 trent7
join:2005-11-28
Philadelphia, PA
1 edit | Is it P2P they're after? Why do I always have the feeling that all of those traffic management ideas are not aimed at P2P (legal or illegal) but rather at trying to do something about that pesky competition from online video on demand providers!!!
How about actually trying to compete and offer a video product that I'd be willing to pay for versus what I can get online at a usually cheaper price and most of the time is a better product. | |
|
 me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Re: Is it P2P they're after? Cause the feeling you have is correct. | |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| said by trent7:Why do I always have the feeling that all of those traffic management ideas are not aimed at P2P (legal or illegal) but rather at trying to do something about that pesky competition from online video on demand providers!!! Maybe because Karl Bode  keeps trying to convince you as such in his commentary on nearly every news article post? | |
|
 | | | Re: Is it P2P they're after? said by espaeth:said by trent7:Why do I always have the feeling that all of those traffic management ideas are not aimed at P2P (legal or illegal) but rather at trying to do something about that pesky competition from online video on demand providers!!! Maybe because Karl Bode keeps trying to convince you as such in his commentary on nearly every news article post? The truth of the matter is that Karl is right. | |
|
| | | | Re: Is it P2P they're after? Yes, Karl is right. | |
|
| trent7
join:2005-11-28
Philadelphia, PA
1 edit | I believe I can think for myself.
When Cable co's try to set caps that are too low to allow subscribers to use online video content providers as their main source for video entertainment, and try to deprioritize traffic based on content, I have every right to question their motives.
Especially that if the customer chooses to not subscribe to the Cable co's Video service and instead uses their Data service to get video content from other online providers the ultimate loser is the Cable co's. And I'm pretty sure that Cable co's don't want to see that happen.
I personally don't mind metered billing, as long as it is priced appropriately and not in a way to ensure the Cable co's upper hand in the video service market. | |
|
| | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: Is it P2P they're after? said by trent7:When Cable co's try to set caps that are too low to allow subscribers to use online video content providers as their main source for video entertainment, and try to deprioritize traffic based on content, I have every right to question their motives. That is more a function of the capacity of their networks more than a pure play on controlling online video consumption. The building blocks of DOCSIS networks are well known -- we all know there is 38mbps (ignoring overhead) of capacity per channel, and today there are anywhere from 200 - 500 end users per downstream channel. You can start to do the math pretty quickly on how much {stuff} you can stuff into {size bag}.
I will acknowledge that video competition most likely does factor in as a concern, albeit a rather minor one. If curtailing online video were the key driver that wouldn't explain why DSL providers like Qwest, who have no video interests, are engaging in the same practice. It also wouldn't explain why Verizon, who now has video interests to protect with FiOS, isn't implementing the same restrictions.
In the late 90's my staff worked to implement Packeteer traffic shaping hardware on the resnet connections at the University of MN, and I can assure you that at no point did did video revenue ever come up as a topic.
This problem is as old as Ethernet. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Is it P2P they're after? Are you suggesting that some of these providers oversold their networks, or to be more specific, signed contracts with customers that they had no intention of complying with?
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! | |
|
| | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: Is it P2P they're after? said by S_engineer:Are you suggesting that some of these providers oversold their networks, or to be more specific, signed contracts with customers that they had no intention of complying with? The providers who were clueful never published a guaranteed amount of data you would be able to consume, so I'm doubtful that it would really come down to a breach of contract.
I'm a realist, so I would state it as: the providers have built and expanded a network to serve the needs of 98+% of their customer base. To serve the needs of each fractional percentage beyond that, the cost of operations increases exponentially. | |
|
| | | | | | said by S_engineer:Are you suggesting that some of these ALL providers oversold their networks Fixed that for you. And the answer is yes, since the beginning of the Internet. It is designed that way. | |
|
|  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by espaeth:said by trent7:Why do I always have the feeling that all of those traffic management ideas are not aimed at P2P (legal or illegal) but rather at trying to do something about that pesky competition from online video on demand providers!!! Maybe because Karl Bode keeps trying to convince you as such in his commentary on nearly every news article post? That is not deserved. This very article would be the perfect place for Karl to take such a shot, if he was inclined to do so. He did not.
When TWC did it's 5-40 GB/mo cap masquerading as a video filter, Karl took the appropriate license to interpret it as such. He doesn't appear to be doing so here.
That put to bed, I'm very interested in your overall take on this idea.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL | |
|
|
|
