DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
4 edits | They should worry about Net Neutrality
Lack of net neutrality will kill TVoIP before it starts.
Telco and cable will just traffic shape it into the ground citing "reasonable network management".
And before the whining shills get all fired up to defend their poor oppressed profit-ridden masters...
CUSTOMERS are already paying for their connection regardless of what is being delivered and ISPs have no business double dipping with bandwidth extortion or giving preferential treatment to their own services while degrading competitors' services. We've already seen this future with Shaw and their $10 "How dare you want someone else's VoIP service" QoS surcharge.
If cable and telcos can't deliver on their advertising promises, that's their problem. They shouldn't promise speeds and services they can't deliver. If it's a matter of usage, then they should define monthly caps like Cox does and then let them battle it out for caps as well as speed in their "bandwidth hog" style counter-advertising campaigns.
--
Help keep cable rates low; support "Big Cable" in their fight against the extortionists at the NFL Network! |
|
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
| said by DotMac4  :If cable and telcos can't deliver on their advertising promises, that's their problem. They shouldn't promise speeds and services they can't deliver. If it's a matter of usage, then they should define monthly caps like Cox does and then let them battle it out for caps as well as speed in their "bandwidth hog" style counter-advertising campaigns. I think the above statement is key and where this will end up. The advertised speeds can be delivered for the majority of the user base today. However, it cannot be delivered under the same cost model with 7x24 high bandwidth services in the future. This is not a net neutrality issue, it is bandwidth economics or "cost neutrality"
The reality is that "flat fee" Broadband ISPs charge based on average usage. If average usage dramatically changes they will have to move to usage based billing to address the cost changes in service delivery. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | 'However, it cannot be delivered under the same cost model with 7x24 high bandwidth services in the future.'
Don't you dare speak the truth. Everyone knows that 1000 10Mb/s customers can easily draw their full bandwidth of of a 155Mb/s link. |
|
grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY
| reply to telcolackey
Except when you have things like on demand TV programming peering costs will be almost non existant so they can just offer you a huge download pipe, with local catching to eliminate the bottlenecks of the general internet. There will be no excuse for not offering full download bandwidth. |
|
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA | OK.... if you say so. |
|
DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
3 edits | reply to bogey780
Then instead of lying to customers about traffic shaping and packet forging (among other nonsense), they should clearly state what the limitations on their services are (eg ditch the phantom caps).
No one is expecting an ISP to be a charity...only completely honest and forthcoming in their advertising. Don't promise customers "crazy-fast" speed, then throttle the living crap out of the 'killer apps' like Usenet and P2P that attract those looking for crazy-fast speed.
If ISPs were honest they would say, "crazy-fast" so long as you're only surfing the net and using POP3...otherwise it's "dog-slow". "Download Music and movies, so long as it's from OUR industry partners, otherwise we'll traffic shape your downloads to a grinding halt."
If ISPs had to compete based on their capacity, you would see a lot quicker DOCSIS 3 deployments. But right now some are selling based on speed claims they can't deliver without intensive network "management". |
|
