pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| dumb pipes
That's all an ISP needs to be. I myself don't want the portals and other _advanced_ content crap.
All we want is a good connection to the net, decent email and newsnet servers.
Stop trying to be content providers, we can find that stuff on our own. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
 ·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| said by pokesph  :All we want is a good connection to the net, decent email and newsnet servers. Do you want a dumb pipe or decent mail and news servers? |
|
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | reply to pokesph
You can get that dumb pipe in the form of a T1, DS3, Metro Ethernet, etc. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to pokesph
ISPS have something to moan about! It's called not living up to their end of the bargain. Customers PAY THEM for the service. If they can't afford or aren't able to provide it, then changes have to be made on their end. IT IS NOT the content provider's responsibility to limit what the user sees, nor is it the ISPS's. Their sole job is to provide the connectivity so that access can be gained to the internet. If they need to raise prices or expand their network, so be it. However, don't cry when other's point out the obvious flaw in your model. Just because you chose to skimp and now can't provide the bandwidth, is no one else's fault. Live with it ISPS. You set yourself up for the problems you face. |
|
pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to battleop
said by battleop :You can get that dumb pipe in the form of a T1, DS3, Metro Ethernet, etc. Of course but at extremely inflated prices not suitable for most home / small business users.
Now IF they would offer a best effort service with limited support and a relaxed SLA @ competitive prices, I'd be all over it. 2GigaE FTW |
|
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
edit:
April 9th, @11:11AM
| To move to a dump pipe model, the consumer must pay the cost of bandwidth as it grows (look at T1, etc prices)... Not the flat fee of high speed residential broadband. As bandwidth usage grows, it has to be subsidized somehow.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :IT IS NOT the content provider's responsibility to limit what the user sees, nor is it the ISPS's. Their sole job is to provide the connectivity so that access can be gained to the internet. Says you. There are a lot of providers out there that disagree with your viewpoint. telcolackey's comment above is a good one. If you don't want a "subsidized" connection, then you need to be willing to pay for it. |
|
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Huntsville, AL
·Comcast
| Business connections arent priced on speed. You dont pay way more than resedential because its faster, you pay way more for it because they have minimum service garuantees, more competent techs and fast problem resolution.
THATS why business class connections cost so much more, it has nothing to do with not being "subsidized". |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| Exactly. You forgot about the SLA of 99.9 percent. Basically, if my internet goes off, they bring a tech out immediately. We're both given the same line. One has a guarantee to be fixed immediately (Business) and the other just has to be repaired in a reasonable time (home). |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to openbox9
How so? If you are implying a dedicated line, that's a whole new argument. It's not speed we're bantering about, it's the fact ISPS are wanting to be compensated for usage in general. Basically, ISPS are sick of being the pipe. They now want handouts in conjunction with performing their duties. Wrong. They need to either raise prices and expand their networks, or quit moaning. Simple. It has nothing to do with your line and the speed given. It has everything to do with ISPS not wanting to live up to their end of the bargain. the web is just that, a network and collection of MANY IDEAS big and small. I don't want the ISP moaning at which idea they like and which they don't. It's not their job. Their job is to provide me with the capability to access whatever. If they need to adjust their business model, so be it. Let it be adjusted in terms that resolve the issue (better capacity as I said) versus ignorance and moaning at the people who write said content. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
They need to either raise prices and expand their networks, or quit moaning.
That's precisely it.
Notice the year or two of constant complaining, yet they don't want to take the marketing hit from raising prices, imposing per-byte-billing or telling Google they'll now be paying a "congestion charge." |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| said by Karl Bode :they don't want to take the marketing hit from raising prices, imposing per-byte-billing or telling Google they'll now be paying a "congestion charge." I still believe you're being disingenuous. You'd contribute to that "marketing hit" by slamming them for any of the above. But, if a content provider offloads the expense of their business model to ISPs you praise them for "innovation."
Mark |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
edit:
April 9th, @01:55PM
| quote:
I still believe you're being disingenuous.
Well then we are at a "disingenuousness" stale mate because the feeling is mutual. quote:
You'd contribute to that "marketing hit" by slamming them for any of the above.
Actually, so far I've only hit them on behavioral advertising when they don't clearly alert customers, but if you say so. quote:
But, if a content provider offloads the expense of their business model to ISPs you praise them for "innovation."
Yes, well we're only talking about BitTorrent, perhaps the most revolutionary media distribution concept created in the last decade. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| said by Karl Bode : quote:
You'd contribute to that "marketing hit" by slamming them for any of the above.
