bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| tiering...
'And I said, 'Why should I care?'"'
And that is why ISPs want tiering. Content creators or distributors do not care how much kludge they create. The ISPs have two choices, increase network ability at a cost to the people who pay for access, or to cut access. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
edit:
January 25th, @01:29PM
| quote:
Content creators or distributors do not care how much kludge they create.
I don't know. Most of them at least try to do something vaguely resembling efficiency with their products. quote:
The ISPs have two choices, increase network ability at a cost to the people who pay for access, or to cut access.
How about taking the $5 per user from the sale of clickstream data, the additional revenue from behavioral advertising deep packet inspection (from companies like NebuAd), and the advertising revenue from DNS redirection services, some of the cash from the sale of cars and homes, and put it into the network? 
On top of the $65 being charged for stand alone 6-8Mbps service, and with the money saved from using crap subcontractors and offshore labor, I kind of feel like maybe that's enough revenue for most ISPs to operate a broadband network without forging packets? I dunno. Maybe I'm daft. |
|
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Huntsville, AL | Just think how much infrastructure could be purchased with those $50m exec bonus's they seem to like to hand out on a whim. |
|
jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·ViaTalk
| said by Boogeyman  :Just think how much infrastructure could be purchased with those $50m exec bonus's they seem to like to hand out on a whim. Precious little. $50 million is peanuts in this biz. |
|
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode : quote:
Content creators or distributors do not care how much kludge they create.
I don't know. Most of them at least try to do something vaguely resembling efficiency with their products. But efficiency to them means keeping their costs as low as possible while pushing the majority of the costs on to the ISPs. But in the end the consumer has to pay for it one way or another. So the issue is one of who gets more of the profits - the ISPs or the content providers.
The only thing really going on is that the content providers are winning the PR battle. They have the customer believing they are providing a free or very low cost service, when in the end they aren't. They have just SHIFTED the costs elsewhere. And the ISPs aren't doing a good job getting out the facts that what the content providers are doing is nothing but cost shifting.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
espaeth
Misanthrope
Premium
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
edit:
January 25th, @02:22PM
| reply to Boogeyman
Upon reflection, I do not wish to post. |
|
BabyBear
Keep wise ...with Night-Owl
join:2007-01-11
| reply to jester121
said by jester121 :said by Boogeyman : $50m exec bonus's. Precious little. $50 million is peanuts in this biz. Wow, they hand out bonuses that are considered "peanuts"!?!  Those poor exec's, how do they get by on f'ing peanuts!?!  My Koresh, what troopers!  |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to Karl Bode
They already do that, and sell your clickstream data with your demographics too. Although their statistics are messed up when they say 1/3rd of the vistors to rape reality porn website are women.  I guess its the people who pay for the connection, not the users, whose demographics are included. Example of such data would be »www.quantcast.com/ |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Karl Bode
Karl, that's the same as one telling you to get a second job because the government wants more tax money meaning they are going to take MORE from you for things like remodeling meeting rooms, or those who want to go from a Ford Taurus to an SUV instead.. and so on.
Extra revenue from the sources you talk about - which you are against in the first place, is not and should not have to be, or simply be, used to subsidize the increased needs of others who want to abuse the service.
I'm from the school of if you want to use more, pay for more. |
|
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode : quote:
Content creators or distributors do not care how much kludge they create.
I don't know. Most of them at least try to do something vaguely resembling efficiency with their products. Yes the Content company moves to P2P which removes their costs (free bandwidth) and puts the additional traffic burden on the ISP via the users (the people that now have to pay)
said by Karl Bode :How about taking the $5 per user from the sale of clickstream data, the additional revenue from behavioral advertising deep packet inspection (from companies like NebuAd), and the advertising revenue from DNS redirection services, some of the cash from the sale of cars and homes, and put it into the network? On top of the $65 being charged for stand alone 6-8Mbps service, and with the money saved from using crap subcontractors and offshore labor, I kind of feel like maybe that's enough revenue for most ISPs to operate a broadband network without forging packets? I dunno. Maybe I'm daft. If you assume they are already doing then the $$'s are already accounted for. Adding substantially more capital costs to pay for the content providers new P2P CDN network would hit their free cash flow bottom line sinking all their stock even lower. Good for whom?
