dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
20
share rss forum feed


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

4 edits
reply to espaeth

Re: Woo Hoo! Free capacity!

The bandwidth apocalypse is a total myth and Bell's claims of congestion handily debunked. This capping is all about protecting these cable and telco's lucrative VOD and other video revenues, especially from providers like Netflix which is appearing on more and more devices like the XBOX 360. By capping and charging overage fees, cable and telco operators abuse their market position to price video competitors out of the market.

It's a very simple and often repeated concept. Customers pay for their service and these companies are profitable. Just because they are greedy is not an excuse to allow them to abuse their market position and kill innovation and competition.



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

said by Dogfather:

The bandwidth apocalypse is a total myth and Bell's claims of congestion handily debunked.
If any actual network engineer (not just the people who claim to be on these forums) looked at the Bell numbers and didn't see a problem, then I feel sorry for their customers and can only hope someone helps them find work in a different field soon. Network delay breaks real-time applications while only causing minor impairment to file transfers. While the world mourns that users in Canada have their P2P transfers slowed down, I'm sure the other people who can actually make VoIP phone calls, play online games, and remote desktop into work without facing application-breaking latency are better off.

said by Dogfather:

This capping is all about protecting these cable and telco's lucrative VOD and other video revenues, especially from providers like Netflix which is appearing on more and more devices like the XBOX 360. By capping and charging overage fees, cable and telco operators abuse their market position to price video competitors out of the market.
The majority of their revenue is already protected by the sharp consumer learning curve for setting up these services. While there are indeed millions of people that take advantage of these services, they are still the minority and will continue to be so for some time. Still, when you order VoD from your LEC or MSO on their infrastructure, the cost of delivery is already factored into the content. When you download it off the Internet, the cost of delivery gets factored into HSI delivery costs. The problem is right now the ISPs are struggling to find a good method to recover the excess service delivery costs the extra IP traffic generates.

Make no mistake, you're going to be paying for the distribution either way. The Internet option will be more expensive because IP infrastructure is more expensive to build out than traditional video delivery systems.

said by Dogfather:

Just because they are greedy is not an excuse to allow them to abuse their market position and kill innovation and competition.
No matter how hard anyone tries, it's impossible to kill a good idea. The corollary to that is that it's amazingly easy to kill half-ass ideas. Right now a lot of the business models are based around:

1) Put content on the Internet
2) ?????
3) PROFIT!

Not a lot of people figuring out that #2 step...


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

4 edits

It's very easy for companies in dominant market positions like telco and cable operators to kill good ideas, that is why we have antitrust law.

1. Put content on the internet.
2. Charge monthly fees or PPV fees (eg Microsoft, Apple, Netflix, Amazon).
3. Profit
4. Cable and telcos abuse market position to cap and charge overage fees pricing #2 out of market thus protecting their own video services from good ideas.



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

1 edit

said by Dogfather:

It's very easy for companies in dominant market positions like telco and cable operators to kill good ideas, that is why we have antitrust law.
.. and despite heavy anti-competitive attempts by Sun, Intel, IBM, and Microsoft (among others) we are still seeing more and more Linux servers being used in enterprise environments. You can't kill good ideas.

said by Dogfather:

2. Charge monthly fees or PPV fees (eg Microsoft, Apple, Netflix, Amazon).
That fee covers their content cost and their end of the distribution costs.

Again, you keep implying that your HSI usage should be able to drastically increase without there being some impact to price. It costs money to build capacity -- if you are going to be consuming a greater amount of data requiring the buildout of additional capacity, that money needs to come from somewhere. The cost model that current HSI pricing is based on will not be valid if the push for higher consumption continues.


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

1 edit

quote:
.. and despite heavy anti-competitive attempts by Sun, Intel, IBM, and Microsoft (among others) we are still seeing more and more Linux servers being used in enterprise environments. You can't kill good ideas.[/quote

Only because Microsoft was kept in check by the government...lest you forget Microsoft was sued by Sun over anticompetitive conduct.

quote:
That fee covers their content cost and their end of the distribution costs.

