how-to block ads
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Key Words they argue that content providers seeking guaranteed delivery of high quality content should be willing to pay.
“If someone wants to transmit a high quality service with no interruptions and ‘guaranteed this, guaranteed that’, they should be willing to pay for that,” the AT&T chief said. You mention Key Words, and I think the above highlighted words are also key. AT&T isn't saying they won't deliver content. All they are saying is that if you want to make sure it gets there on time and real time, then you may have to pay extra to get in the proprietary high speed lane instead of going thru the regular shared internet.
All the main ISP companies have built their own fiber nets(not the ones shared with all others(Level3, Cogent, UUnet, etc). And they built those to deliver their own content at high QOS standards for VOIP, videos, etc. All they are asking is that if others want to ride on the limited access private turnpike instead of the public highway that they kick in a fee.
And if a law prevents that, then the costs to their users are going to rise. So the end user is going to pay more no matter what. Either to the content providers or to the network providers.
But we have 2 classes of users - those who will use these new bandwidth intensive apps and those who won't. Under the content providers pay model, only the intensive users will pay. Under the network providers pay model, everyone pays - even those who only do email and regular browsing. The content providers pay model is fairer to the majority of the users. Though the biggest heaviest users will complain when they have to carry more of the costs they are causing.
Maybe the network providers(ISPs) will have to move to a bytes/mo model instead of flat rates. That way the content providers won't pay extra and the end users will pay based upon how much bandwidth they consume.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page | |
|  
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Key Words The other terms you have to check would be the fine print, along with that quote. Someone may state that it does not appear to be 'high quality content' and therefore the guarantee is null and void. Also, the TOS would most likely state that there are conditions to be met - i.e. certified AT&T installation, running AT&T equipment with your PC having AT&T software installed (spyware?), no 900MHz/2.4 GHz phones in the house, and that would still not guarantee outage due to line cut, power outage, upstream provider issue, etc.
quote:
they argue that content providers seeking guaranteed delivery of high quality content should be willing to pay.
I had 2 business T1's go out for more than a day (fiber cut) - and that was paying for high availability.
On a frame relay circuit into Northern California, it went down for more than a week, as 2 telcos + external had to be involved. MCI was the service provider, SBC was the local end in So. Cal., Frontier (ugh!) was the telco in Northern Ca which had a failure on a channel bank, and had to do a rebuild. Since Frontier was literally 'frontier' - SBC couldn't put in a local call through their automated system, but had to send a letter to Frontier, as it was so antiquated. | |
| 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| said by TKJunkMail  :... But we have 2 classes of users - those who will use these new bandwidth intensive apps and those who won't. Under the content providers pay model, only the intensive users will pay. Under the network providers pay model, everyone pays - even those who only do email and regular browsing. The content providers pay model is fairer to the majority of the users. Though the biggest heaviest users will complain when they have to carry more of the costs they are causing. Maybe the network providers(ISPs) will have to move to a bytes/mo model instead of flat rates. That way the content providers won't pay extra and the end users will pay based upon how much bandwidth they consume. And your second example ("per byte" pricing) is how it SHOULD work. This most closely matches the "cost causer" with the "cost bearer" and doesn't send the mixed economic signals that running the charge through a third party (the content provider) does.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| 
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
 from:
SRFireside
| I call shenanigans.
None of the apologists have yet explained why there is this belligerent rhetoric about freeloaders like google?
Is google riding on this mythical "private turnpike"? Are they demanding that att give them special privilege on the internet? Are people not content with the best effort delivery of google content? Google runs on the "best effort" network right now. How is that freeloading if what you claim is true? Either whitacre considers google running on the best effort network to be freeloading or there is no rational basis for his claiming freeloading because google is NOT running on this "private turnpike". He makes it very clear that the present level of service that google receives is TOO HIGH. Whatever his rhetoric, this means he intends to reduce it.
If this is about creating the mythic private network why doesn't whitacre shut his blowhole, build this mythical network and then see if people are willing to pay the premium for it?
Because there is no mythical private turnpike. What he intends to do is take the present network and impose a more extensive traffic prioritization scheme upon it. The prioritization of certain traffic implies the deprioritizing of other traffic. There is no separate network where traffic is sent without affecting the "best effort" network. That is a lie being spouted to suggest that the water level for some boats can be lifted without lowering the water level for the other boats.
"But we have 2 classes of users - those who will use these new bandwidth intensive apps and those who won't."
You can't equate this with the notion of a public and private network. You start out talking about 2 networks, but it again clear that this is not what we are talking about. Apps are content. The behavior of the app is limited by the size of the pipe that the customer has paid for. If you want to sell different service levels for different users requirements you simply sell different size pipes at different price points. There is no justification for an additional levy, on any particular pipe size, based on the "type of app" unless a company is trying to stifle particular apps to protect its revenue generation on its own apps. | |
| | | |
|
