 gatorkramKaBOOM BabyPremium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:2
 ·Suddenlink
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: Who should pay for network upgrades... said by fAcEtIOUs:said by gatorkram:Believe it or not, content providers are already paying their fair share. How else would they be offering content for people to download? Some of the content providers are, and some aren't. The traditional Server/client model providers are - like Google, Microsoft, Disney, BBR, etc. They pay for enough bandwidth to connect their servers to the net to feed the number of customers they have. But the P2P providers - like some Linux distributors; game providers; etc. are paying for a STRAW size chuck of bandwidth instead of a fire-hose. They have offloaded their bandwidth requirements to the ISPs and backbone providers by having their customers become distributors. They DO NOT pay their fair share. I'd have to disagree with you. How many times should that bandwidth be paid for?
The P2P provider is paying, and so are all the users who are downloading and re-uploading that content as well.
It isn't the content providers fault nor the end users fault, if the ISPs have a faulty scheme for charging for their services.
No one is getting a free lunch, so to speak.
You can't use more than they give you. It sure isn't anyone elses fault, but the provider, if they aren't getting enough money for the services they provide.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 |
|
| said by gatorkram:You can't use more than they give you. It sure isn't anyone elses fault, but the provider, if they aren't getting enough money for the services they provide. We have the problem summed up right here. The competition between ISPs has driven the prices too low to really be sustainable, especially with bandwidth and network intensive application and content usage increasing every day (some of my non-techie family members and friends have just discovered Youtube, etc.).
ISPs need to bring their prices back to sustainable levels so that they can invest in infrastructure to handle tomorrow's network demands. The problem is that people typically only care about price...
As well, the situation is _partly_ the creation of the ISPs for advertising an unlimited service, giving average users the impression that network capacity is not limited. Bill by the byte won't work (users don't like price inconsistency), so providers probably should evaluate caps with options for users to purchase premium packages with extremely high (500+ GB) caps or no caps. I currently pay for a connection with no usage cap and my bill is almost twice that of a residential user. |
|
 PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | How much P2P traffic is generated by businesses looking to distribute their software?
Warcraft patches and Linux ISO's seem to the only big ones and that has to be a relatively small portion of P2P traffic.
The majority of P2P appears to be from users sharing files and content with other users. |
|
1 edit | reply to gatorkram
said by gatorkram:I'd have to disagree with you. How many times should that bandwidth be paid for? The P2P provider is paying, and so are all the users who are downloading and re-uploading that content as well.
It isn't the content providers fault nor the end users fault, if the ISPs have a faulty scheme for charging for their services. It isn't a question of fault, but one of costs.
One can't ignore the over-subscription model that the ISPs built their systems on. And the fact that their pricing structure is based on the over-subscription model.
Of course, the ISPs can change the model they work under in order to function with a P2P model. They can greatly reduce the over-subscription model by vastly increasing their infrastructure. But when they do, their costs are going to go up. How much they go up is a matter of great debate and depends on network engineers modeling the new paradigm.
As a retired director responsible for a network engineering department at a major company, I am familiar with that process. I can make an educated guess based on growth projections I have read here at BBR and elsewhere that ISP infrastructure costs could go up 60% as P2P use(especially videos) ramps up.
Will customers be willing to stop paying $43/mo at Comcast for example and start paying $68/mo. Many would, but many would not - switching to cheaper, but slower and more congested services. The marketing and corporate planning departments of ISPs no doubt have research on how many customers they would lose at the higher rates. So they can accurately predict whether, overall, they would lose money or not. Based on their current resistance to P2P protocols, I submit they are resisting because they KNOW it would mean lower profits. And companies are in business to make money - not serve some greater good.
Of course, there are ways to finance the increased costs and at the same time minimize the demands for more bandwidth(thereby slowing the rate of cost growth). And that would be thru more income thru bill-by-byte(unpopular); caps(to reduce cost growth). Both of those are very possible, but would also be unpopular and could drive away customers. So, for the short term, P2P throttling becomes the default action, so that cost growth can be spread over the next 5 years.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
 gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
3 edits | Even the bit torrent author stated it used a ton of bandwidth.
He said he was working on a less bandwidth intensive version to compromise with his corporate investors.
The pirate versions and their improvements are still going to be out there from when it was open source.
At least the legal users will be able to sleep at night knowing they aren't hogging up the bandwidth of their ISP 
P2P is just a hint of whats to come with HD On Demand.
The infrastructure needs to be built to be able to handle that demand as well as other future and current technology.
The public bonds, matched by state and fed programs can do it. It's already working to put fiber networks in some states.
With the people involved in the process, we wouldn't have to lose whats left of our local CLEC's. And some big company wouldn't be the only access in town worth beans ...
Copper is obsolete in communications/data lines. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
"Based on their current resistance to P2P protocols, I submit they are resisting because they KNOW it would mean lower profits."
Why should this be a problem? I understand businesses would always like to increase their profit but investment is a basic part of running a business. It isn't an evil that a business plows profits back into building capital. That is the very nature of capitalism.
Profits are a residual, they aren't a guaranteed income.
If needed investment reduces this residual then that is also the nature of capitalism. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to PhoenixDown
said by PhoenixDown:How much P2P traffic is generated by businesses looking to distribute their software? Warcraft patches and Linux ISO's seem to the only big ones and that has to be a relatively small portion of P2P traffic. The majority of P2P appears to be from users sharing files and content with other users. especially since warcraft patches arent that common, atleast not big ones when they do happen. and when i big one is due out they start a week or so in advance with an optional backround patcher which does help even the load.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
