dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
 ·Comcast
1 edit | WTF?
Subscriber pays monthly bill for - what exactly?
Content provider pays for their connection monthly(?) - for what exactly?
How is this/these paid for ISP connection(s) needing more money all of a sudden for - whatever - to get sent across it/them?
Greedy money grab(extortion) is all I see.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
degauss1
join:2001-07-02
Hillsboro, OR
 ·ViaTalk
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
·Axvoice
| Well stated.
ISP's want to be content providers and reap the rewards? Fine, drive content and find a way to make money from it. Don't extort money from others' hard work. Just make sure the plumbing keeps the flow going.
If they don't want to provide Internet service the way it's intended to be (open) they should not be permitted to provide it at all. |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
| That's all this is about,
Microsoft has proven time and time again that just because they are the big guy on the block that their offerings just aren't up to par with what others offer.
Same with cell phones. I use my cell phone for calling only because of the prepackaged nonsens and silly binding locked phone software that sucks.
Why do these companies think they can just buy functionality and users apperciation and respect? |
|
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
·Comcast
| reply to dadkins
As content increases and the "pipes" get clogged there a few paths that can be taken:
- Make the provider a dumb pipe. The provider will be required to increase the size of the pipe and offer faster service plans as content demands increase. Of course the providers will charge far more for these plans to recover the cost of network upgrades to avoid network congestion at peak usage times.
- Allow the provider to use QOS or other mechanisms to throttle the pipes. But since the way the provider chooses to allocate priority to services/traffic may not match what each user wants, the pipe will need to be opened up to competitive providers. This method would work best if the last mile is again a dumb pipe and the providers can only wholesale out last mile service to competing ISPs.
- Bill by the byte. High usage = higher fees for both content providers feeding the pipe and users on the download side. Clogged pipes reduce profits so bandwidth providers will have a natural incentive to increase bandwidth. Of coarse now heavy users will no longer be subsidized by light users. However the "advertising supported content model" just does not work under this system as the user starts paying to download the advertising.
- Do nothing and let the providers operate without neutrality requirements. High demand applications will drown in their own bandwidth use. Of course they will disrupt all network traffic, but low bandwidth applications will be least impacted. The providers will do little to support any new bandwidth gobbling applications but their own, that is unless the content providers pony up for priority access. High bandwidth application development stagnates as rollout of new bandwidth expansion by the providers does not make any financial sense.
Now who gets to pick which path we take?
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 |
|
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by halfband  :Now who gets to pick which path we take? Bill by the Byte or better yet by overage tiers. |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to halfband
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you think that everyone everywhere will max out their pipes 24/7/365.
I pay for speed.
I broke 30GB(Thirty GigaBytes) one month! 
I did that network-killing month back when I had the 8mbps service. 
I now have a 16mbps connection.
My downloading has not increased, it's just that what I do download gets here twice as fast. 
I do watch video, stream music(occasionally) and download movies.
I *DO NOT* download crap 24/7/365 just because I have a fast connection - I'm guessing there are a *couple* other people out there that also do not saturate the pipes 24/7/365.
So, a subscriber (where ever) of ____ ISP wants... a video.
____ ISP wants the provider(who also pays their monthly bill) to pay more just to get the subscriber the video in question?
Because it is going across their line?
The same line that the subscriber is paying for each month?
That's dirty!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
 ·Embarq
| reply to dadkins
said by dadkins :Subscriber pays monthly bill for - what exactly? Access to the network, but the problem is the provider gives them so much capacity that, if heavily used, it costs more than the monthly subscription fee to provide.
The content providers pay for their access to the Internet; if they should happen to have compelling content that many people want to see they already pay for the costs on their side.
If the ISPs are seeing bandwidth loads exceed their operating budget, then they need to adjust pricing for the correct group: the users generating the bandwidth demand! It's not the content provider's fault that the ISPs are underbilling for bandwidth fees. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to dadkins
said by dadkins :That's dirty! Not really, it's simply another method to generate revenue. The key will be to see which content provider is the first to break and pay extra. If someone does pay the fee, expect a chain reaction leading to the ISPs winning. If nobody steps forward to pay extra, consumers can expect to see their monthly rates increase even more to compensate. |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| reply to espaeth
Exactly!
If they cannot provide a *REASONABLE* amount of use(bandwidth/traffic/data transfer) for the amount they sell the services at... something has to give!
If the *USER* is saturating the pipe, suggest/sell them a business class line(more $$$).
Charging the content provider for "normal", paid for speeds of data transfer is bullshit!
There is a shitload of free/low cost content out there that the subscriber can get ATM.
Seeing as the bills are being paid, by all parties involved, throttling normal speeds by the ISP unless more money is paid is extortion!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :said by dadkins :That's dirty! Not really, it's simply another method to generate revenue. The key will be to see which content provider is the first to break and pay extra. If someone does pay the fee, expect a chain reaction leading to the ISPs winning. If nobody steps forward to pay extra, consumers can expect to see their monthly rates increase even more to compensate. No, it is dirty!
Raise the rates for service - fine!
Stating that unless the content provider pays more, speeds will be throttled is blackmail! aka extortion.
That's bullshit!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to GOLFnSUN
Yes yes yes, you keep saying 'bill by the byte'. But name ONE ISP in the US that does that. Look at it this way..
If grandma only uses 1GB/month, does that mean her bill will only be $11.00. I mean, she only used 1GB. That cost the ISP a total of $0.10 dollars (10 cents). So they charge a base fee of $10.00, and then charge grandma $1.00 for bandwith. Now, BIG P2P user does 300GB/month. Charge him $10.00 + 60.00 for bandwidth, so he pays $70.00 a month.
Once they do THAT, then I will accept the 'bill by the byte model'. But they will NEVER DO THAT, because lets be fair, their revenue would DROP by 90%, because the only ones who WOULD use their service would be grandma, and everyone else would go to an ISP without caps.
Bill by the byte will NEVER work. I won't pay for Ads, I won't pay for SPAM, and I won't pay for DDOS attacks.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to dadkins
said by dadkins :Subscriber pays monthly bill for - what exactly? Apparently.... Nothing.
This is only happening because the Corporations are greedy and want to keep increasing profits by finding new ways to extract cash from their existing setup.... AND the fact that there is limited or little competition. If there was sufficient open competition they couldn't get away with this crap because 1) Consumers would switch and 2) The content providers would too.... but... when you have little choices, all similar, then they know you have nowhere to go and they can put it too you.
It's all about profits. ISP's want them to grow, but they don't want to spend money upgrading or acquiring new customers. They just want to raise rates where ever they can.
Because of the lack of a competitive market, we will need regulation to prevent abuse. Unfortunately the Politicians don't get it, and seem to be coming down on the side of donates money to their campaigns....
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to dadkins
said by dadkins :Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you think that everyone everywhere will max out their pipes 24/7/365. I probably was not clear. This is a problem with realtime viewing of video streams. The big growth in net content will be video streams at higher resolutions than the current youtube rate. And the biggest problem is with peak time demand for these streams. The existing net can handle most everything else now with speeds like comcast provides. Oddly enough P2P and some of the other methods of getting movie downloads are not the problem because they are not time sensitive streams, you queue up your downloads and watch later, slow peak time downloads are not an issue unless it stretches into days. [The major bittorrent issue is limited upstream on the shared part of cables last mile and has nothing to do with distribution neutrality.] As the network is used for more "video on demand" like content, the peak time delays cause problems that viewers are going to find unacceptable.
The true content manufacturers love the idea of both purchase by the view or subscription streaming video and advertising supported video streams [similar to the existing free tv channel model] since both bypasses the current distribution network moguls. They are developing more applications to sell their content over the net as each day goes by.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | reply to karlmarx
The problem with that argument is that the base delivery charge is closer to the existing price than $10. I'd guess base fees would be around $30-35.
Energy (both electric and gas for the service fleet) and people aren't getting any cheaper. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to karlmarx
WISPs bill by the byte for overages. Many have them its just that smaller-local companies you don't see in the media about it. There is one in Central Ohio (NocWireless) who allows a certain amount of gigs per month after that you pay. I don't see where that is a problem. If you use the service you should have to pay for what you use.
But as far as spam- use gmail or another alike service that blocks 99% of spam. I have my own domain and i don't receive spam on it. It was hosted on googleapps and then i moved it over to hostgator.com for hosting- still the same thing no spam. Everyone cries that they want something but yet they're not willing to pay for what they want. Want content then pay for it by paying for the byte; a higher priced internet connection or easy- get an unlimited dial-up account.
Problem solved.
And yes i'm all for billing by the byte. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | reply to dadkins
If you think its fine for providers to raise their rates. That's fine. But when they do; how many people that think that its a bunch of BS that they did this and how unfair it is? Are you going to be one of them? |
|
TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Wesley Chapel, FL
| reply to KrK
said by KrK :said by dadkins :Subscriber pays monthly bill for - what exactly? Apparently.... Nothing. LOL What? Networks ain't free. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| said by TechieZero :LOL What? Networks ain't free. If you believe some of the statements some of these companies are stating that content providers must pay them in order for them to build or upgrade their networks, then that means you also have to accept that the consumer based fees DON'T pay for the network....
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Wesley Chapel, FL
| said by KrK :If you believe some of the statements some of these companies are stating that content providers must pay them in order for them to build or upgrade their networks, then that means you also have to accept that the consumer based fees DON'T pay for the network.... I believe that it's their network and they can charge for it anyway they damn please, and it's our decision as consumers to pay for that, or not. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| said by TechieZero :I believe that it's their network and they can charge for it anyway they damn please, and it's our decision as consumers to pay for that, or not. Yeah that works great in a competitive market where providers and consumers have lots of choices.... So they go to ripoff mode, and we walk. Pure and simple.... but in today's climate, it's not like content providers can tell certain backbone providers to get lost, and it's not like consumers can "walk" on the Telcos or Cablecos (sure they can... once... maybe twice... then they're done)
So your model folds up at this point.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
