| reply to SuperWISP
Re: Sorry, but espaeth is correct said by SuperWISP:Content providers should not be able to shift their bandwidth costs to ISPs, multiplying them in the process. Nobody is magically shifting costs anywhere because all the costs are paid for by everyone connected to the network.
--
There is no such thing as too much vacation, but I would wager that there is such a thing as too little. |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| said by NetAdmin1:Nobody is magically shifting costs anywhere because all the costs are paid for by everyone connected to the network. If your monthly subscription fee actually covered the cost of high bandwidth usage then there would be no reason for ISPs to waste time and money on network management.
It's like insurance -- you don't get $250,000 for $100/mo; you get coverage for very specific events with very specific exclusions. Once insurance companies have to start paying out too many claims they have to start adjusting premiums or start clamping down on coverage. We're seeing this same equilibrium being worked out in the ISP space now. |
|
|
|
| said by espaeth:If your monthly subscription fee actually covered the cost of high bandwidth usage then there would be no reason for ISPs to waste time and money on network management. I certainly won't argue against that. I've been saying for awhile now that the costs paid by subscribers are too little for the speeds they are getting. Going from $50/month for 1.5Mbps/256kbps to where we are now without a massive infrastructure upgrades seems disconnected from reality. The price war is part of the problem; current bandwidth prices are too cheap for the level of contention with in the network.
I taking issue with the concept that somehow content providers are cheating the system some how, getting free bandwidth. There is no such animal.
--
There is no such thing as too much vacation, but I would wager that there is such a thing as too little. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by NetAdmin1:I taking issue with the concept that somehow content providers are cheating the system some how, getting free bandwidth. There is no such animal. There sort of is. In the case of companies like Blizzard shifting to P2P patch distribution, they are moving the distribution burden from their infrastructure where they would pay a fair price for bandwidth to ISP networks where pricing is based on an assumed level of usage. |
|
| said by espaeth:In the case of companies like Blizzard shifting to P2P patch distribution, they are moving the distribution burden from their infrastructure where they would pay a fair price for bandwidth to ISP networks where pricing is based on an assumed level of usage. I agree, but whose fault is it that users consume bandwidth beyond the "assumed level of usage"? Providers. Providers, and I work for one, don't make those levels of usage known to consumers. There never was a line drawn in the sand saying this is too much usage. Consumers were sold an unlimited connection, without any qualification of what unlimited meant.
The problem is that ISPs marketed their connections as one thing, knowing the network could not support it, while consumers and the applications they loved took advantage of the vaguely worded "unlimited" connection.
If application providers, like Blizzard knew the limitations of the network, they would be more inclined to stay within them. I remember when FPS games could be played over dial up quite nicely. Now some games are so poorly coded that you are required to have a broadband connection to use multiplayer functions.
Make the limits known. What is the assumed level of usage that is expected from a customer?
--
There is no such thing as too much vacation, but I would wager that there is such a thing as too little. |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:said by NetAdmin1:I taking issue with the concept that somehow content providers are cheating the system some how, getting free bandwidth. There is no such animal. There sort of is. In the case of companies like Blizzard shifting to P2P patch distribution, they are moving the distribution burden from their infrastructure where they would pay a fair price for bandwidth to ISP networks where pricing is based on an assumed level of usage. Blizzard's doing the ISPs a favor -- instead of tracking the same bits 5-7 million times across some Comcast border gateway, it gets them inside via P2P where they're distributed without any peering cost.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by funchords:Blizzard's doing the ISPs a favor -- instead of tracking the same bits 5-7 million times across some Comcast border gateway, it gets them inside via P2P where they're distributed without any peering cost. The regional peering isn't where the costs are. In fact, with Comcast's ibone infrastructure they now meet the number of geographical peering points that they can probably peer with their upstream vendors for little or no cost.
Blizzard isn't doing anyone but themselves a favor, and they sure aren't saving any ISP even a small amount of money. |
|
| reply to funchords
Re: Sorry, but funchords is not correct said by funchords:Blizzard's doing the ISPs a favor -- instead of tracking the same bits 5-7 million times across some Comcast border gateway, it gets them inside via P2P where they're distributed without any peering cost. I think you are missing a few things in this blanket statement. If end to end bandwidth is paid for today by content and consumers, what happens when only one side pays 1/2 of the bill? What about the costs to upgrade infrastructure for new upstream or exit bound traffic? What happens to backbone providers?
Can you provide business analysis data which backs up your statement? |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by billb :
If end to end bandwidth is paid for today by content and consumers, what happens when only one side pays 1/2 of the bill? Can you provide business analysis data which backs up your statement?
Other than the 28 year history of the Internet? The success of Skype? How did Shareware ever get distributed? The first personal websites? Yet, while all of that was going on, server-based NNTP and email and irc also thrived (irc is an interesting example all to itself). It's always been a mix with a healthy amount of peer-to-peer going on.
We do not need to pick from a menu of one single business model for a healthy Internet market. Several models can coexist successfully. It's a mistake to restrict it to one and treat the rest some kind of abuse.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
| said by funchords:Other than the 28 year history of the Internet? The success of Skype? How did Shareware ever get distributed? The first personal websites? Yet, while all of that was going on, server-based NNTP and email and irc also thrived (irc is an interesting example all to itself). It's always been a mix with a healthy amount of peer-to-peer going on. Not sure what your ISP technical or business involvement was with the 28 years of the Internet, but you fail to answer the business statement of "doing the ISPs a favor"
Comparing p2p with personal websites is like comparing the space shuttle with a model rocket. Even Skype bandwidth has interactive needs with not a substantial amount of bandwidth. |
|
