TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  reply to Jafo232
Here is the reality and not the fantasy
It is really a simple idea:
AT&T besides being a distributor of content is ALSO going to be a provider of content.
And when they are the provider, they are going to make sure that content is delivered with the BEST quality of service possible. Even if they have to spend extra money on infrastructure to make that possible.
And other providers will get the standard old best effort internet non-optimized delivery vehicle. UNLESS ... they also pay extra to get on the optimized path too.
It is a purely economic decision to spend their investment dollars to enhance their own ROI. If government steps in and tries to forbid the so-called 2 tier system, then 1 of 2 things would happen:
1) the ISPs will not spend their money to upgrade infrastructure to handle the new products(video, etc.) at all. So everyone suffers. OR
2) the ISPs will upgrade the infrastructure to support all comers and the PRICE to their customers goes up accordingly.
The option everyone wants can NOT happen. And that is an enhanced infrastructure paid for only by the ISPs with no increase in costs to the customer. Investors of the ISPs will not support that option.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page |
|
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| AT&T besides being a distributor of content is ALSO going to be a provider of content.
And when they are the provider, they are going to make sure that content is delivered with the BEST quality of service possible. Even if they have to spend extra money on infrastructure to make that possible.
And other providers will get the standard old best effort internet non-optimized delivery vehicle. UNLESS ... they also pay extra to get on the optimized path too.
Maybe you should tell the AT&T CEO about your plan, because he didn't specify any "non-optimized" outlet for google. He said "since people use our bandwidth for you instead of us because you have a superior service, we'd like to charge you money rather than beat your service."
And can you explain the engineering behind such "optimized" information delivery. Whatever would that mean? |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
 ·AT&T Southwest
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail  :...Even if they have to spend extra money on infrastructure to make that possible. ...No
AT&T must upgrade their infrastructure anyway -- just to survive against the cable companies. Nobody will be using DSL for any purpose at-all unless it's upgraded to compete with DOCSIS3.
I'll definitely switch to a cable provider if AT&T does something this stupid (they've already waited too long for FTTP) |
|
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting
| reply to TKJunkMail
Your argument is completely and wholly bogus.
You've created a complete false reality argument, where your reader must accept that if this system is opposed by a functional regulatory authority, there will be no deployment. It's the same red herring carrot/stick that's been foisted on Internet debate by think tank drones for a quarter century. It's false.
For one, if the telcos do not invest in network upgrades they will be beaten stupid by wireless, cable, and muni-alternatives, so investment must happen regardless.
Second, prices will not automatically go up if this system is opposed, that's another red herring. If anything, competition between services will force telcos to lower prices for said services.... |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to broadbander
said by broadbander :And can you explain the engineering behind such "optimized" information delivery. Whatever would that mean? Best explained by an example. Comcast built it's own nationwide fiber backbone to interconnect all its locations to keep traffic off of the regular internet. The 1st product using that exclusively is their Comcast Digital Voice(voip) product. They also plan on using that backbone to get into video delivery(IPTV) as well. I suspect that other content providers desiring the Quality of Service that backbone provides will need to fork money over to Comcast for that privilege.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page |
|
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
| reply to ronpin
Interestingly enough, I had a problem with my SBC/AT&T DSL which turned out to be the modem. However, during the conversation, while the tech was testing the line (next day in home service, by the way), he made a comment about my DSL line being 294 feet long and that my current service was only using 12% of the capability of the line.
How could this be? I'm definately not that close to the switch. Apparently, it's because I am that distance from a node of some kind. This seems to tie in with my having seen SBC putting in large fiber cables under the main avenue a few months back, as well as in other places over time.
In all the blathering about SBC/AT&T, has it ever occurred to anyone that SBC HAS been upgrading their infrastructure, quietly, over time?
Oh, and by the way, it seems that SBC DSL is provided by a outfit called ASI (Advanced Solutions Inc), which, from what I was told, is a subsidiary of SBC, but, because of FCC regulations, operates independently. Go figure. |
|
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to Minister
For one, if the telcos do not invest in network upgrades they will be beaten stupid by wireless, cable, and muni-alternatives, so investment must happen regardless.