Again, you keep implying that your HSI usage should be able to drastically increase without there being some impact to price. It costs money to build capacity -- if you are going to be consuming a greater amounts of data requiring the buildout of additional capacity, that money needs to come from somewhere. The cost model that current HSI pricing is based on will not be valid if the push for higher consumption continues.
Yeah, that fee covers their distribution costs and the customers fee to the ISP covers the delivery and capacity expansion costs and proved by Verizon's $21 B customer funded expansion (all without caps and overage fees BTW).

If Verizon can manage a $21B fiber deployment project without resorting to caps and overage fees, so can Comcrap and AT&T.


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

said by Dogfather:

Yeah, that fee covers their distribution costs and the customers fee to the ISP covers the delivery and capacity expansion costs and proved by Verizon's $21 B customer funded expansion (all without caps and overage fees BTW).
Verizon is currently carrying the debt of building out that network as a long term investment. Let's see how Verizon starts running things when they have to start getting serious about repaying that debt.


a333
A hot cup of integrals please

join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·Verizon Online DSL
reply to espaeth

said by espaeth:

While the world mourns that users in Canada have their P2P transfers slowed down, I'm sure the other people who can actually make VoIP phone calls, play online games, and remote desktop into work without facing application-breaking latency are better off.
Uh-huh.....that like....totally explains the fact that Bell Pathetico opened up their OWN online video store barely weeks after starting wholesale throttling...yep. I see.
Doesn't take a PhD in network engineering to realize that this is just Bell's way of sabotaging it's competitors. Yep that's right...when you can't beat them, sabotage them...


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

said by a333:

Uh-huh.....that like....totally explains the fact that Bell Pathetico opened up their OWN online video store barely weeks after starting wholesale throttling...yep. I see.
Doesn't take a PhD in network engineering to realize that this is just Bell's way of sabotaging it's competitors. Yep that's right...when you can't beat them, sabotage them..
They're throttling P2P traffic, which would affect download'n'play offerings like Vuze.

They are not, however, throttling the direct streaming video competitors to their offering like Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, or the video download services from Sony PSN, or Xbox XBL.

If you want to continue arguing that Bell is trying to beat down video competition by not touching 99% of legally distributed Internet video, then I guess all logical argument is pointless.


a333
A hot cup of integrals please

join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·Verizon Online DSL

Bell's argument was that p2p users were somehow using up bandwidth that was way out of proportion for their population ("5% of their users using 90% of their bandwidth", if I remember correctly). Apparently, that is not the case, given the fact that now Bell sees fit to open their own online video store. Also, they seem to be fine with giving users free speed upgrades. Unless they have some new medium to get videos to their customers, one would only say that Bell isn't facing nearly the bandwidth crisis they're making it out to be...

And the use of the p2p protocol by itself does NOT bog down a network, unless you grossly misconfigure your client. This has been proven, and arguing over it is purely useless considering the number of debates that've taken place about it. P2P does not magically make you get 10x upload/download speeds, it just gets the file faster through its use of numerous simultaneous connections to different peers.

And BTW, in case you didn't notice, Bell pissed off a LOT of customers by their failure of a throttling scheme, as it also blocked pretty much anything encrypted, including VPN connections.



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

said by a333:

Bell's argument was that p2p users were somehow using up bandwidth that was way out of proportion for their population ("5% of their users using 90% of their bandwidth", if I remember correctly). Apparently, that is not the case, given the fact that now Bell sees fit to open their own online video store. Also, they seem to be fine with giving users free speed upgrades. Unless they have some new medium to get videos to their customers, one would only say that Bell isn't facing nearly the bandwidth crisis they're making it out to be...
At a high level P2P is different for one main reason: infinite duration transfers. A P2P client's work is never done; it will continue seeding your content for as long as you allow it to run approaching infinity. When you download a movie using HTTP or other streaming protocol, once you have the movie you don't transfer any more on the network. Your work is done, the network capacity you were using goes back to the idle pool for everyone else to tap into.

