how-to block ads
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Just content providers trying to shift costs to ISPs 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. | |
|  backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
| Re: Just content providers trying to shift costs to ISPs 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? | |
| | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Just content providers trying to shift costs to ISPs 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 The problem is that the algorithms of the outdated business plans of a majority of ISPs are beginning to show their age.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. | |
| | | 
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| 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
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Just content providers trying to shift costs to ISPs 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. | |
| 
digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09
49533
| 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
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Just content providers trying to shift costs to ISPs 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. | |
| | | |
|
·
·