dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
277
share rss forum feed

Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
·Embarq Now Centu..
·Comcast
·CenturyLink

YES!

The content providers should be required to pay for any synchronous type traffic that they generate. The Internet was never designed to carry time sensitive traffic. TCP/IP is basically an Ultra Asynchronous Protocol. Forget charging Google or any other website that generates typical TCP/IP traffic for usage. Downloading a webpage is quite different from downloading a 25Gb high definition movie. Only content providers like Netflix and other content providers that generate synchronous traffic should pay for the traffic that they generate. If ISP's are allow to charge content providers for traffic that they create, there would be no need to include caps in their rate structure. If ISP's continued to include caps, that fact would be a clear demonstration that caps were instituted to make downloads of entertainment content financially unfeasible. If a movie company wants to ship 1 DVD the price will be quite different than to ship 50,000 DVD's.

bngdup

join:2007-02-20
Old Bridge, NJ
The major ISP's were granted government subsidies to provide full internet access, not just HTTP port 80 access. You are arguing that because content providers are actually using the megabits that they pay per megabit for that there should be an extra surcharge because it eventually makes it back to my house?

What am I paying my ISP for then if not for synchronous access. So the ISP gets paid by end user for access and gets paid by content providers for access. Please explain to me who this mystery bandit is that is stealing all this money?

If I stream an HD video from netflix than I pay Verizon for the ability to download that. Verizon also gets paid by whoever hands that traffic off to them.

So this is just the ISP's bitching that they can't share in the profits being made by these companies that are using "their pipes" to run a business. They were paid by the government to provide a service, they build said service and now are whining that its not profitable enough.

I say then build your own non-subsidized network sans public funding and see if your new pricing model holds water then.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to Mr Matt
said by Mr Matt:

The content providers should be required to pay for any synchronous type traffic that they generate.
learn how the internet works. those companies ALREADY pay for bandwidth. so do their customers.

Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
·Embarq Now Centu..
·Comcast
·CenturyLink
Actually I do know how the Internet works, in view of the fact that I was a Telecommunication Manager for one of the largest regional ISP's in the state of Florida. I do know how the financial side of the Internet works. I was on the team that negotiated the contracts with broadband providers and local exchange carriers for PRI's for dial up customer access.

In 1996 the company had POPs across the state of Florida with 28.8 Mb Modems and in some cases back haul circuits to POPs were as low as 56Kbps. By the year 2000 all back haul circuits had been upgraded to T-1's. For connection to the Internet they leased a T-1 from a major broadband carrier from the network operations center and primary POP to the Internet peering point in Atlanta.

By the time they sold out to a major national ISP all modems were upgraded to V.92 standards or 56K, at a substantial cost. They had several DS-3's and an OC-3 to carry traffic from their Dial Up customers and web hosting operation.

Holding time on a modem increased from about 23 Minutes of measured service in 1996 to about 47 Minutes of flat rate service in 2000, while monthly fees decreased from about $25.00 per month to about $16.00 per month.

Network operations constantly monitored traffic on each circuit so that we could high quality service to our customers. As a result of the rate at which traffic increased and the number of modems required to provide satisfactory service, it became apparent that by 2005 the company would be losing money. Unfortunately there is no such thing as a free lunch. I would rather have the content providers pay, than having the cost for my broadband access fees increase. The ISP's will have to pay to upgrade their networks if they expect to carry the increased traffic offered by the content providers. The question is who should pay for the cost of the upgrades.

bngdup

join:2007-02-20
Old Bridge, NJ
Well thanks for the resume but your argument still does not hold any water.

You are essentially saying that because your company undersold its lines to stay competitive and did not invest sufficiently for the future that content providers should pay you an extra tax on top of what you already charge other providers?

They pay your company to send and receive X amount of traffic or your company charges a connecting carrier for that. The end users pay your company to send and receive X amount of traffic. So on top of that, you want more money because it costs your Company money to route that traffic?

You being a Manager for X years and citing Dial-up business models has absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand.

Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
·Embarq Now Centu..
·Comcast
·CenturyLink
When I was Telecommunication Manager in 2003, Dial-Up was basically dead and the incumbent broadband ISP's (Cable and Telephone Companies), essentially shut out the competition by not allowing access to their subscribers. When the ISP I worked for was invited to offer DSL service by one Local Exchange Carrier, the pricing model indicated that our net profit would be less for a DSL Subscriber then the net profit earned from a dial-up subscriber.

There is a significant difference between carrying typical TCP/IP traffic and continuous high volume downloads.

The only thing that is a fact, other then our government any for profit organization that does not make a profit will not be in business for long, consider General Motors. The difference in price between an OC3 and OC12 in 2003 was not linear. Many Dial-Up ISP's sold out to larger companies because they did not have the capital or revenue to subscribe to circuit capacity support a large customer base. They could not afford to pay the difference between a DS-1 1.544Mbps and even a fractional DS-3 at less than 45Mbps.