how-to block ads
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: It's pretty sweet said by drmorley  :I pity the fool that tries to use this service with Comcast HSI. Those invisible caps will be well within reach of average users once they start downloading HD content. I pitty them too..
I also find it a little odd that providers like DirecTV are trying to offset part of their business model to other providers. DirecTV should be operating their service through their own broadband network. Maybe they won't because they'd be violating their own FAP too quickly.. I smell irony here.
If the end user wanted to send the request out through the broadband and then initiate the download through their own network using the direct-duo service (their own internet) then that would be one thing.. but DirecTV is passing on, like so many others, their traffic and costs to other providers.
I will make a prediction right now.. it's this type of actions from other providers which will push Comcast into a billing by the meg system. Mark my word. Don't think that DSL won't be too far behind either. Neither side - NO provider for that matter - is going to sit back and accept the cost for others to do business on their backs.
When you start pushing everything under the sun through the internet and the networks are impacted - someone is going to have to pay for it.
For the longest time I've never agreed with the SBC push to bill 3rd party content providers such as this.. but to be honest, the more and more this is happening, the more I agree with it.
Either the consumer will pay for this, the ISP will pay for this, or those that want to put their content on the lines will pay for it.. however, the ones that are pushing the content are making the money and therefor, I say let them pay the ISPs. That makes the most sense, business wise, anyway. If this model takes play, the consumer will ultimately win anyway.. let the corporations pay the corporations.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
|  
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| Re: It's pretty sweet Video on Demand has been the one (and only in my opinion) thing Cable has had over DirecTV. So I think that fact alone is motivating them to roll this out, more than the idea of offloading the cost of distribution.
And while I agree with parts of your opinion, I also view it as "you advertised it, now provide it" when it comes to the internet connection itself. AT&T has said absolutely nothing to me (their customer) about not using my 6000/768 lines to move data at 6000/768. They bill me for 6000/768, and therefore I feel they have no say in what I use that connection to download. (setting aside the arguments over pirated material)
That said, I am one of the beta testers, and even given the small number of us that were using the DoD service during it's beta only trial, not once did it max out my connection. Some speculate the DTV servers just didn't have the output bandwidth to do so, but with this now a national release, they should. I think DTV is probably limiting the speed, be it on their end or via a setting on the box. So while monthly caps could still be a complaint, there really isn't an argument of them clogging up the lines with a high throughput.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/WD 74Gb Raptor/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
| 
dbmaven
There's no shortage
Premium,Mod
join:1999-10-26
Sty in Sky
clubs:
 ·VOIPo
·magicjack.com
 ·Optimum Online
Host:
Filesharing Software
No, I Will Not Fix..
Road Runner
Bright House Netwo..
Computer Hardware ..
| said by fiberguy : DirecTV should be operating their service through their own broadband network. Maybe they won't because they'd be violating their own FAP too quickly.. I smell irony here. If the end user wanted to send the request out through the broadband and then initiate the download through their own network using the direct-duo service (their own internet) then that would be one thing.. but DirecTV is passing on, like so many others, their traffic and costs to other providers. DirecTV doesn't have "a network" - the former DirecWay service was spun off over 18 months ago and is now called HughesNet, and has nothing to do with DirecTV.
Interesting that TiVO is looking at similar content delivery opportunities:
Rogers also sees great potential in developing the broadband delivery of content to TiVos, noting that almost 1 million TiVo users have connected their DVRs to the Internet.
“That will be the catalyst for the on-demand world,” he said, adding: “The cable industry made a bad bet… video-on-demand is a highly constrained infrastructure. We have 15,000 titles via Amazon, and they’re encoding thousands more each month. The video-on-demand infrastructure just can’t match that.”
»www.multichannel.com/article/CA6499350.html
Hmmmm. But since TiVO is in bed with Comcast and Cox, that's probably OK - unless of course you're using your TiVO to do content delivery via broadband using another ISP.....
As stated in the original article, and I agree - this will be a significant test of net neutrality. Precisely why I beleive that DirecTV will need to add some 'controls' to the product - specifying windows to allow/disallow downloads (only download after midnight and before 6AM) and bandwidth percentages/QoS limits (only use 25% of the max bandwidth I have available).
--
If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled?