If you assume they are not doing everything you are saying, would you want them to start to fund the third party usage of their infrastructure so the third party content provider gets a free ride on your data and the ISPs dime?
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik |
|
factchecker
@cox.net
| reply to bogey780
Here's a better one that jives more with the facts, unlike your unfounded and unsupported opinion - ie. that content providers not caring about the amount of content they produce)...
With major ISPs, like ATT for example, making nice profits (att - $3.1 billion in JUST the 4th quarter), the ISPs are UNDER-investing in capacity to meet the demands of the future of the internet.
Companies like ATT, Comcast, etc. are showing that they have no clue about or interest in the future of the internet. Instead of investing more in their networks - which they have the cash to do - THEY are holding back the development of the internet by trying to keep customers on a usage model that was devised YEARS ago - low bandwidth webpages with few images, sparse media content and no applications like VoIP or on demand video. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| Cool name. I like the avante-garde nature of how you named your anonymous name something completely divergent from the thrust of your post.
I really don't see your rant on "Big Telephone" having ny bearing with the reality of the marketplace. ATT stays in the black by selling people that which they're willing to buy for a price they're willing to pay.
When I was a kid I too wondered why they couldn't just grow enough food and build enough homes for everyone and give us all a pony. I understand the problem though some people have. I mean, thinking just isn't some people's strong suite. |
|
factchecker
@cox.net
| said by bogey780 :Cool name. I like the avante-garde nature of how you named your anonymous name something completely divergent from the thrust of your post. Ah yes, some one who tries to sound smarter that they actually are...
I really don't see your rant on "Big Telephone" having ny bearing with the reality of the marketplace. ATT stays in the black by selling people that which they're willing to buy for a price they're willing to pay.
When I was a kid I too wondered why they couldn't just grow enough food and build enough homes for everyone and give us all a pony. I understand the problem though some people have. I mean, thinking just isn't some people's strong suite. Clearly you have an amazing ability to self diagnose since reading comprehension, spelling and thinking isn't your "strong suite" (sic)...
To classify the post as a "rant on 'Big Telephone'" is to totally miss the point. ATT was used purely as an example since its earnings data was easy to locate, so perhaps you should get the hard on you have for ATT under control and drop the ATT is perfect BS, and take the use of ATT as an example less personally.
Secondly if providers are making multi-BILLION dollar PROFITS, there is PLENTY of money available to the company for capital expenditure while still offering a return to the investors.
Perhaps before you lecture people on thinking not being anyone's "strong suite' (sic), you should think first. |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode : quote:
Content creators or distributors do not care how much kludge they create.
I don't know. Most of them at least try to do something vaguely resembling efficiency with their products. quote:
The ISPs have two choices, increase network ability at a cost to the people who pay for access, or to cut access.
How about taking the $5 per user from the sale of clickstream data, the additional revenue from behavioral advertising deep packet inspection (from companies like NebuAd), and the advertising revenue from DNS redirection services, some of the cash from the sale of cars and homes, and put it into the network? On top of the $65 being charged for stand alone 6-8Mbps service, and with the money saved from using crap subcontractors and offshore labor, I kind of feel like maybe that's enough revenue for most ISPs to operate a broadband network without forging packets? I dunno. Maybe I'm daft. But Karl if they did that, their CxO's would STARVE TO DEATH!
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| reply to factchecker
So despite an article where a guy says that "it's not his problem [that he clogs up a network]" there is no proof that content people don't care about kludge?
Perhaps you need to bone up on what "profits" are as well.
And I love how you think anyone who isn't enamored with the idea that AT&T grinds up babies for their VRAD batteries thinks AT&T is perfect. Because you see, I didn't say they were perfect, you on the other hand chastised them and berated them for...you know, earning a profit.
Oh, and I added an "e" in my rush to post. You know that's important because the typos prove a lack of intelligence. It's Internet Fact #213. |
|
factchecker
@cox.net
| said by bogey780 :So despite an article where a guy says that "it's not his problem [that he clogs up a network]" there is no proof that content people don't care about kludge? That is what is called an outlier in statistics... Secondly, one person does not even come close to being a representative sample of what content providers believe or do.
Considering content providers have bandwidth and equipment costs, they most certainly care about the content they generate and the bandwidth it consumes. The fact that he doesn't care that last mile networks are having difficulty is based on the fact that it is NOT his problem, it is the problem of the operators of those networks, be it satellite, cable, wireless or telco.
