how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to sonicmerlin
Re: What I submitted Easy answer: baby steps.
I dislike caps as much as the next guy, but having reasonable ones that expand by 50% per year is better than having lobbyists keeping the definition of broadband down to 768k and keeping it there.
Also, how many GBs do you use of 'net traffic per month? How much of that is P2P (not saying that's wrong, but I do all my P2P on an unmetered server in Luxembourg where bandwidth is dirt cheap)?
Lastly, these specs are baseline, not maximums. WOW, RCN, Cablevision and Verizon can continue with uncapped wireline broadband; they aren't forced to adopt caps just because the minimum in government says that what they should be. Just like Verizon's lowest DSL speed is 1024 kbps down, 384 kbps up rather than 768/200.
I see what you're saying but if the specs become too stringent the ISPs will just choose not to play along, instead renaming their product "High Speed Internet" or "High Speed Access" while capping, throttling and down-speeding all they want.
One more thing: the current definition of broadband has no verbiage about caps. So they could be 1GB for all the government cares. Now that sucks. | |
 tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
 ·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| said by iansltx:I dislike caps as much as the next guy, e. I disagree - incorporating caps into broadband legislation legitimizes notion of metered service.
As others have posted caps are ineffective in controlling peak network utilization. That is what drives ISP transit costs, not how much a customer consumes. Bandwidth caps are being pushed not because they alleviate congestion but because they thwart implementation of streaming services that compete with the ISP's legacy business model.
Any definition of broadband should be such that it encourages experimentation and entrepreneurs to create new businesses and services not to protect legacy business models.
/tom | |
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| I'm fully aware of these concerns (and have them myself) however again, if the tiers are made too stringent the ISP industry will simply call their high-speed product something else, implementing whatever speeds and caps they want. Sad to say, but if the ISP community (big dobs) decide they want to call HSI "Ultra Speed Interwebz" they could put enough ads on the air to make that the nomenclature.
Though on the other hand I absolutely agree that caps are a dumb way to handle capacity problems. That's what protocol-specific, vendor-agnostic traffic shaping is for. Yes, I said protocol-specific; streaming of any kind (XoIP, streaming audio/video, gaming) and web-browsing-like activities should be prioritized over large downloads if one or the other has to be pushed over the pipe. | |
|
