 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | and the problem is... ?
While more than 60 ISPs have signed on, smaller ISPs complain they have to pay more than big carriers to carry the content.
Thats similar to me paying more to purchase a single gallon of milk at Sam's Club, or buying a dozen. You buy in bulk/large quantities, you'll get a better deal. The 'small' ISPs wouldn't have access to information on what the 'larger' ISPs pay, as it would be confidential information.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | said by en102:Thats similar to me paying more to purchase a single gallon of milk at Sam's Club, or buying a dozen. You buy in bulk/large quantities, you'll get a better deal. The 'small' ISPs wouldn't have access to information on what the 'larger' ISPs pay, as it would be confidential information. No it's more like a HOA buying milk for an entire subdivision and saying you have to pay for it even if you're lactose intolerant. |
|
 nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | reply to en102
said by en102:While more than 60 ISPs have signed on, smaller ISPs complain they have to pay more than big carriers to carry the content. Thats similar to me paying more to purchase a single gallon of milk at Sam's Club, or buying a dozen. You buy in bulk/large quantities, you'll get a better deal. The 'small' ISPs wouldn't have access to information on what the 'larger' ISPs pay, as it would be confidential information. Umm... How is this anything like purchasing milk? We're not talking about a physical object that needs to be shipped. We're not talking about a situation where you're realistically amortizing those shipping costs across a greater number of units (i.e., whether I send one gallon of milk or a hundred, at least one truck needs to roll). If ESPN is making available 50TB of programming content, then it's the same 50TB whether the buyer (the ISPs) is forwarding it on to 10 end-users or 10,000.
If you wanted a more realistic comparison, it's like sending a video tape to a couple of bars - then charging the bars for the number of people that watch it. There's no real cost differential between sending one copy of the tape to the local, corner bar that seats 30 people than it does to send it to a Hard Rock Cafe that might have a few hundred people in it. The only difference is the number of chargeable viewers. There's no real cost-basis to the content producer to drive non-linear fee structures.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
| How much demand for 360 could possibly warrant these type of actions. I mean, at a time when ISPs are complaining about people chewing up bandwidth with people watching useless videos, the ISP then stands in line to get permission to provide access to Burmese Soccer?
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
1 edit | reply to nixen
Your comparison is a bit faulty as well, and does not hit on the issue that is being brought up by the small ISP's. If ESPN actually did charge by the number of potential viewers, that business model would seem fair.
The problem is that ESPN sends their "tape" to a small sports bar that seats 50 people and demands $100 per seat, while selling the same tape to a huge bar that seats 500 people at $10 per seat. Both bars end up paying the same amount for the tape, $5000, but the smaller bar is impacted more and has to sell drinks for higher prices to recover the cost.
If the small bar refuses to pay such high prices, ESPN plasters signs outside the door telling customers to go across the street to watch the game.
I don't particularly care for this business model, and it does seem unfair. |
|
|
|
nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer:How much demand for 360 could possibly warrant these type of actions. I mean, at a time when ISPs are complaining about people chewing up bandwidth with people watching useless videos, the ISP then stands in line to get permission to provide access to Burmese Soccer? Well, if you're caching content locally, then you don't have to worry about overheads associated with satisfying content requests exterior to your network.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | reply to jmn1207
said by jmn1207:Your comparison is a bit faulty as well, and does not hit on the issue that is being brought up by the small ISP's. If ESPN actually did charge by the number of potential viewers, that business model would seem fair. That would be my prior reference to linear pricing (i.e., a uniform "per-seat" cost is applied)...
said by jmn1207:The problem is that ESPN sends their "tape" to a small sports bar that seats 50 people and demands $100 per seat, while selling the same tape to a huge bar that seats 500 people at $10 per seat. ...Which would be NON-linear pricing.
said by jmn1207:Both bars end up paying the same amount for the tape, $5000, but the smaller bar is impacted more and has to sell drinks for higher prices to recover the cost. Which is why a licensed content model with linear pricing makes the most sense (relative to content-owner delivery costs).
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
| reply to nixen
so then how much of your cache do you need to dedicate to ESPN?
And doesn't this undercut the ISPs own argument that content providers are chewing up bandwidth?
Heres a clear cut case where the ISP will push the preferred content that they want you to see so they can make the money back.
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
 r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
 ·row44
| reply to en102
said by en102: You buy in bulk/large quantities, you'll get a better deal. Really, I did not know that since it seems like the more gas we buy in bulk the more expensive it gets.
--
For those of you playing a drinking game.... MY FRIENDS! |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to en102
This is the beginning of the "Content Cartel" ruling over Internet content as well.
Soon you'll have "tiered" internet access. Expensive plans to access "Premium" websites. and cheap plans to gimped out, slow "rest of the net"
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer:so then how much of your cache do you need to dedicate to ESPN? And doesn't this undercut the ISPs own argument that content providers are chewing up bandwidth? Heres a clear cut case where the ISP will push the preferred content that they want you to see so they can make the money back. ISPs (and others) have long used content accelerators (since at least the mid-90s) to more efficiently make use of bandwidth.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell |
|
