 kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | It's clearly against equal opportunity Scenario 1: you can barely afford the current $15 768k Verizon DSL or some cable lite package but your son loves it - it's not that fast, you know it but it's unlimited, so it's an excellent compromise for you. This is what you can get today.
Scenario2: you get the same, cheap package but you are not allowed to unlimited downloads anymore but only use email and web and such, to a certain extent (traffic limit). No streaming video, no music video, nothing - because that would either eat up your monthly bandwidth or push you into the next pricing tier which you cannot afford.
Which one you prefer? Because it's clear the cable giants would prefer the #2 - as somebody very well put it above this is their wet dream, charging for use, not for access.:o |
|
 calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | It's clearly against equal opportunity-Say What? kamm,
This has nothing to do with "equal opportunity".
You ignore the fact that ISP costs do increase as end users up their usage--no ISP maintains a full width pipe to every peering point for every end user. All ISPs use shared facilities to some degree to save costs.
You may want the increased costs to be covered by under the table kickback schemes funded by big content providers, but that will just set up money flows that avoid the healthy limitations of a competitive market.
Very few things in today's market are sold as "all you can shovel in a month" and it may not be consistent with good economics to sell broadband that way, either.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
| reply to kamm
Re: It's clearly against equal opportunity Scenario2: you get the same, cheap package but you are not allowed to unlimited downloads anymore but only use email and web and such, to a certain extent (traffic limit). No streaming video, no music video, nothing - because that would either eat up your monthly bandwidth or push you into the next pricing tier which you cannot afford.
Yes.
This is because I would be the one paying $500/mo to get the premium bandwidth, so that I could get what I want when I want it. I don't have to share my bandwidth with you on the cable loop. I don't need to worry about you monopolizing the loop with your downloads. I'm paying for my stuff. I don't care about what you get or want.
We're a capitalist nation. It's not about what you want or feel is right. It's about the money, profit/loss, and macroeconomics. So long as it's legal and I have the money to pay for it [and I do], why should I care if you want cheap, uberfast, unlimited bandwidth? The question you need to answer is: How do I directly profit from you getting cheap unlimited bandwidth at blinding speeds? What's MY share of the pie? What's in it for ME?
If you can answer that successfully, I'll support your position.
If you are going to answer that the upgrades to the networks to provide everyone with faster, more, and better will benefit me, that's not going to work. I'll get that under the per-byte plan anyway - I've got the cash for it. So something else will need to be suggested to whet my appetite. |
|
 DryvlyneFar Beyond DrivenPremium
join:2004-08-30
Newark, OH | reply to calvoiper
Re: It's clearly against equal opportunity-Say Wha said by calvoiper:You ignore the fact that ISP costs do increase as end users up their usage--no ISP maintains a full width pipe to every peering point for every end user. All ISPs use shared facilities to some degree to save costs. The ISPs have no one to blame but themselves then for being put into this kind of dilemma. All of us here know full well that ISPs market/advertise a certain amount of bandwidth to every customer. Now we also know that they state in their TOS that they don't guarantee speeds. Most "average" consumers, however, don't read the TOS (and why would they when often times it is just a long, rambling mess of legal jargon).
IMO ISPs simply need to come clean and stop clearly marketing/advertising their services as if they are unlimited/uncapped at a fixed speed. Once they stop this bullshit of "walking the fine line" between marketing and what the TOS actually says then maybe it won't be so hard to sell consumers the idea of a "two-tier" Internet.
--
In relative terms life is shorter than the blink of an eye. Remember that each and every day because in the end it's not about what you've done but how you've lived.
|
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | ISP costs are going up--deal with it I'm not talking about hidden caps. And I'm not defending ISPs that don't upgrade their networks. And I'm certainly not defending ISPs that say one thing in their marketing and something else in their TOS.
I'm talking about the very real increase in costs that some ISPs will see in the future. This discussion is all about how they will increase their income to cover these costs. Either they will charge end users more (or offer fewer discounts) or they will figure out some way to extort the money from content providers. This ISP "dilemma", as you call it, is nothing more than any other business faces when its costs go up--where do you get the new money?
This isn't the result of some fraud or deception on the part of ISPs. They set prices where they could make money based on conditions at the time. Conditions are changing, more people are making more intense use of the bandwidth that they have.