Perhaps you need to bone up on what "profits" are as well. I know what profits are, thank you very much.
And I love how you think anyone who isn't enamored with the idea that AT&T grinds up babies for their VRAD batteries thinks AT&T is perfect. Because you see, I didn't say they were perfect, you on the other hand chastised them and berated them for...you know, earning a profit. No, it is because all of your posts are so blatantly biased in favor of ATT that it appears you think that ATT is the second coming. In the posts from you I've read, I've never seen you point out anything wrong with ATT.
As for berating them for making a profit, incorrect. I'm pointing out that "the money isn't there" excuse to upgrading their networks to keep up with the changing internet doesn't hold water. When ATT, just as example, is claiming $3.1 billion in profit for one quarter, there certainly isn't a shortage of cash for investment. And other large providers are doing the EXACT same thing.
Oh, and I added an "e" in my rush to post. You know that's important because the typos prove a lack of intelligence. It's Internet Fact #213. On the contrary, the typo was just the easiest thing to have fun with... |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| reply to factchecker
Re: tiering...
Yea...quick reply ate the post.
I'll just keep this to your stupidest of fallacies then.
'Secondly, one person does not even come close to being a representative sample of what content providers believe or do.'
Because no one uses BT? Man, you just don't get out.
'The fact that he doesn't care that last mile networks are having difficulty is based on the fact that it is NOT his problem, it is the problem of the operators of those networks, be it satellite, cable, wireless or telco.'
Kinda like how when a person tosses antifreeze into a lake, it's not his problem. The gov't just needs to clean it up better.
'As for berating them for making a profit, incorrect. I'm pointing out that "the money isn't there" excuse to upgrading their networks to keep up with the changing internet doesn't hold water.'
AT&Ts job is not to expand their network to allow for the flawed business models of content creators and distributors to prosper.
Do not mistake your greed for their vice. You're not being noble or magnanimous by standing up and proudly... and anonymously... declaring AT&T needs to cut their profits so you can feed at their teat. Why don't you log into your account and help me out. |
|
Vchat20
Landing is the REAL challenge
join:2003-09-16
Warren, OH
edit:
January 26th, @12:26AM
| said by bogey780 :'The fact that he doesn't care that last mile networks are having difficulty is based on the fact that it is NOT his problem, it is the problem of the operators of those networks, be it satellite, cable, wireless or telco.' Kinda like how when a person tosses antifreeze into a lake, it's not his problem. The gov't just needs to clean it up better. This analogy does not fly. The fact is all these ISP's advertise a specific tier of service with a set speed despite the fact that 90% of the time, their infrastructure is far from capable of handling multiple customers using that full speed. And when people decide to actually use what they pay for, the ISPs come down on them and give them hell for it. It's like me opening my front lawn to public use and saying 'ok, free to use! no restrictions!' and then later screaming at them because my yard has become crowded with people. Not their fault, but mine. I opened up the lawn without actually thinking with more than one braincell and realizing 'DUH! They're going to use it!'
I'm sure if ISPs instituted PUBLICIZED caps that fell in line with what they were capable of REALLY offering, lifted any packet shaping/filtering tactics, etal, and offered an easy way for customers to track their usage, none of this would even be a concern and over time customers would be at ease with the idea. If not, they would just move to a competing ISP if they hadn't already begun this business model. And this is where competition benefits consumers.
Fact is you have one side of the broadband industry advertising 'unlimited' connections, others that have invisible caps where customers basically walk through a minefield and have to worry when their service will be terminated for 'excessive usage', and then those who do packet shaping tactics to limit what customers can do just to cut down on usage. All of them are really lousy ways to correct the problem at hand. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| 'This analogy does not fly.'
The analogy fits the arguments. He doesn't care that his program will cause problems with networks as they're set up currently.
You can't really gauge bt usage easily as it's not a KB cap thing. usually what hoses the network is the connections opening and closing rapidly.
This is hardly a minefield as almost users won't be bothered by caps.
To use your analogy though, it's as if a family of 4 walk up and ask if they can pass through your property to get to a beach. So you tell them they can and suddenly their extended family of a few hundred come over the hill and start stomping through your garden.
Internet prices are set based on expected usage. Like I said, you got two choices, higher prices or soft limits on usage. TANSTAAFL. |
|