For fixed duration transfers, increasing the access speed actually tends to do more good than harm. If I go to grab a Linux ISO, if I can download it in 7 minutes instead of 20-25, that means that I am statistically less likely to be tying up shared capacity when someone else wants to be engaging in a large transfer. If I can download it faster it doesn't mean I'll download it a 2nd or 3rd time, it just means more idle time for the network after I get my stuff.

said by a333:

And the use of the p2p protocol by itself does NOT bog down a network, unless you grossly misconfigure your client.
Again, it's not about speed, it's about duration.

said by a333:

And BTW, in case you didn't notice, Bell pissed off a LOT of customers by their failure of a throttling scheme, as it also blocked pretty much anything encrypted, including VPN connections.
I agree the approach is poor, just like I think firing tear gas into a crowd is a horrible approach. At the same time though, for both events there are situations where it needs to be done. There are certain places where it is impossible to quickly build your way out of congestion -- ultimately adding capacity is the only long term solution but when things start hitting the wall there needs to be some action in the here and now. At a high level it's easy to decide priority because while latency due to congestion slows down file transfers, latency due to congestion breaks real-time applications. Clearly broken is worse than slow, and if we could get everybody to agree on that we might be able to avoid the arms race crap between P2P developers working to build in better encryption and stealth vs DPI engineers trying to stay one step ahead to keep the traffic manageable.

Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Ok, this reply goes towards that paragraph or two you added (edited into) your after my earlier reply.

A lot of those people had no experience with the system before they bought those houses and may have honestly thought that was just the way things worked. But I agree they(the borrowers) should have known better. My point is not about the borrowers but the lenders. The lenders got themselves into trouble by making loans that they knew were far to risky. But greed drove them. High risk loans have the greatest returns (assuming a significant number of them do not default, our current situation). The reason we had to bail them(the lenders) out was becuase if they went under they would take the entire financial system down with them. This is "smart" business at work, instead of honest business. There were a lot of finical institutions out there they did not make these kind of "smart" loans and they are in much better shape than the ones that did (at least before the bailout). These are the same types of "smart" business practices that a lot of the ISPs are doing.

"They want to introduce you to a product at a low introductory rate so you will stay a customer going forward. This sales tactic is used universally from street drug dealers offering a free "taste" to selling game station consoles for less than the hardware manufacturing costs with the hopes of making it up in game sales after the fact. It's called a loss leader for a reason."

That would be true IF they were only offering it to new customers or old customers using new products, but they are not(which I mentioned above). What you have described is what they USED to do. Which I agree was/is a great idea. They currently are offering some(most?) existing customers the lower rates for the same services that they are currently subscribed to. It is common enough they even have a name for it(deal hopping? something hopping at any rate, its late zzzz). This relatively new (couple or years at most?) behavior does not fit into the loss leader theory (at least as I understand it). Many people are able to jump from one special (as it expires) to the next. If the ISPs were not making money (at the special rates) they would not allow this, they could not afford to. Since they have been doing this for quite a while and continue to do so, the only logical conclusion one can reach is that they are in fact making money even on these special rates.



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

Coaxial fanboys have been saying that for years and will continue saying it for years.



a333
A hot cup of integrals please

join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·Verizon Online DSL
reply to espaeth

I think we're essentially agreeing that p2p is a reasonably efficient protocol. As to seeding, it's only the retards that allocate 100% of their uploads to their p2p client that end up causing network slowdowns for the rest of the subscribers. As to the part about faster being better, that's EXACTLY the thing that is better about p2p: it gets users off the network faster.
My complaint is the fact that Bell discriminates p2p in PARTICULAR, although it's just a PROTOCOL... if it's capacity that's the problem, they should throttle EVERYTHING, rather than p2p. IMHO, the ideal throttling technique would be to gradually scale back anyone using full bandwidth for more than say 15 minutes, during peak hours (Of course, no throttling, and capacity upgrades would be the best solution, but that's a different topic).
What I am getting at here is that p2p just uses BANDWIDTH. Bandwidth is bandwidth, regardless of the protocol using it. I.e. Grandma Ginny checking e-mail vs Joe the Downloader torrenting his pr0n is the same at the network level, unless Joe's p2p client somehow namages to open 5000 ports or something like that... Therefore, bandwidth should be treated indiscriminately, the way Comcast is experimenting with over here in the States, with their "protocol agnostic" approach (at least, let's HOPE it works).