ISPs are looking at a situation like that of a buffet restaurant that suddenly finds that three football training camps have opened within two blocks and they are suddenly getting swamped with customers that consume several times the resources of their old "average" customer.
What does such a provider do?
1. Increase costs across-the-board?
2. Switch to a quantity-based pricing model? (Maybe one that includes the first 3 plates but charges extra for four plates and above?)
3. Tell the football teams that their players might get sick if the teams don't pay some negotiated "kickback" to keep them healthy?
Think about it. 1 hurts everyone, 2 puts the burden where it belongs, and 3 is extortionate thuggery, plain and simple.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
DryvlyneFar Beyond DrivenPremium
join:2004-08-30
Newark, OH
2 edits | There is an option 4...
The ISPs can be realistic and stop their habitual practice of overselling their lines when they know full well the system they have in place isn't designed to handle the burden.
This wouldn't be an issue at all if they would just put up and shut up. The ISPs are so f'ing worried about turning a short-term profit for their investors that they are too afraid to just suck it up and build out their infrastructure properly for the future. Again, no one but the ISPs are to blame for this whole situation.
A vast majority of ISPs made mistakes in the planning/building of their current infrastructure and are now looking for a way to cover their asses in the short-term, but also have enough money leftover to build out for the future.
How's it my fault as a consumer that they f'ked up? I shouldn't have to pay them for so called "priority traffic". It's just another example of we, the consumers, getting shafted in the name of them creating a new revenue stream for the piss poor broken business model they've had all along. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | reply to calvoiper
Re: It's clearly against equal opportunity-Say Wha said by calvoiper:kamm, This has nothing to do with "equal opportunity". You ignore the fact that ISP costs do increase as end users up their usage--no ISP maintains a full width pipe to every peering point for every end user. All ISPs use shared facilities to some degree to save costs.
Yes, that's why ISPs are overselling everything, so their cost didn't change at all, in fact. quote:
You may want the increased costs to be covered by under the table kickback schemes funded by big content providers, but that will just set up money flows that avoid the healthy limitations of a competitive market.
Again; they don't need such schemes actually - the bw is cheap, they just don't have the appropriate network in place anymore. What you see here is nothing but a pathetic try to shift their long-overdue upgrade cost to you. Very few things in today's market are sold as "all you can shovel in a month" and it may not be consistent with good economics to sell broadband that way, either.
calvoiper
Quite the contrary most of these kind of things eventually end up with flat-fee modell like landline phones, cell phones, VoIP lines etc. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | reply to calvoiper
Re: ISP costs are going up--deal with it said by calvoiper:I'm not talking about hidden caps. And I'm not defending ISPs that don't upgrade their networks. And I'm certainly not defending ISPs that say one thing in their marketing and something else in their TOS. I'm talking about the very real increase in costs that some ISPs will see in the future. This discussion is all about how they will increase their income to cover these costs. Either they will charge end users more (or offer fewer discounts) or they will figure out some way to extort the money from content providers. This ISP "dilemma", as you call it, is nothing more than any other business faces when its costs go up--where do you get the new money? This isn't the result of some fraud or deception on the part of ISPs. They set prices where they could make money based on conditions at the time. Conditions are changing, more people are making more intense use of the bandwidth that they have. ISPs are looking at a situation like that of a buffet restaurant that suddenly finds that three football training camps have opened within two blocks and they are suddenly getting swamped with customers that consume several times the resources of their old "average" customer. What does such a provider do? 1. Increase costs across-the-board? 2. Switch to a quantity-based pricing model? (Maybe one that includes the first 3 plates but charges extra for four plates and above?) 3. Tell the football teams that their players might get sick if the teams don't pay some negotiated "kickback" to keep them healthy? Think about it. 1 hurts everyone, 2 puts the burden where it belongs, and 3 is extortionate thuggery, plain and simple. calvoiper This is clearly an dead wrong analogy, sorry. |
|
| reply to calvoiper
quote:
ISPs are looking at a situation like that of a buffet restaurant that suddenly finds that three football training camps have opened within two blocks and they are suddenly getting swamped with customers that consume several times the resources of their old "average" customer.
bad example, (don't mean to insult you, but you wrote smart things, this one just didn't fly) if there is more demand you get more supplies (at least in a buffet resturant) and they will enjoy having the 3 training camps next to them. The problem then is that the ISP can't supply the demand. So they come up with the new network. Of course there is going to be a cost initially but in the long run it will pay off but they want money and they wanted now. And the new network? Oh well it still being tested some where down in Texas...