Living in "an optimized state of temporary chaos" | |
| |
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| Re: It's pretty sweet See my post above. I don't think they are using any sort of download times window, but something is limiting the bandwidth. (not sure if it's lack of output capabillity, or on purpose though)
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/WD 74Gb Raptor/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
| | | | | | | 
dervari
join:2000-01-17
Atlanta, GA
clubs: | Re: It's pretty sweet It's not hard at all. I have a policy set up that any connections initiated by my HR20 is limited to 4mb/s GBW and 6mb/s MBW. That still leaves me 4mb/s to play with when I'm downloading and want to surf/usenet/etc. | |
| 
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| But the corporation is ALREADY paying the corporation. Or do you think Direct-TV is a free backbone provider? DirectTV can't SEND the data any faster than their pipes allow. In the end, there shouldn't be any change in the services/pricing, since everyone is ALREADY compensated for whatever bandwidth they are using.
What I would REALLY like to see, is DirectTV to use a torrent based system to provide the shows. That would allow them to provide MUCH faster bandwith, to many more people, at the same time. Guess what COMCRAP, your little sandvine experiment will come crashing to the ground, as net neutrality advocates will most CERTAINLY have a case to argue that the technology is interfering with LEGITIMATE traffic.
The ONLY solution, which is the one I advocate, is that the ISP's only SELL what they CAN PROVIDE. If comcast is incapable, or unwilling to provide the bandwidth THEY ARE SELLING, then they either need to lower the speed, OR upgrade their networks to provide WHAT THEY ADVERTISE.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
| 
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
1 edit | said by fiberguy :I also find it a little odd that providers like DirecTV are trying to offset part of their business model to other providers. ... If the end user wanted to send the request out through the broadband and then initiate the download through their own network using the direct-duo service (their own internet) then that would be one thing.. but DirecTV is passing on, like so many others, their traffic and costs to other providers. You seem pretty clueless about how the internets work.
DirecTV, or really anyone who provides any sort of content, has to pay for the bandwidth they consume. They pay this to either a hosting outfit or to whomever their bandwidth provider is. It is not their responsibility to help comcast or whomever modernize their network, the subscribers pay for that. There is zero precedence for Whitaker's "hoster pays twice" model.
Do you think Justin should bill each ISP for every post here? Sounds silly, doesn't it?
edit: quite entertaining reading your follow-ups. So you're a hoster and you believe you should pay both your 3 transit providers and every access network your customers want to reach. Interesting viewpoint, but still smells like arguing for the sake of arguing to me.
You're argument is not compelling in the least - if you're in the business you know DTV is not getting a "free ride" - you know full well they are paying their transit provider to deliver their traffic. You should also know full well that the more they use the more they pay. | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: It's pretty sweet Look, clueless Charlie.. don't assume shit. ok?
I happen to own my own ISP, data center, and 3 redundant connections to serve my facility. I know how the internet works. I also know that You pay for what you transport on the internet as well.
You guys continue to live in your utopia world more and more each day. I stand by my comments and won't back down to internet hippies that want it all for nothing.
The way you guys view the internet is this sort of free ride on the world.. it's electronic so it must be free. You couldn't be far from true. You also don't have any respect for TOS agreements.. you guys seem to think that typical residential use is wide open throttles as well. You're going to continue to define things the way you are.
People like you guys are dangerous to the rest of us, and the mass in whole. You want to say your so-called freedom fighters, or soldiers of network neutrality, a myth at best right now. You guys cry for all this network freedom and all you're going to do, which you all have conveniently avoided, is cause the masses to start limiting their use or paying like they're at the gas pump.
I"m getting sick and tired of you modern day hippies who won't live in the REAL WORLD while sitting with rose colored glasses on acting like you know it all. Wake up and smell the pot you're smoking. When you start looking at the whole picture and not your own selfish needs, then maybe you will realize what impact you are having on everyone. What people like you propose only ends up doing more damage than good since you can only see life with blinders on.
While in theory, you're right that networks need to be upgraded.. but I've got news for you, clueless, it doesn't happen over night, and it ain't cheap. Who's going to pay for it? And back off the corporate "they're being over paid" crap. Business isn't in business to break even.. it's there to make a profit. If the current models in place didn't work, you'd still be dialing up on your 33.6 modem over a twisted pair on your second line that cost you $22 a month and the dial up account for $25 paying damn near $50 to which you can pay as little as $15 today and share the connection.
Stop with your "modernize their network" crap. It's an 8 year old (circa) network and I'd say that's anything BUT not modern.
Stop acting like you are owed something. If DirecTV wants to offer a VOD service (which the name is a little deceiving at best) then let them do it over their own infrustructure. Yes - I have a REAL problem when one company in the same business wants to utilize the network of another. The day where your Satellite based "VOD" service interrupts my ability to use the internet is the day you see the real fight.
