karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to openbox9
Re: Just content providers trying to shift costs to ISPs
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
| 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. |
