CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | reply to Karl Bode
Re: dumb pipes 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. |
|
|
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
3 edits | 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... |
|
CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
1 edit | 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) |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
2 edits | quote:
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?
Again though, I disagree with the whole idea that it's anybody but the ISP's problem. I'm sorry Vuze is using Comcast's bandwidth to compete with Comcast, but why should the consumer care?
Correct or not, the consumer believes that bandwidth is theirs after a decade of marketing suggesting as much. They paid for it. The software developer developed a system that uses this bandwidth to provide a service to consumers.
If the service the consumer is choosing to use is consuming too much bandwidth, the ISP can charge them more. Move them to a higher tier. If the network is suffering from problems because the old architecture can't meet the realities of new delivery systems (and I think this isn't really a problem, but is overstated for political effect), it's time to upgrade the network, make the protocols more efficient and engage in some degree of sensible traffic shaping (all three are happening).
What the ISPs want here is to have their cake and eat it too: Hint at all you can eat connectivity while quietly throttling and booting high-consumption users, and have someone else pay for their network expansion without suffering the PR headache that comes from having to charge more to meet bandwidth demand. This is mixed with a desire to keep competition for video services at bay.
There's a lot of farmed FUD out there by think tanks and PR execs that get reconstituted by lower level employees as gospel...
And as an aside, I love how so many people preach about the free market ceaselessly, but then when it does something they don't like their first impulse is to tax, impose fees, and get Uncle Sam to pass laws protecting their interests... |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode: 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? Odd that you're using the "it will never stop" argument, and then apparently denying the legitimacy of that same argument if ISPs use it:
said by Karl Bode: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... They may have an interest in getting in front of this before it gets larger. And, if it wasn't an impact on them, why would content providers use this medium instead of traditional delivery via http (and all the bandwidth charges they would incur)?
Mark |
|
