| Unicast HD video will drive industry to traffic cost model "Unquestionably, the carriers erred in their initial selling of broadband with a flat rate," says Elroy Jopling, research director of Gartner Inc. "They assumed no one would use it as much as they do now, but then along came high-definition movies. They're now trying to get around that mistake." The growth of HD video and the attempt to eventually replace multicast broadband TV (1 to many) with unicast(1 to 1) internet video will (I repeat - WILL) result in a traffic based(tier or per byte) business model. All the FCC and their rule making will do is to make sure that the access providers will make sure you know the rules upfront. No rules regulating how to charge or how much to charge for internet access will ever make it in to FCC guidelines or in to law.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
2 edits | Actually, if the FCC ever does its job and fosters some competition, we'll see new players provide flat-rate billing just for these scenerios, just like we see multiple bandwidth offerings at datacenters. Considering the cost of gas went down after the 1970s as it drew new players into a profitable market, Internet access will enjoy the same benefits. Of course, only if the gov't starts killing the mono-duopoly infrastruture. |
|
|
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | reply to fAcEtIOUs
You are forgetting that you can do multicast via internet too. |
|
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
 ·Comcast
| reply to SLD
This already happens even within providers. Comcast has a 250 GB residential cap. If you don't like it, get a starter business account. Comcast will even move your residential account over to a starter business account. They did this for me.
I think the starter business account is rumored to have a soft 2.0-2.5 TB cap. The cost for the starter business account is $60 a month, some manage to get basic cable tossed in for free.
Eventually, people are going to get video content over internet, and use tremendous quantities of bandwidth per month. This will impose significant costs to ISP's on last mile infrastructure.
The price difference Comcast charges from going from residential to starter business is about $18 per month. I don't consider that unreasonable.
Comcast has good reason to be concerned about IPTV. It can and will eventually damage its cable TV business. If all they do is charge a few bucks more for a much higher cap, I don't set it as a major problem.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
1 edit | reply to Lazlow
said by Lazlow:You are forgetting that you can do multicast via internet too. You forget that 90% of routers, ISP and residential, aren't set up to do it.
Explicit multicast would be the answer to multicast problems on the internet, that way anyone can do multicast, and not just people who are a Tier 1 ISP with a grandfathered exclusive IP range of multicast addresses.
»www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe···oq=&aqi= |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
the ONLY reason for caps or per byte billing is to allow the ISP to charge more money.
most ISPs could simply raise prices right now, since the majority of customers are, at best, in a duopoly market, with one telco and one cableco.
however, they don't want to do that because it would destroy their fragile charade of a "robust, competitive" market, and even our somnambulant regulatory agencies might wonder why prices are going up in a "robust, competitive" environment. |
|
| reply to Lazlow
said by Lazlow:You are forgetting that you can do multicast via internet too. But no one is doing it for residential systems. |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| reply to Lazlow
said by Lazlow:You are forgetting that you can do multicast via internet too. You can, but in this scenario it makes no sense. Multicast is for distributing the same packet to multiple people at the same time -- there exists a similar option in the traditional TV world, they're called channels. Every viewer on a multicast feed needs to watch on the same linear time line, just like a standard TV channel.
Internet-based video delivery is about 4 legitimate and 1 questionable thing:
1) Time Shifting (watch what I want, when I want it)
2) Place Shifting (same as #1, but not primary viewing location)
3) Archived Content
4) Niche content (Limited distribution)
Questionable) "Free" programming
Time shifting is by far the largest driver towards Internet-based delivery, and it also represents the most inefficient use of network resources. You're taking content that is already being digitally delivered to your house via OTA ATSC feeds, cable QAM feeds, and satellite QPSK/8PSK feeds.... and transferring yet another copy of the same content over the network. Time shifting is better accomplished through local capture and playback using an already established stream as the source. |
|
