how-to block ads
|
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
| Re: WTF? 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 | |
|  
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| Re: WTF? said by halfband  :Now who gets to pick which path we take? Bill by the Byte or better yet by overage tiers. | |
| | 
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| Re: WTF? 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! | |
| | | 
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | Re: WTF? 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
| 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. | |
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: WTF? 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
| Re: WTF? 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 | |
| | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Re: WTF? 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? | |
| |
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
1 edit | 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 | |
| | | |
|
