dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
923
share rss forum feed


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Just content providers trying to shift costs to ISPs

Just more of the same. In the end the customer will pay higher fees for ISP access because of improvements like this.


backness

join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2

are you kidding?

Now an independent company can create content that can have a global following (litterally erasing the power that the media cartels have over the channels of distribution)

And that is your comment?


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

1 recommendation

Your independent companies could create content and stream to consumers to create a global following without using P2P technology. The problem is that these independent companies don't want to pay for the server farms and network connections that are required to reliably stream the content. As TK mentions, this type of P2P distribution strategy will serve to push up costs of ISP connections. So instead of ever rising cable bills, we'll be faced with ever rising ISP costs.


clickie8

join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI

1 recommendation

reply to FFH

Of course rates are going to go up. Broadband access has long been subsidized by other revenue streams like cable TV or landline POTS service. As the money from those business lines decreases, it has to come from somewhere.

As broadcast and cable TV viewing slides, I think you'll see cable companies looking to improve the efficiency of transmission. Gone will be throwing networks into the wind hoping someone will watch and I think you'll find more and more networks being on a video on demand system.

To be candid, I'm all for a change in the way Hollywood and sports teams transmit their product. I shouldn't have to pay for things I don't watch.


backness

join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
reply to openbox9

bah...

P2P is fully scalable, the technology you are talking about is far less versatile and the P2P solution allows the person viewing the content to decide if it is good enough to share with others. A film can become an overnight hit and have enough seeds to stream it. Can your server farm do that? It would probably take the week.

BTW do you think the 5mb/s dsl connection has been fully amortized by the phone company? You guys act like they lay down new infrastructure every year. When in fact we've had the same framework for the better part of a decade. Are you really going to try and tell me that now the data passing along my line is worth X$/GB?



Jovi
Premium
join:2000-02-24
Mount Joy, PA
reply to FFH

said by FFH:

Just more of the same. In the end the customer will pay higher fees for ISP access because of improvements like this.
So if Comcast decides to place their "improved" format of video (i.e. HD) on the net for viewing by their customers, don't you think by then wouldn't the HD streaming be very commonplace? The industry is pushing the digital/HD formats, why would it be out of line to prepare their equipment to handle these new "improvements"? Just think of all the bandwidth that will be running through their lines then.
--
"Where's my coffee? Oh. I guess it's my turn to make it."


Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

1 recommendation

reply to FFH

Uh, news to the corporate kissasses...

Customers are already paying for their connections and teh content providers pay on their end.



karlmarx

join:2006-09-18
Chicago, IL
reply to openbox9

Yes, but why pay for a server farm, when you customers can provide the bandwidth? I mean, the ISP's DO sell upstream, right? And if I'm in a P2P group, well, then I upload. It's a very simple concept.

Oh, wait.. I understand your side. Your saying that the ISP's aren't charging enough. But they keep jacking up the speed, and (at least in Canada), their infrastructure can't keep up! What are they going to do?

Option #1: Upgrade their infrastructure.
Option #2: DON'T SELL WHAT YOU CAN'T PROVIDE.

Two very easy solutions. If you are going to sell something, well, I guess you're going to need to provide it. Do you honestly think that comcast's infrastructure can support 16mb/sec to 500 nodes at once? Of course not. SO WHY ARE THEY ADVERTISING IT! Just sell 1mb or 2mb, and then there won't be any problems. But the bottom line, is just that, THEIR bottom line. Guess what comcrap, people are going to use what they paid for, so stop selling crap you can't provide.

I'm lucky, I'm on FIOS, I have 30/15 for cheaper than comcast 6/768 around here.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity!


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to backness

I'm not discussing the technology's capability, I'm talking about the expense to support the technology. A properly configured/supported server farm can do what you're talking about just as well as a P2P solution...it just costs the content distributor more money.

The data passing along your line can be equated to $x/GB. The problem is that the algorithms of the outdated business plans of a majority of ISPs are beginning to show their age. Exponential usage can't continue without scaling costs to cover maintenance and expansion of the network.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to karlmarx

I partially agree (I can't believe I just wrote that regarding one of your posts) with your comment regarding not charging enough for the continual increases in service offerings. Both of your options are being implemented by several ISPs. Option #1 is a continual ongoing process. Option #2 is being solved by introduction of metered billing, traffic shaping, and/or capping data transfers. The problem is that when option #2 is implemented, ISPs get flamed for trying to change what they sell to be more in line with what they can provide.



espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP

1 recommendation

reply to backness

said by backness:

P2P is fully scalable
Only if you ignore reality.

P2P is still a minority application on the Internet and it's still driving traffic only 2nd to HTTP. Since HTTP is a universally used application, that's saying quite a bit.

P2P video distribution will fold existing networks before it reaches any kind of truly meaningful scale, because we haven't invented high enough capacity hardware yet to be able to replace video distribution with a jumbled mess of unicast feed.

said by backness:

A film can become an overnight hit and have enough seeds to stream it. Can your server farm do that?
Akamai cracked this nut a decade ago. P2P distribution is a half-ass approach to the same problem that shifts the distribution load to the edge of the network where links are slower and infrastructure is more expensive. Either way, having overall bandwidth consumption increase linearly with every view of identical content is strategically retarded.


Jim Kirk
Premium
join:2005-12-09
reply to openbox9

said by openbox9:

Your independent companies could create content and stream to consumers to create a global following without using P2P technology. The problem is that these independent companies don't want to pay for the server farms and network connections that are required to reliably stream the content. As TK mentions, this type of P2P distribution strategy will serve to push up costs of ISP connections. So instead of ever rising cable bills, we'll be faced with ever rising ISP costs.
Everyone around here knows both you and TK are against anything that requires any type of investment by broadband providers. I'm surprised TK hasn't figured out a way spin this into his "P2P is only for pirates" crap.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Maybe the independent content producing/distributing companies should make the investments in their distribution mechanisms. I'm all for investment when it is logical and there's a return. The ROI doesn't appear to be there for some distributors, hence the quest for other companies to cover the costs using P2P architectures.