Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·CenturyLink
 ·Comcast
·Embarq Now Centu..
 ·Millenicom
| Time for the Content providers to pay their fair share.  This problem could be solved if the content providers pay their fair share for delivery of their content. Just paying for a connection to the Internet is not enough. I should know because I was a Bean Counter for an ISP. Expecting an ISP to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade their networks to carry a content providers traffic is not fair. My employer sold out their dial up business because the revenue per subscriber was decreasing while the cost to provide service was increasing.
If a customer orders a movie from Netflix via snail mail, the delivery service does not transport and deliver the movie for free. The cost of delivery is in the price of the subscription for the service.
It would be nice if someone out in broadband land might post an estimate the cost for delivering a High Definition Movie via the Internet. I am sure that Netflix already knows what it costs to deliver a movie via snail mail.
There is no reason to charge the broadband subscriber for the amount of data downloaded if the content providers contribute to the ISP to offset the cost of carrying the sender's traffic and upgrading the ISP's networks to carry the additional traffic.
On the other hand a large content provider has the leverage to negotiate with ISP's for a fair price for carrying their traffic. Unfortunately a consumer has no leverage and if the ISP can get away with it they will tell the customer this is the price for downloading data take it or leave it. The cost for delivering a movie should be less than the cost of delivering the movie via snail mail but more than 0.
If ISP's want to provide true network neutrality they should lobby for a system where the content providers pay their fair share to deliver their content, while leaving cost for their subscribers alone. |
|
 RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | said by Mr Matt: This problem could be solved if the content providers pay their fair share for delivery of their content. Just paying for a connection to the Internet is not enough. I should know because I was a Bean Counter for an ISP. Expecting an ISP to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade their networks to carry a content providers traffic is not fair. My employer sold out their dial up business because the revenue per subscriber was decreasing while the cost to provide service was increasing. If a customer orders a movie from Netflix via snail mail, the delivery service does not transport and deliver the movie for free. The cost of delivery is in the price of the subscription for the service. It would be nice if someone out in broadband land might post an estimate the cost for delivering a High Definition Movie via the Internet. I am sure that Netflix already knows what it costs to deliver a movie via snail mail. There is no reason to charge the broadband subscriber for the amount of data downloaded if the content providers contribute to the ISP to offset the cost of carrying the sender's traffic and upgrading the ISP's networks to carry the additional traffic. On the other hand a large content provider has the leverage to negotiate with ISP's for a fair price for carrying their traffic. Unfortunately a consumer has no leverage and if the ISP can get away with it they will tell the customer this is the price for downloading data take it or leave it. The cost for delivering a movie should be less than the cost of delivering the movie via snail mail but more than 0. If ISP's want to provide true network neutrality they should lobby for a system where the content providers pay their fair share to deliver their content, while leaving cost for their subscribers alone. Your ISP is trying to double dip. I pay to use the ISP to send and receive data. The ISP has thus been paid for my usage. Now they want to be paid by whoever I am using my PAID FOR bandwidth to communicate with to allow me to do that communication. They have no right to tell me who I connect to or what I do over that connection nor to charge the other end for the usage of the connection that they have already charged me for. |
|
Reviews:
·Cincinnati Bell
| reply to Mr Matt
but doesnt the content provider already pay for the services technically? they pay to have their connection to the internet just like you and I do. the only difference I can see is that the content provider pays for a much larger pipe than I pay for. doesnt the isp already know how much data transfer the company (for example netflix) will be using? i'm sure netflix didnt just buy some lame data connection without having in mind how much data they would be transferring.
I dunno, I could be way wrong! |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·Cincinnati Bell
| reply to RARPSL
well you (RARPSL) got to my point first. but that's exactly the point I was trying to get across. I also agree with trent25.. the ISP's/CableCo's should start offering BETTER TV solutions than what is current. I shouldn't have to pay $150 a month for Cable TV and internet just to find out between the hours of 2-8am most of the cable channels turn into infomercials.
In fact, i'm going to go for their bandwidth limitation ideas and have them apply that to my cable tv service. man, i would save hundreds of dollars and I could have hundreds more tv stations prob. plus with the new tech that's out today some cablecos like comcast turn off the channel when nobody is watching it. so if its not being used or broadcast why should I have to pay still if i'm not using it. put a right price to it and lower my bill by at least half and just maybe I might by all of their BS about saving the consumers money. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | You are kidding with this post, aren't you? |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Mr Matt
said by Mr Matt: This problem could be solved if the content providers pay their fair share for delivery of their content. Just paying for a connection to the Internet is not enough. I should know because I was a Bean Counter for an ISP. Expecting an ISP to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade their networks to carry a content providers traffic is not fair. See Matt, I think the problem is one of perspective. An ISP is not being "required" to upgrade their network to carry content's provider's content. What's happening is *ISP customers* are wanting that content in increasing numbers and an ISP can choose to serve their customers OR let them go to the competition. The Content providers pay their bandwidth bills generated by ISP customers as they come to their site and download. They pay their share.
Now, you could say an ISP might be forced to increase prices on customers if network needs grow dramatically---- that's a fair enough argument... but this argument that "The content providers are getting a free ride--- they need to "chip in" to cover our expenses" is an argument that should be DOA.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
·Clear Wireless
| reply to Mr Matt
said by Mr Matt: This problem could be solved if the content providers pay their fair share for delivery of their content. Just paying for a connection to the Internet is not enough. I should know because I was a Bean Counter for an ISP. Expecting an ISP to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade their networks to carry a content providers traffic is not fair. I'm not sure I follow? Why is it the content provider's fault if the ISP isn't pricing their connection in a manner that would provide funding for suitable upgrades? |
|