Aw! But that's when the telcos AREN'T against regulation! When it impedes those who might stand up against their refusal to deploy, then regulation is doing its job. All other times, oh no no. |
|
aztecnology
O Rly?
Premium
join:2003-02-12
Murrieta, CA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Fatal Vector
said by Fatal Vector :Oh, and by the way, it seems that SBC DSL is provided by a outfit called ASI (Advanced Solutions Inc), which, from what I was told, is a subsidiary of SBC, but, because of FCC regulations, operates independently. Go figure. SBC was required to spin its DSL operations into a separate company, ASI, back around 2001. This past year ASI moved back to SBC/ATT, though the group is still called ASI...
--
.:|:. "Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that always come in legions." John Callari .:|:. |
|
AndyWarhol
Premium
join:2004-03-14
Broken Arrow, OK
clubs: | reply to ronpin
exactly, you must at some point try to beat the competition by upgrading. Then again they might just try to lower their prices and become an in-between dial-up and fast broadband. |
|
stickfigure
join:2002-06-11
El Cajon, CA
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :The option everyone wants can NOT happen. And that is an enhanced infrastructure paid for only by the ISPs with no increase in costs to the customer. Investors of the ISPs will not support that option. So how is it that an ISP such as AT&T (SBC at the time) offer 1.5-6mbps DSL for $299.00 per month a couple years ago and after having invested in enhanced infrastructure (fiber and more RT's) now offer the same service for around $69.99 per month? Because that sounds to me like they were the only one investing in their infrastructure and they weren't raising the costs of DSL to cover it. In fact the residential DSL costs have typically been reduced as more has been invested into the network.
What SHOULD happen and what has been happening until this crap... is ISP's continue to come out with faster and faster services. If I'm a customer who wants to have "THE" fastest service I know I'm going to have to pay more for it while it is considered "the best". But this would be the same thing if I wanted the latest and greatest technology (ie blue ray DVD writer's). At first it's going to be expensive but as time progresses costs decrease. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to TKJunkMail
The true economics of increased usage
Before we go further, we have to distinguish between additional loads caused by A) additional subscribers and B) higher, more intense usage of bandwidth by the average subscriber.
"A"--additional subscribers--shouldn't be any economic problem for the ISPs, unless they are improperly pricing their existing services under cost now (which some have claimed the Baby Bells are doing with DSL). With more customers, they at least gain some economies of scale.
"B"--increased individual usage--is the issue. All "shared" or "concentrated" facilities will need to be expanded, resulting in increased cost on a "per customer" basis, as average usage increases through heavier bandwidth occupancy caused by streaming video, more extensive downloads, etc.
Now, to deal with the fallout:
said by TKJunkMail :... If government steps in and tries to forbid the so-called 2 tier system, then 1 of 2 things would happen: 1) the ISPs will not spend their money to upgrade infrastructure to handle the new products(video, etc.) at all. So everyone suffers. OR 2) the ISPs will upgrade the infrastructure to support all comers and the PRICE to their customers goes up accordingly. ... Ooops. You left out (or improperly crammed into option 2) the third option, which is that ISPs will raise prices only to the heavier users, i.e., those that are streaming video and downloading all the time. (Those of us who only read and write text don't add much load to the shared facilities at all.) I.e., option 3 is that we'll see some sort of "per-byte" pricing.
said by TKJunkMail :... The option everyone wants can NOT happen. And that is an enhanced infrastructure paid for only by the ISPs with no increase in costs to the customer. Investors of the ISPs will not support that option. Again, with a "per-byte" pricing structure, the infrastructure improvements necessary will be paid for by those heavy users that make them necessary.
Now, it appears that the Baby Bells, so long dependent on "access" pricing they charged to long distance carriers, and now trying to extract that money stream from the content providers, rather than legitimately raising it from their own customers. This approach is indirect and inaccurate--and only really works for monopolies.
