Videotron Wants Content Providers to Pay > IDIOTS!

IDIOTS!

That could explain why the telco's want to be serve up TV and other services because they know if there in control of the content they can charge for it.

Also pipe providers should simply post how much it costs and how much they want in return in profits. Also you can't gain without sacrificing so I can understand what you mean by where the money would have to come from. At the same time if they don't want content providers getting so easily they should raise there rates for Kb and the solution is solved. As the content provider's themselves they are customers to that ISP and they can always say "I am going out of here with my wallet, your prices are too high, good bye."

It's simple and common sense but just like anyone they like to bring in a valid point and add something extra. To me it's increasing prices but on top of that locking in competition or being abusive on those prices to discourage it.

reply to Alpine
Sure it's symbiotic. Just as my laundry detergent "dirt-o-way" needs a store to sell it.

But if the store finds itself in need of more room for more products, does it pass on the cost to expand the store to me and my detergent? Or does it drop my detergent from the shelf due to the size of the product? Or does is suck it up and take an immediate loss and later reap the rewards?

ISPs that house content providers are making their money on the amount of BW consumed by the provider via the contract that was signed for the service. The end users are limited by the ISPs on the amount of bandwidth they are alotted (comcast = 6mbps max). It is then the ISPs responsibilty to allow or deny (I shouldn't say deny but you know what I mean) access to spcific content that they feel their network cannot handle. This, of course, would cause 56k user to leave ISP A and go to ISP B. ISP A doesn't want to lose customers so they try to extort content providers for more money to upgrade their network. They claim the end user would have to pay for the upgrades. Well, the end user (me) won't have any of that. ISP B is cheaper and they're already ready for the content that ISP A can't handle. BYE BYE ISP A!

Sounds like some ISPs just need to go out of business.

reply to Alpine

reply to Alpine
If Google gets charged, I think they should turn around and charge the ISP for the privilege of allowing the ISP's users access to Google's content. The same holds true for any other content provider. It might just be odd coincidence if the bills happen to cancel each other out.

reply to Alpine
"think it's alright for the pipe providers to have to cut profits to build out networks "

Since they own the networks, it isn't the slightest bit unreasonable that the pipe provides have to roll their own profits back into the build up of their own infrastructure. That's what all businesses do to grow. It's an odd world we live in when capitalists don't think they should have to put their own profits back into their own business.

"overloaded by the content providers' applications"

Overloaded is simply another way of saying that the pipe owners are not managing their growth properly in order to keep up with growing demand. This doesn't mean that they are being cheated or that the content providers are abusing them.

" while the content providers reap all the benefits and don't have to lift a finger to help infrastructure (aka, "their lifeblood.)"

They lift a finger the way any customer does: by paying for their service. What more should a company expect, we pay them in exchange for their building and maintaining a satisfying service.

"Consumers may have problems either way. If Google (or whoever) gets charged, they'll either have to take a cut in profits or pass that on to consumers....The money for advancement has to come from somewhere.."

If we have faith in Capitalism then we should want a clear signal sent to the market, rather than devious roundabout ways of recovering costs. If the pipe owners aren't making enough money to be able to build out then they should raise the price of bandwidth and everyone, from the googles of the world to the individual isp customer will pay more for a given amount of bandwidth. This is far superior to allowing the pipe owners to use QOS to subvert the way people experience their competitors content. To a large extent this debate is happening because the pipe owners want to use their control of the pipe to undermine competition in spaces such as video. Do they recover costs in a neutral way, by charging for pipes of different sizes, or do we allow them to discriminate based on the type of applications and content.

"Since cost is going to be passed on to consumers anyway, is having guaranteed QOS for certain services so bad"

Yes it is bad for a number of reasons.

1. It gives these companies every incentive to use their control over the pipe to corner the market in the content and services that they want to deliver.

2. It allows them to hide real costs by not passing them on directly to those who are responsible for the costs, (especially their video customers, which is the main reason they are upgrading their networks, i.e. they want to get into the video content delivery business). They want to socialize the cost of their video service and take it out of the backs of all internet users. Let their video customers shoulder the cost of their video service upgrades.

3. The company has little incentive to build out beyond what is necessary for their own video service. If they have a juicy new revenue model based on having those with deep pockets paying additional money for the privilege of being given preference on the network, why would they undermine this revenue by creating abundance and lessening the pressure on content providers to pay. If we weren't bandwidth limited QOS wouldn't be much of an issue. In other parts of the world, where speeds of connections are far superior to ours, this isn't an issue. The needs of the market there are being met by providing bigger pipes, not by extorting money from deep pockets by maintaining scarcity.

reply to Alpine

reply to Alpine

reply to Alpine
But the point is that their viewpoint is *not* valid. Content providers already pay large amounts of money for their connections and presumably you pay for your connection as well. If your ISP can't make a profit from the prices it charges you, it has a flawed business model.

ISPs charging content providers for access to their network would be like Bell saying to Telus' business customers "I've heard that your calls to our residential customers might soon start dropping. That'd be a real shame but I'm sure some cash coming our way could remedy that, if you get my drift."

For phones that sort of behaviour would land them in court pretty quickly, but apparently it's okay for internet connections.