Some else here posted something about what will the rest of the world do? Immagine other ISP around the world following the footsteps of the American ISPs. What will happen to content providers? What will happen to Google or whaterever else if they have to give money to SBC/Verizon/BellSouth/and then all of the international ones? Yep they A) go broke B)raise themselves the charges to their costumers and these last ones if they can afford it fine if they can't oh whell. What happens in a "oh well" situation? NO MORE CONTENT. What is the super fast internet good for then? I would guess absolutely nothing.
Bottom line QoS tariff or whatever they want to call it is a scam. The internet will move at the same speed. Can anyone tell me the difference (or if they can see it) in loading google beetween a 3mb connection and a 5mb? What do you think will happen with the 20mb? The average and noneaverage joe can't tell (because it also depends on your own pc). About VoiP and those other services. I guess they could make those seem more reliable... But I really wouldn't count on it.
Internet packages for different users I think is the best solution.
About grandma : sorry but does grandma really need all that bandwith to check email and pay bills to begin with?
About the 15 year old kid: kid you like to download? fine! you like to play WoW ? fine too. Get a partime job and help you parents pay for a good internet connection so you can do those things. Not all kids play WoW btw, younger kids are stock on those free online bottlecap games.
I think WoW is one of the few games with extra fee to play it. If the parents of above cited teenager are willing to pay extra just to let him/her play they definetely can afford the upper internet package.
You want the better service, it is right you pay more, alway in the limits of fairness of course. I pay right now Comcast $10 extra a month for 10mb down and 768kb up. I also pay them a double fee because I got to lines in my house so I use two modems in sync(my router rocks). But everyone here (my house) is helping pay for it is not only me (and I'm only a partime college student with a $10 an hour fulltime job, and not the head of the household). We wanted and needed the better service so it was our choice to pay a little extra. I think people should be educated on what they can do with their internet connection and then decide accordingly on what is good for them. Immagine grandma paying my $120 dollar bill just to chek email, or just half of that for one connection. I think is a waste for grandma's pension money and for other users that could thake a full use of that connection.
I was looking forward for fiber, but if the internet is going to die becuase of a bunch of money hungry compainies that can't deliver (which is their job to beging with) then everything better stay the way it is. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | reply to DSL Oberst
Re: It's clearly against equal opportunity said by DSL Oberst:Scenario2: you get the same, cheap package but you are not allowed to unlimited downloads anymore but only use email and web and such, to a certain extent (traffic limit). No streaming video, no music video, nothing - because that would either eat up your monthly bandwidth or push you into the next pricing tier which you cannot afford.Yes.This is because I would be the one paying $500/mo to get the premium bandwidth, so that I could get what I want when I want it. I don't have to share my bandwidth with you on the cable loop. I don't need to worry about you monopolizing the loop with your downloads. I'm paying for my stuff. I don't care about what you get or want.
Umm, pal, but you can already do this. It's called T1 or dedcicated line.
WTF are you talking about?
We're a capitalist nation. It's not about what you want or feel is right. It's about the money, profit/loss, and macroeconomics. So long as it's legal and I have the money to pay for it [and I do], why should I care if you want cheap, uberfast, unlimited bandwidth?
Exactly, why do you care/ Buy your private uberfast uberexpensive line andget the fuck out of the shared cable pipe.
The question you need to answer is: How do I directly profit from you getting cheap unlimited bandwidth at blinding speeds? What's MY share of the pie? What's in it for ME?
It's fuckin simple: you have the money so you can buy your OWN pipe instead of leeching on the sahred one and crying your @ss out to limit others.
If you can answer that successfully, I'll support your position.
If you are going to answer that the upgrades to the networks to provide everyone with faster, more, and better will benefit me, that's not going to work. I'll get that under the per-byte plan anyway - I've got the cash for it. So something else will need to be suggested to whet my appetite.
But that's the point; if you can get it, order your own line.
And get your hands off the 'common' shared pipe, stop whining for per-byte billing on that.
It's that simple. |
|
| Umm, pal, but you can already do this. It's called T1 or dedcicated line.
WTF are you talking about?
I see you do not understand. I shall enlighten you.
Of course I have the money to buy a T1. That's why I'm here at Broadband Reports. What's why we're all here. The plebes who don't need bandwidth don't come here. We're the elite 2.3% that actually use bandwidth.
