content providers pay model is fairer to the majority of the users. Though the biggest heaviest users will complain when they have to carry more of the costs they are causing.
Maybe the network providers(ISPs) will have to move to a bytes/mo model instead of flat rates. That way the content providers won't pay extra and the end users will pay based upon how much bandwidth they consume.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | reply to rideboarder
YES YES YES!!! quote:
It's exactly the same thing.
Right! When the telcos ralk about rolling out "broadband", they're looking at imitating what Cable has been doing all along. To them "broadband" does NOT equal generic internet access.
In fact, Cable has been doing it for so long, no one criticizes them for the "2 tiered" network they have, whereby most of the bandwidth is allocated to their premium services, and a small fraction is allocated for generic internet access. |
|
DonLibesPremium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: Can you hear me now? This gets back to the questions of advertisers. Right now, advertisers are piggybacking on a lot of traffic. But if users suddenly start paying per byte (or some rougher equiv such as tiers), users are going to NOT want to pay for all the freeloading advertisements.
On the other hand, the google model makes advertising intrinsic to the product. It is hard to see how this will play out. |
|
