Playing Both Sides in Two-Tier Debate > I am still up in the air..

I am still up in the air..

reply to David
Aren't there already really tiers that support this? (I think of Verizon's 768kbps tier, or cable lite tiers that often are offered if you threaten to cancel). Is this really the same argument as an incumbent trying to charge Google Video or World of Warcraft a QoS tariff to reach customers more quickly?

I'm not entirely sure the LR author has his debates squared up.

reply to David

reply to Karl Bode
This is exactly what I was thinking. Deprioritizing some kid's Bittorrent bandwidth is a totally different topic from charging QoS tariffs to content providers like Google or Skype. Sloppy article.

reply to Karl Bode
Well if that is the case then why "invisi-cap"? Why throttle then? Why do it at all and waste the time doing it?

They are doing those things for one reason: cost control. it makes sense.. If you collect say $17.99 from 10 customers and one downloads enough to consume the bandwidth the other 9 would ever use in say 50 years where is the cost recovery then?

I am not stating I am on a side, but then again where are the limits? ISP's still pay bandwidth by byte too, don't think they get a flat fee like we get as consumer. Tell that to your ISP as you pay them a monthly fee while downloading 600GB a month while grandma uses 500Mb for one month.
--
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this. Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!!

reply to David

reply to MxxCon

said by MxxCon:

said by David:

should grandma that surfs and checks e-mail pay the same price as a 15 yr old downloading illegal bit torrent, or MP3's?

just because it's "illegal" he have to pay more?

paying per byte will greatly hurt internet industry.

reply to David
Again though, I think this is a separate debate than the application of a QoS tariff levied against content providers.

ISPs may very well need to levy a per the byte charge against some of the heavier users in time to ensure profitability. Traffic shaping is used to control those users who consume a disproportionate amount of bandwidth.

But what they're proposing here is something entirely different. Imposing additional costs on IP service providers (VoIP, Video, MMORPGs) that get passed on to consumers, who really will be consuming the same amount of bandwidth.

I believe it's simply a move to drive up the cost of competing services and fund next-gen deployment. Creating a new profit-stream out of thin-air, so to speak. The cost hikes they impose get passed on to customers, blamed on content providers, and the end user really sees a largely similar end-user experience.

They essentially do what they do now, but make more profit, while the use blames the price-hike on Google (or whomever).

I think the question is, if they do indeed charge the Qos, will the telcos deliver in acutally improving performance for the paying companies.

Edited: reply to wrong post

reply to Karl Bode

reply to Karl Bode

reply to kamm
kamm,

Backbone cost may have gone down since 2000, but last time I checked, DSL rates have gone down, too.

Maybe some ISPs bought "plenty of bandwidth", but most of them have to upgrade their peering and backbone connections as people send and receive more bytes. NOBODY buys a full 1 MBps pipe through to every peering partner for every 1 MBps customer added--it just doesn't make sense to do that.

And if you're concerned about companies "working together" to "set up new rules" to raise profits, I'd worry a lot more about "under the table" schemes that involve indirect "kickbacks" from content providers to ISPs than I would about ISPs directly charging for (and directly competing for) end user services.

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!

reply to David
In that case, Grandma should go back to Dial-Up and has no business complaining that someone else is actually using their broadband connection. You do NOT need Cable/DSL for sending email and paying bills.

I download several GB's month, none of it being illegal. Do you have any idea just how much bandwidth streaming audio and video can use? Do you have any idea how incredibly large game patches, addons, mods, and even the 100% free game can be today (and no I do NOT mean warez)? I'm paying for DSL because that is what DSL/Cable is for. If you don't do any of these things then STFU and go back to Dial-Up, because you do not need a 3Mbit/sec download pipe. Instead of bitching that people are actually using the bandwidth they've paid for, and for the very things the service was advertised as being for, they (the Telcos) should offer more less expensive tiers of service for people that don't need anything more than an ISDN connection...

I've paid for 3Mbit/sec. If their networks are overloaded by myself actually using that bandwidth then that's their problem and they need to quit whining and upgrade the network so it is no longer overloaded. Of course, as soon as my contract is up, AT&T can go to hell anyway.

reply to pnh102
Telegraph companies charged per letter for messages.

reply to uSynDarkSyde

reply to David
I pay the same monthly phone bill my neighbor does and I doubt if she uses the phone 1/100th as much as my kids do.

So what was your point in that again?

reply to Karl Bode

reply to Skippy25