Re: It's pretty sweet in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19414546 en Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:07:25 EDT Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:07:25 EDT Re: It's pretty sweet http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19425425 dnoyeB : 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
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19425425 Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:14:14 EDT Re: It's pretty sweet http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19416720 jjeffeory : Well, Now we all know why fiberguy is the avatar of the ISP "dumb pipe".]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19416720 Sat, 10 Nov 2007 01:34:19 EDT Re: It's pretty sweet http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19416687 jjeffeory : 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...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19416687 Sat, 10 Nov 2007 01:25:54 EDT Re: It's pretty sweet http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19415856 anon :
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19415856 Fri, 09 Nov 2007 22:33:33 EDT Re: It's pretty sweet http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19415598 dervari : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19415598 Fri, 09 Nov 2007 21:26:57 EDT Re: It's pretty sweet http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19415126 Enlightener : 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....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19415126 Fri, 09 Nov 2007 19:59:24 EDT Re: It's pretty sweet http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19414976 sporkme :
said by fiberguy See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19414976 Fri, 09 Nov 2007 19:34:21 EDT Re: It's pretty sweet http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19414546 dbmaven : We're talking about entirely different things.

D* is limiting the outbound bandwidth - kind of like a valve at a dam that only lets a certain amount of water out at a time. That may be so that they can simulate the expected download times when the service is generally available. Imagine if they didn't limit it now, and the few users that are using it got the full pipe ? Those users would be spoiled, and when the load ramped up, they'd be screaming about how "the downloads suck now - they're taking 15 times longer than they used to !"

I'm describing an enhancement on the HR2x receivers that allow a user to specify:
•when to allow DOD downloads by hours of the day
•how much of the target connection bandwidth to use. If I have a 6mpbs connection, I want to limit what DOD uses to one-third of that, or a max of 2mbps. Effectively, it's a form of QoS for the receiver. And since the download appears to be taking place over ports 80 and 8080 (straight old http or https), it would be difficult to throttle that in your router.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19414546 Fri, 09 Nov 2007 18:22:39 EDT Re: It's pretty sweet http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19414462 karlmarx : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19414462 Fri, 09 Nov 2007 18:09:15 EDT Re: It's pretty sweet http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19414237 Camelot One : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19414237 Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:32:00 EDT Re: It's pretty sweet http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19414203 dbmaven :
said by fiberguy See Profile :

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"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19414203 Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:27:48 EDT Re: It's pretty sweet http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19414191 Camelot One : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19414191 Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:25:34 EDT Re: It's pretty sweet http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19414087 fiberguy :
said by drmorley See Profile :

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..."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19414087 Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:09:21 EDT It's pretty sweet http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19414031 drmorley : There's no HD content being offered yet, but there's a crapload of shows from tens of networks available for download.

Yeah, I downloaded two seasons of Celebrity Mole.

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.

--
»tehblogs.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19414031 Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:00:55 EDT