Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
2 edits | reply to beaups
Re: 50mbps for 192 seconds?
Punishes alternative video deliver, how? Monthly caps as low as 5GB are currently being trialed by companies like Time Warner Cable and Frontier. I'll let you do the math for a household full of users. Meanwhile, BitTorrent throttling (like Bell Canada's) doesn't just target P2P piracy, it targets alternative BitTorrent delivery systems that will increasingly compete with Cable or telcoTV.
Higher caps that are clear, and only reached by a vast minority of extremely high-consumption customers are fine. As is smart network management. The problem is that what constitutes excessive use is arbitrary, raw core network congestion data is not published by ISPs, and it will be very easy to abuse systems "for the good of the network" in order to protect TV revenues.
I suppose those who think that's "FUD" (97% of the time that's coming from people in the industry whose wallets or portfolios benefit from metered billing or anti-competitive behavior) can bookmark this post and come back to it in four years to tell me I was wrong. |
|
beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH | But this article has nothing to do with a 5GB cap. |
|
devnuller
join:2006-06-10
Hollis, NH
4 edits | reply to Karl Bode
Karl, I actually agree with much of what you said in that post. The only thing I challenge are changes around the delivery systems. Current video delivery is predictable and has clear economics around it. If it is live/linear or VoD across cable or fiber, people know how to predict, build and charge for it to run a business.
Even alternative Internet video today via CDN or hosters is pretty clear and mostly has solid economics if the proper payment systems are in place (they pay someone) for transit delivery and no one exploits the peering infrastructure.
Where it breaks down is with P2P. Shifting all the costs of video delivery to the consumer based infrastructure (and in turn consumers) does not have clear economics behind it. Some call it "free", others call it "helps the ISP", and others see it as the "holy grail" of CDN. The problem is, none of those people pay the bill in a P2P delivery world.
You know who REALLY wants unlimited???? Content companies that want to use your and my bandwidth for "free"
It's not as simple as "stick it to the man". Find me a real study that shows P2P is cheaper OVER ALL and not just for the content owners. Look into this a little bit more as it is a real technical and business issue.
[EDIT: These statements are not meant to support protocol based throttling. Which I personally do not] |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
1 edit | reply to beaups
No, but Virgin is going to start targeting BitTorrent specifically. Do you see any anti-competitive implications of a cable TV company suddenly throttling a protocol that delivers competition via peer to peer networks? |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| said by Karl Bode  :No, but Virgin is going to start targeting BitTorrent specifically. Do you see any anti-competitive implications of a cable TV company suddenly throttling a protocol that delivers competition via peer to peer networks? Clearly, you're mistaken. There's absolutely no reason for a corporation to cripple an up-and-coming competitor. Why, I don't believe that has ever happened in this history of our great company, errr, country. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
 ·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode :No, but Virgin is going to start targeting BitTorrent specifically. Do you see any anti-competitive implications of a cable TV company suddenly throttling a protocol that delivers competition via peer to peer networks? Video competition from who? Vuze? BitTorrent is out of the video distribution game, and the major players in online video don't use P2P for distribution. |
|
beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH | reply to Karl Bode
Karl if they targeted, say netflix, or itunes, etc...then I'd agree with you. But they don't. Calling bittorrent "competition" to cable tv as a video distribution method is ridiculous. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Calling bittorrent "competition" to cable tv as a video distribution method is ridiculous. Oh, glad we've got that straightened out then, Mark Cuban. |
|
beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH
| Nice, admin resorting to name calling. I guess if you are going to call me a name, might as well be a rich guy 
Cuban is on record regarding Bittorrent? I did not state that the INTERNET is not viable competetion...strictly Bittorrent. Show me some data proving otherwise. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
3 edits | Oh, so it has to be viable competition or using your dominant market position to crush delivery doesn't count?
Just because you don't think Vuze is a legitimate competitor (I could be wrong, but I'm guessing you're playing dumb but work at a carrier), doesn't magically make it not a competitor. Caps and P2P protocol throttling aren't about killing the competitors of today, they're about killing the competitors of tomorrow.
BitTorrent certainly isn't a current serious competitor for live TV, nor is it currently eating away at any decent share (online video entire ate about 2% of all TV ad revenue in '07), but it is a competitor all the same. Should we get semantic, BitTorrent piracy is a competitor as well, as it sets market expectation (which unfortunately for industry folks is free, and easy). |
|
beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH
| I don't work at a carrier or anywhere in the communications business. But this article is about attacking bittorrent directly as opposed to their old method of attacking all heavy users. From the outside looking in, attacking all heavy users would seem to be more of an anti-competetive practice (although I don't think it is) than strictly throttling bittorrent. This frees up all the netflix, hulu, itunes, etc. arguments. Now they just go after bittorrent directly, which is quite insignificant in the "legitimate" online video marketplace.
In fact, it could be construed that they are attacking bittorrent usage to make the netflix streaming experience better for the rest of their customers....although I doubt that as well |
|