Actually, so far I've only hit them on behavioral advertising when they don't clearly alert customers You'd be ok with metered billing? I've gotten the impression from the editorials that you wouldn't. Or, at the very least you'd contribute to the customer angst rather than pointing out through your editorials that it's a valid business model in the face of "revolutionary media distribution" changes. I.e., I *didn't* get the impression you'd provide balance on that topic.
said by Karl Bode :, but if you say so. There's no need to be churlish. I'm sincerely asking what ISPs should do to offset costs which would have been paid to the content provider's ISP before this "revolution." I always get the impression ISPs can't do anything to avoid criticism.
Mark |
|
Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode :Yes, well we're only talking about BitTorrent, perhaps the most revolutionary media distribution concept created in the last decade. It may well be revolutionary...but revolutions aren't necessarily good things (the October Revolution for one).
It is revolutionary in the way that it uses bandwidth far more efficiently.
The problem with this efficiency is that current business models for residential customers rely on a certain amount of inefficiency—not every customer can be using their connection at all times or else the network crashes.
Incidentally, this isn't a problem limited to MSOs, nor is it a new model. Again, going back to the '90s, dial-up ISPs consistently "oversold" their service because they could safely assume that not all of their customers would be online at once.
If the old assumptions no longer apply (i.e. that people will not be using their connection most of the time), then it's also logical to assume that the old sales model will disappear as well (i.e. cheap, always available, near-unlimited usage).
Why is it such a surprise to discover that the people who aren't interested in downloading most of the crap that Hollywood churns out really like things as they are and really don't feel like subsidizing people who are?
I don't want my prices going up and I don't want the hassle of tracking my usage and I really don't want to be arguing with my ISP over how much my connection has been used. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to amigo_boy
quote:
You'd be ok with metered billing?
Sigh.
Are you saying you support content taxes?
Are you saying you support per-byte billing?
Are you saying carriers cannot survive under the current flat-rate pricing model?
Are you saying all content providers who already pay for bandwidth should now be double dipped, and pay ISPs an additional fee for reaching the consumer? |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| said by Karl Bode :Are you saying you support content taxes? per-byte billing? I'd rather see that than my bandwidth reduced because of new content distribution models which some people benefit more from than others.
said by Karl Bode :Are you saying carriers cannot survive under the current flat-rate pricing model? No. I'm saying we don't get something for nothing in this world. The BBC obviously knows this or they would have delivered their content the traditional way. It was clearly in their financial interest to use p2p. They are getting something for nothing.
Clearly someone has to pay. The BBC has shifted its costs. You seem to be saying it's not significant enough. To turn your reasoning back on you, are you saying carriers cannot survive by giving me my connection for free? I'd like the same deal the BBC got.
Mark |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Are you saying that a consumer who freely chooses to use their bandwidth for the iPlayer, sends a check to his ISP, and that check somehow gets lost in the time/space continuum? |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
edit:
April 9th, @02:57PM
| reply to Corydon
quote:
I don't want my prices going up and I don't want the hassle of tracking my usage and I really don't want to be arguing with my ISP over how much my connection has been used.
You really think, that if American ISPs start charging content providers a delivery tax, that the whole "debate" ends there? That they won't continue to pursue additional caps/charges/fees irregardless of real world network strain and operating expenses? That you won't still subsequently see low caps and overage charges?
This is about protecting turf and the ceaseless need for quarter over quarter stock results, far more than it's about broadband network topography. It's about executives using public relations to convince the world there's a looming bandwidth apocalypse that will only be cured if you allow them to do "X".
Who cares what X is, it changes from week to week (regulation, per-byte billing, new fees, Google delivery tax).
Surely any one of these folks that support such an idea would gladly show us real world budgetary impact, or the traffic impact of Vuze on Comcast's overall network performance?
If it is in fact such a dire situation that we need to begin taxing upstart entertainment developers before they've even cornered 1% of the video delivery market... |
|
Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
clubs:
·Comcast
edit:
April 9th, @03:13PM
| said by Karl Bode : You really think, that if American ISPs start charging content providers a delivery tax, that the whole "debate" ends there? That they won't continue to pursue additional caps/charges/fees irregardless of real world network strain and operating expenses? That you won't still subsequently see low caps and overage charges? Of course not, although I'm not advocating a "delivery tax" or similar nonsense. What I am advocating is the status quo, where if you have content you want to sell or give away, you have to pay an ISP (any ISP) to host it. I'm sure you're well aware of how this works; no doubt the costs of hosting this site are substantial. That seems fair to me.
P2P gets around this by effectively hosting content on your consumers' computers and using their ISPs to deliver it. No wonder content providers love it so much. The costs of hosting content are almost entirely offloaded onto the consumer's ISP (and ultimately the consumer).
So let me reframe the question: do you want to pay someone for a TV show or movie and then have them offload the costs of distribution on to you on top of what you've already paid? That hardly seems very consumer friendly.
(edited second paragraph for clarity and grammar) |
|