(Previously litigated example: Microsoft charges manufacturers, rather than end users, for Internet Explorer. This is not only easier for Microsoft, it avoids the necessity of having to compete at the end user level for browser customers. Likewise, if the Baby Bells can extort "transit" fees from the content providers, they can avoid charging proper end user prices and thereby avoid competing at the end user level for customers. They will have effectively used their size to force Google (and hence, all of Google's end users) to subsidize the Baby Bell DSL, just as Microsoft forced manufacturers and their customers to subsidize IE. As Netscape found out, smaller players without the "heft" to engage in industry-wide extortion then get squeezed out of the picture, and the user community loses both the price and product differentiation benefits of having competing products.)
Competition depends on the cost-causer (in this case, the intense user who is downloading and streaming a lot) bearing their own costs. To the extent these costs are hidden elsewhere, true competition is stifled.
It's as if you opened the electric network to competition for generation capacity, but told the competitors that they couldn't meter the electricity. There's then effectively no way for real competition to develop.
The real danger is that the user community will embrace the "hidden" cost model (i.e., the 2-tier system for content providers) to avoid "per byte" pricing--and we'll be stuck with monopoly pricing models for years, much to the delight of the Baby Bells.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ | Excellent analysis. I wonder if they can get customers to buy in to the per byte model? |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Here is the reality and not the fantasy
GnS, I have to disagree with you on this one, for once.
The likes of AT&T and such are providing INTERNET ACCESS.
If they want to be the deliverer of content as well, they need to sell themselves as in the days of AOL 4.5. Online service first with access to the "internet" second. Many people are not going to go for this since what they have purcahsed is HIGH SPEED INTERNET.
AT&T, and the likes, are a day late and a dollar short of getting into the game. Show me one major ISP that, until recently, had anything to offer on their own until recently. The major ISPs have always had the worst portals in the industry.
Now, they are poppin up and wanting to increase and enhance their own offersings and want to be the ones to turn to for the content because they are just now waking up to the fact that there is not only money in the transport, but content as well.
I don't buy Comcast or Qwest for their information. I have purchased their pipes to get me onto the NET.
If they want to make sure their "CORE" services of Video, and Telephone are able to make it to the home, they can certainly do that by splitting their services down different channels, pipes, or frequencies. Cable is already doing this and so is telephone as DSL and Voice run on different frequencies.
The bottom line is that they are looking simply for more places to make income. What ultimately is happening here is the same thing that is happening in the housing markets. The hosing market was was so sucked dry of cash that many houses are now out of the price range of many people - and rentals are also going up. Come late 06 or easly 07 we are heading back into another TRUE recession.
The internet is going to head the same way. They are going to drive the prices up everywhere they can that internet is going to become a loss in providing it that they will not be able to enhance it or less people will buy it period. They are too busy sucking cash from every source in their quest for world domination that they will eventually drive the internet into the ground.
The only way that the internet can and will exist and survive is for them to simply leave it alone. It's not broke and it doesn't need fixing. Yes, the government will step in, but I think it will be to knock this B.S. off.
I have problems with companies that look within' their currnet products and services to make more money from it first instead of looking outside by creating new new product offerings. To me, this tells me that they having nothing new on the horizon or they don't plan on upgrading anything they have.
AT&T (SBC) is VERY good and making empty promises and never delivering. I thought vapor-ware was a short sting when Bill Gates pre-microsoft days with DOS. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to aztecnology
ASI has existed since 1997 or abouts. It's been around as long as DSL for Pacific Bell has been. (pre SBC) There was never a "spin off" - it's always been. Being the first customer in Sacramento to have DSL installed (news cameras and papers present for install) I learned this long ago.
Yes, it's because of the regulatory demand. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: The true economics of increased usage
It's possible to use a "carrot" approach and get the lighter users onto a "per unit" pricing plan, but to see full economic implementation it usually takes a "stick" of some sort to force the heavy users over, either by capping (essentially eliminating) "unlimited use" plans, or by raising (or, if prices are falling, failing to drop) prices for unlimited use.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