Heck, 90% of the residential broadband users are the unwashed masses who surf the web and maybe send an email if they can figure out what Outlook is, let alone log into Windows. The other 7.7% that makes up people other than us are the ones who'd like to think they're a business but are too cheap to shell out for SDSL/T1. Pffft. They don't matter either.
So, what I am saying is why I should be altruistic and grant the plebes UBERBROADBAND? Why should I let everyone else have the same ability that cash grants you and me? That's the question you need to answer.
Now, I could understand your reasoning that per-byte should not be instituted if you are coming from socialist or communistic thought. That would be acceptable. A political belief is exactly like a religious belief anyway; of course you would want the lumpenproletariat to join in the People's Glorious Broadband Revolution. But a man's political/religious/psychic belief is just that: a belief and opinion that shouldn't be measured against stark practical reality.
So, what is in it for me to support your position? Exactly why should I take up your crusade? |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | reply to Dryvlyne
Re: ISP costs are going up--deal with it said by Dryvlyne:There is an option 4... The ISPs can be realistic and stop their habitual practice of overselling their lines when they know full well the system they have in place isn't designed to handle the burden. ... This isn't about deliberate overselling and the resultant poor quality service.
It's about the necessary costs of adding enough facilities to NOT oversell their system. Because users are moving more toward "constant" or "semi-constant" use of broadband (streaming video, gaming, downloads) the ISPs have a lot more traffic to exchange at the backbone level than the past history of their broadband users (who wanted "burst" usage, i.e., quick, but not constant, downloads of web pages, etc.)
I agree that the ISPs will have to spend more money to meet this higher level of service. The question is where will they get the income--from the end users in a direct fashion, or from someone else as an indirect subsidy? I think it should be a direct cost because that is the fairest way and the way which doesn't concentrate market power in a a few hands and discourage competition.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | reply to kamm
Why is it dead wrong, kamm? Just because you don't like the logical result of putting costs on the cost causer?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | reply to zultansdc
I'll stand by my example, in part because I'm looking at ISP costs on a monthly, not fixed, basis. This is valid because ISP investments in facilities have to earn their keep--we're not talking about "sunk costs" that are otherwise unrecoverable here. All of the shared facilities can be put to some other use if they aren't working for the ISP.
Realistically, whether it's a huge RBOC or a little mom & pop ISP, ISPs look at their costs on a monthly basis. For those circuits and connections they rent, that's a direct assignment. For those circuits and facilities they own, they have to calculate the "return" on their investment.
My buffet example focused on the cost of food--if they have to buy several times as much, they have to raise prices. But even if this is a wholly "vertically integrated" food provider that grows it's own food, it will take several times as much land (per customer) to satisfy the demand of these new customers--and the "investment" in that new land needs to earn a return. (Money is not free, even when it is invested in good things.)
Either way, when the ISP needs to expand its shared facilities and backbone connections on a PER CUSTOMER basis (because the AVERAGE CUSTOMER is pumping/sucking more bytes), then the PER CUSTOMER cost goes up--even if that cost is the necessary return on an increased PER CUSTOMER investment.
It's fairly basic economics, folks. And the reason I'm arguing it here is that I want to preserve a situation where a person can still get into 1) the ISP business by buying and renting facilities and obtaining connections to end users, or 2) the content provider business by obtaining server space and loading it with content, but without in either case having to try to crowd into some super-club of huge ISPs and content providers pushing money and access back and forth under the table.
Otherwise, with the Bell's proposals, we're dooming ourselves to a world where only huge ISPs and studio-like content providers can do business.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | reply to kamm
Re: It's clearly against equal opportunity-Say Wha For about the 15th time, I'm not defending overselling to the point where service is impacted. I am describing the sharing of facilities that has been in place by all ISPs to date, and how there are some increased costs as these shared facilities need to be augmented on a PER CUSTOMER basis.
Kamm, are you seriously saying that every ISP should maintain a 100% "clear pipe" to every peering point for every user it has? That would be extreme--far more extreme than ANY ISP currently sells into the consumer market. Instead, you're talking more about the types of "guaranteed" throughput that accompany the high-level connections backbone providers sell to smaller ISPs--and these are considerably more pricey than standard consumer connections.
Frankly, kamm, if you are so sure that broadband is so cheap and that there aren't any costs to heavy usage, why don't you start your own ISP?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