People come to this site almost daily crying that their connections are slow.. same time, bandwidth hogs come here crying because they are cut off. Guess what - it's not YOUR place to tell ANY ISP to update their network. The key is "THEIR NETWORK"... you have every right NOT to buy it.. be it Comcast or AT&T..it's something you are renting. Don't like it? move on. Just because it's invented doesn't mean it has a place on the internet. As things mature, sure.. but right now.. no. Your desires don't trump my rights.
Don't like it? too bad. I'm really sick and tired of you cry babies who want it all for $14.95 a month and don't care about anyone else than yourself.
I know things are changing but I'm realistic in my expectations and know it takes time... I'm not selfish like you. You want VOD? Go to a provider that can provide "VOD".. not Video-When-Ever.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | | 
drmorley
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-20
Park Ridge, IL
clubs: | Re: It's pretty sweet You have the makings of a compelling argument, however when you resort to name calling and condescension you lose whatever cred you might of had.
| |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: It's pretty sweet I believe the condescending name calling started, as usual, on the other side of the fence. But, since most people don't agree with my point of view, people tend to ignore or dismiss those who attack from the other side. It's ok.. I'm used to it around here.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
| | |
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| So, you are your own ISP. That explains a LOT. What do you sell exactly? Access to fiberguy network? I mean, you're like AOL, right? People can connect to YOUR NETWORK, and use it on YOUR TERMS. Of course, they can't get to google, or youtube, or anywhere else, but at least you can control your costs.
NO, you don't sell FIBERGUY network access, you sell INTERNET access. So, MAYBE you aren't charging enough. Why don't you try and sell 1mb access for $1000.00 a month. Oh, wait, you CAN'T, cause no-one would buy it. So please explain exactly what you sell? Cause from all your whining, it sure sounds like you are selling 'some sort of limited access to some places where me (the corp) gets to decide you can go'. If that's what your SELLING, then that's what you should advertise, and see how many customers you get.
AGAIN, it's NOT YOUR PIPE. WE are paying YOU to TRANSPORT DATA. PERIOD. DirectTV is paying SOMEONE to TRANSPORT DATA. PERIOD. DirectTV CAN'T SEND MORE THAN THEY PAY FOR. WE CAN'T RECIEVE MORE THAN WE PAY FOR.
It's as simple as that.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | Re: It's pretty sweet Nope... there you go assuming again.. it's called HOSTING and DATA SERVICES. Where did I say I offered access? | |
| | | | | itguy05
join:2005-06-17
Camp Hill, PA
| Re: It's pretty sweet quote:
Where did I say I offered access?
Right here....
quote:
I happen to own my own ISP, data center, and 3 redundant connections to serve my facility. I know how the internet works. I also know that You pay for what you transport on the internet as well.
And I'm glad you don't run my ISP or host my website. Just a hint: I pay Comcast for INTERNET ACCESS. What I do with that access is my business. Period. Same as the phone. You didn't hear the phone companies bitch when the Internet first started because those of us with modems were staying connected to our ISPs for hours and hours with our unlimited local phone calls? Same with the ISP's. Put up or shut up. | |
| Enlightener
join:2006-01-28
Cedar Park, TX | I can't agree with you at all. DirecTV pays the cost in servers and network peering costs for the bandwidth and I pay the cost to AT&T to get my 6MB FTTP connection.
DirecTV isn't getting a free ride from AT&T. Please.... | |
| | jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA | Re: It's pretty sweet Well, Now we all know why fiberguy is the avatar of the ISP "dumb pipe". | |
| 
factchecker
@bellsouth.net
| If the end user wanted to send the request out through the broadband and then initiate the download through their own network using the direct-duo service (their own internet) then that would be one thing.. but DirecTV is passing on, like so many others, their traffic and costs to other providers. Completely, totally and utterly false. That statement would only be true if DirecTv was not paying for the bandwidth that connects them to the internet. The FACT is that Directv pays for access to its providers, on up the chain. No one is getting a free ride.
Perhaps you need to hang out in a group like NANOG where people who know what they are talking about can explain it to you because it is clear you don't have a clue, even for someone who claims they own an service provider. | |
| jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA
| Well, I consider the rate hikes by some cable companies as the customer paying for the bandwidth. I hope DirecTV causes the issue to bubble to the surface with this. That way we can get a clear answer from the gov't. The bandwidth is cheaper than we think to provide. The ISP should have been building towards this over the last decade... | |
| 
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
| I'm not buying into it. I paid for the bandwidth. Its not Comcast's its mine. And its not DirectTV users downloading HD Content, its Comcast users downloading HD content as you can't download HD contant over Comcast's network unless you are a paying Comcast user.
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
| |
| | | |
|
