how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | reply to SuperWISP
Re: Doesn't address the fundamental problem said by SuperWISP:No ISP should allow P2P on its network unless the content provider (or the customer, if it really wants to donate that much money to the content provider) is paying for the full cost of the upstream server bandwidth.
1. No ISP should be allowed to discriminate by protocol.
2. The monthly bill is indeed full payment for upstream traffic. The ISP offers a certain bandwidth down and a certain bandwidth up, the customer accepts the offer and whatever they agree on is the price. If ISPs are not charging the full cost, why not? If they are not providing a good approximation of advertised and agreed-on rates, there needs to be regulation to force them to.
said by SuperWISP:P2P, even if throttled, is still fundamentally a mechanism which is used to shift bandwidth costs from content providers to ISPs' last miles, multiplying those costs as much as a hundredfold in the process.
So according to you, if NIN release a song for free, they should pay for all the bandwidth to distribute it instead of bandwidth being paid by the people actually sharing it? But wait, the fans are "content providers" too in this scenario, just as the original releasor is. And they are paying for all the connectivity they use, just as the content creator did to release it in the first place. In fact they're paying up to 100x the rate, according to you.
But if the cost per byte on the last mile is 100 times the cost for the original source to move the same amount of data, then we need to look at how the ISPs get away with overcharging so much. | | |
|
1 edit | said by swhx7:1. No ISP should be allowed to discriminate by protocol. Sorry, guy, but our customers want us to discriminate by protocol. For example, they want VoIP packets to be prioritized. And we are going to do it for them because it improves their experience. If you don't like it, don't subscribe to our service.
said by swhx7:2. The monthly bill is indeed full payment for upstream traffic. No; it's full payment for what my customer and I agree that the customer is buying. Which, in this case, is at a certain maximum bit rate with a limited duty cycle. You have no right to interfere with my relationship with my customers, who find the service to be very satisfying and economical. So, butt out. | |
| reply to swhx7
said by swhx7:But wait, the fans are "content providers" too in this scenario, just as the original releasor is. And they are paying for all the connectivity they use, just as the content creator did to release it in the first place. It's quite audacious of you to pretend to know the details of the agreements between me and my customers. The fact is that residential customers aren't paying for all they can use. Rather, they agree to use the link only for certain purposes, not to exceed a maximum duty cycle, and not to operate servers. For this, they get a reduced rate. If they want to pay a rate that's about 5 times as high, they can buy an unrestricted connection. | |
| reply to SuperWISP
So what if your back-end provider was a fan of P2P, and gave it highest priority?
I'm willing to bet that you get away with what you get away with because you're the only available provider to your customers? | |
|
