dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2
share rss forum feed

me1212

join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
reply to FFH5

Re: Fiasco

Who is "they" the ISP or sites like google? If google use more than it pays for I think they should pay more. If they don't use more than the y pay for they should not pay more. Am I the only one who thinks like this?


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 recommendation

said by me1212:

Who is "they" the ISP or sites like google? If google use more than it pays for I think they should pay more. If they don't use more than the y pay for they should not pay more. Am I the only one who thinks like this?
This particular question arises here over and over at BBR. Yes, video content providers(especially P2P sites), pay for their connection to the internet and the data they move. But a lot of it is delivered thru one straw at their end and thru thousands of straws at the ISP's last mile end. So, while they generate tremendous demand at the ISP end, they pay only a little at their end.

Now that model does keep costs low at the content provider end. But it generates very high costs at the ISP end of the connection. So costs at the ISP end will rise as more and more users start watching video(especially using P2P delivery mechanisms). Someone has to pay for the increased costs at the ISP end. It will be you directly thru higher monthly flat charges or thru bill-by-byte tiers. Or indirectly thru fees levied on content providers who then use advertising models to pay more at their end. And, of course, advertisers mean higher costs for all the goods people buy that are being advertised.

So, in the end, you will pay more for all this new video growth occurring on the internet. The big question is HOW you will pay for it, directly or indirectly, as shown above. As for me, I prefer that ISPs move to a bill-by-byte tier system. I watch very, very little video thru an internet connection and would love to see my costs contained. And for those who are downloading hundreds of videos online, their costs should rise in my opinion.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

me1212

join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
I agree, if it cost the ISP $.10 a Gb then they charge us $.30 per gb(I don't know how much it cost them, just using easy #s) I would be ok with that IF and only IF they offer end their highest speed everywhere, or at least 3m. I have 512d 128u and its ok, but I would rather have embarqs 10m. If they want to charge me the max they MUST in return give me the max.

they would also have to get rid of throttles as that would be anti-productive. as people would not be able to use the bandwidth they can be will be charged for. I do not know if I use p2p, just youtube and veoh r they p2p? And I think if p2p is that bad it should be out lawed for the most part. granted the cablecos would loose money with tat plan because people like me would be all, "if they want to charge us fer each Gb I will go all iptv and use each gb I can".


Steve
I know your IP address
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Foothill Ranch, CA
kudos:5
reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

Yes, video content providers(especially P2P sites), pay for their connection to the internet and the data they move. But a lot of it is delivered thru one straw at their end and thru thousands of straws at the ISP's last mile end. So, while they generate tremendous demand at the ISP end, they pay only a little at their end.
I've seen bandwidth bills for Big Content Providers, and I don't think anybody would call it a little: the costs of providing the infrastructure to provide Big Content Sites would just take your breath away.

Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl | Unix Wizard | Microsoft Security MVP | Orange County, California USA | my web site


Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12
reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

said by me1212:

Who is "they" the ISP or sites like google? If google use more than it pays for I think they should pay more. If they don't use more than the y pay for they should not pay more. Am I the only one who thinks like this?
This particular question arises here over and over at BBR. Yes, video content providers(especially P2P sites), pay for their connection to the internet and the data they move. But a lot of it is delivered thru one straw at their end and thru thousands of straws at the ISP's last mile end. So, while they generate tremendous demand at the ISP end, they pay only a little at their end.

Now that model does keep costs low at the content provider end. But it generates very high costs at the ISP end of the connection. So costs at the ISP end will rise as more and more users start watching video(especially using P2P delivery mechanisms). Someone has to pay for the increased costs at the ISP end. It will be you directly thru higher monthly flat charges or thru bill-by-byte tiers. Or indirectly thru fees levied on content providers who then use advertising models to pay more at their end. And, of course, advertisers mean higher costs for all the goods people buy that are being advertised.

So, in the end, you will pay more for all this new video growth occurring on the internet. The big question is HOW you will pay for it, directly or indirectly, as shown above. As for me, I prefer that ISPs move to a bill-by-byte tier system. I watch very, very little video thru an internet connection and would love to see my costs contained. And for those who are downloading hundreds of videos online, their costs should rise in my opinion.
Who is talking about P2P Tk? They specifically mention GOOGLE who most definitely does NOT use P2P to deliver video. If Google has to pay for a straw that is big enough for all the little ISP straws to suck through, why should they have to pay more?


Ebolla

join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA
reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

This particular question arises here over and over at BBR. Yes, video content providers(especially P2P sites), pay for their connection to the internet and the data they move. But a lot of it is delivered thru one straw at their end and thru thousands of straws at the ISP's last mile end. So, while they generate tremendous demand at the ISP end, they pay only a little at their end.
The content providers are paying for "one straw" and yes it goes through thousands of "straws" at the ISP's end, the ISP's are ALSO getting paid for each of those "straws". It isnt like google is paying $10/month for thier end and the ISP's only getting $10/month for those thousands of connections.


TKJunkMail
Premium
join:2005-12-09
reply to Matt3
He likes to throw P2P into every conversation.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

But a lot of it is delivered thru one straw at their end and thru thousands of straws at the ISP's last mile end. So, while they generate tremendous demand at the ISP end, they pay only a little at their end.
This isn't true TK. If 100 people download the same file from a site it's not like the site pays for it once and the ISP has to pay 100 times. The site has to pay for each "Straw" to that file.... so if 1000 people download it, the site pays 1000 times for it. It's covered.

It's not like TV where one signal is "transmitted" and hundreds of thousands of TV's pick it up at all. If ISP's need a fat pipe to carry all the users downloading a file from Google, then Google needs a fat pipe as well to deliver it. 100% paid for.

Now in the case of P2P, it somewhat does shift the paradigm because the users all support the spread of the content... However sites like the BBC and Google etc are not P2P delivery systems. They are real time.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
said by KrK:

said by FFH5:

But a lot of it is delivered thru one straw at their end and thru thousands of straws at the ISP's last mile end. So, while they generate tremendous demand at the ISP end, they pay only a little at their end.
This isn't true TK. If 100 people download the same file from a site it's not like the site pays for it once and the ISP has to pay 100 times. The site has to pay for each "Straw" to that file.... so if 1000 people download it, the site pays 1000 times for it.
Not when the site is serving up the videos, or software, or game updates with P2P software. And a tremendous amount of video is delivered that way, even if it is done illegally in many cases.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Ah, see you're trying to divert the issue now. Red Herring, toss P2P out there.

The article referred to sites like the BBC and Google, etc.

Maybe if they tried to serve their sites and video etc up via P2P you'd have a point. Sorry TK, YouTube is not P2P.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini