pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| Article Makes The Wrong Argument
The telecom Stock blog article appears to argue that end users should be provided with different tiers of access, not that content providers should pay for access to customers. Aside from the token "The NY Times Sucks" blurb in the first paragraph, there's nothing in the article that supports the idea that content providers be punished.
I am wondering why the Bells are trying to confuse the two issues of dealing with high end users and charging content providers. <sarcasm>My guess is that they want to convince the public that high end users are evil so that the rest of the people will support charging content providers.</sarcasm> But what do I know? 
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! |
|
brooklynman4
join:2004-09-07
Brooklyn, NY | Thats why the stocks aint doing that great cause of crap like that |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to pnh102
It has to be a talking point, being circulated via think tank. I've seen it a handful of times in the past two weeks, and you're right. These are different issues.
At first I thought the confusion was accidental, and the authors were mis-reading the whole debate. I'm starting to think it's an intentional obfuscation campaign so the real debate (charging all IP service providers a new, previously un-billed tariff for priority service) is muddied.... |
|
JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102  :My guess is that they want to convince the public that high end users are evil so that the rest of the people will support charging content providers.</sarcasm> But what do I know? It is a word game. Kind of like "tax cuts for the rich". You know the person saying it is full of it but it still sounds good. Once RBOCs convince the public that these big bad media companies are getting a free ride, it is game over.
The market will sort itself out, if it doesn't, subs will find other avenues to get their information/entertainment fix. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
|  reply to pnh102
Bring on the "charge by byte" model
We can solve the whole problem. Start charging users by the byte transferred. With upload bytes costing about 10 times what a download byte costs. That way you kill 2 birds with 1 stone: make the hogs pay a higher price; and kill off the P2P users with high fees. Hollywood(RIAA, MPAA, etc) will be happy; the internet providers will be happy; and the content providers who push info will get a discounted byte rate for pushing downloads. The only people that will be unhappy will be the music and video thieves serving up copyrighted material.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
Conrail Photo Album |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
1 edit | reply to Karl Bode
Re: Article Makes The Wrong Argument
pnh102 and Karl have it precisely right.
Much of the recent argument here has been whether or not there is justification for charging "power users" more than light users for more intense use of the same bandwidth. If there is a justification (and I'm firmly in the camp that believes there is) then the real question becomes "how big is that justification".
IF the "increased charge" is placed on the end user (where I believe it belongs) then ISPs can fairly compete for users, both "light" and "power" users, by tailoring their networks and peering arrangements to suit the traffic they expect. Some ISPs may choose to seek out "light users" and some may seek the "power users". Most importantly, competition will be direct and pricing will be a big factor. Meanwhile, content providers (including new content providers) will be free to offer content supporting only their direct costs--their own servers and their own connections to peering points. Whatever difference exists between the costs of "power use" and "light use" will be accurately reflected in the marketplace (and even the possibility of "zero" increased cost will be reflected as well.)
IF, on the other hand, the "increased charge" is diverted to the content provider space, then all of the competition is made much more fuzzy, and much more pricing power is placed in the hands of the big telcos. Competition will be much more devious, with a new ISP or a new content provider needing not just to cover its own costs, but to figure out a way to participate in the great slush fund of kickbacks that the whining Baby Bells control. In this case the Bells win because they can shift prices around as much as needed to temporarily underprice whichever market segment is seeing competition. Additionally, since they are only paying themselves, even if they "charge" their own content divisions for "access", they have a tremendous subsidy potential which will enable them to eventually dominate content as well.
Realistically, while there is some increased cost for "power" usage, it shouldn't be all that much--but if we let the big ISPs charge somebody else for it, then we'll never really know what that cost is--just like we didn't know long distance was cheap until the breakup of Ma Bell forced the baby Bells to allow competition in the LD space and not use it as a cash cow to be milked.
There you have it--the real reason that the Baby Bells are deliberately confusing these two issues is that this is how they can prevent vigorous competition at the end user level. Looking for the first time at a major revenue source that they cannot control outright, they are desperate to prevent real competition because they know they are too fat and lazy to really compete.
calvoiper |
|
vinnie97
join:2003-12-05
Mesquite, TX
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Bring on the "charge by byte" model
Those won't be the only unhappy ones. I think you forgot about legitimate bandwitdh usage and menial things like instant messaging and other software that requires network connectivity just to function. Thoes bytes will add up and quickly escalate beyond the prices of broadband service today.
Sickening idea. |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to calvoiper
Re: Article Makes The Wrong Argument
I would agree with you 100%. I firmly believe that it should be the ISP that the customer has direct contact with imposing restrictions and that customer can make the decision based on those factors whether or not they do business with that company.
ISP's pay for their connection to the internet just like the rest of us. Their bottom line depends on the amount of bandwidth every user on their network uses. The more they use, the more they have to pay to get them where they want to go. Therefore, I feel they are well within their rights to shape their user's usage anyway they want; be it throttling (recommended), termination, caps (charges for exceeding) or "tiering". As long as the consumer has a choice in doing business with them AND as long as the consumer if fully aware of the 'limits' imposed by the ISP before hand. I would even go so far as to say EVERY agreement is grandfathered. In other words, they just can't pull the 'ol legal bait and switch by giving you the world today, but them taking it all away tomorrow with a new TOS. |
|
dc_analyst
join:2006-02-21
Washington, DC
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Bring on the "charge by byte" model
The promise of the Internet is based in the fact that it gives equal media power to all.
In this medium, citizen journalism can thrive. This (hopefully) provides a counterbalance to the anti-democratic tendencies of the corporate media.
Charging a premium for upload bytes destroys this potential. It will shift the balance of power to those who have the most money - allowing them to use media to gain political favors and generate even more money and power.
I agree that heavy users should be charged a premium for "fatter pipes", but there should be equity between upload and download bytes.
Ultimately, creating a disincentive against uploading hurts innovation. For example, users wanting to send video-mail will balk at the additional cost, and this (and other potential new) technology will never take-off. |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| reply to calvoiper
Re: Article Makes The Wrong Argument
said by calvoiper :Much of the recent argument here has been whether or not there is justification for charging "power users" more than light users for more intense use of the same bandwidth. If there is a justification (and I'm firmly in the camp that believes there is) then the real question becomes "how big is that justification". Frankly, I don't buy it. The bandwidth providers already have tiered access through different speed plans. The more speed you want, the more you pay. Power users are already paying for bigger bandwidth. Your arguments seem to ignore this completely.
So, just how vested is your interest in gouging?
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) |
|
bear73
Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly Skies
Premium
join:2001-06-09
Grand Forks Afb, ND
·Midcontinent Commu..
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Bring on the "charge by byte" model
Your plan will hurt the on-line game players also. Look at the XBox and 360, other nex-gen consoles, MMO games, multiplayer FPS games. What about VOIP? how about video messaging/teleconferencing? (I'm talking about family and SOHO type.) A better method to get the pirates is good investigative work. Watch where all the big uploaders are, then look at them.
--
If ya gotta go, Go with a SMILE! |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| reply to TKJunkMail
tsk tsk..
Someone's not to happy the telco's are about to be bitch slapped by congress! Ha ha ha.. and you said it would never go anywhere. Net Neutrality is a telco's nightmare come true, as it moves power back to the customer. Net Neutrality means none of the plans to 'charge by the byte' will work. Net Neutrality means that the ISP's need to provide what they are selling. Net Neutrality represents the end to telcos/cableco's double dipping ideas.. It's.. a NIGHTMARE to a paid shill like you, cause why should they pay you anymore to troll message boards?
(isn't your alter ego better known as 'taylor'. If so, you forgot to mention that internet thieves will end up in prison to become bubba's ass bitch).
--
Sure the internet has lots of porn and piracy, but I'm sure there's a downside to it. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to nixen
Re: Article Makes The Wrong Argument
I don't have a vested interest at all. (I had a small amount of stock in the old Level3, but it was washed out in the bankruptcy.) I don't work for any player in this game.
The point is that "speed" and "capacity" are two different things, with different costs. As a simplified example, consider an independent ISP in a small town. The ISP connects with its end users, hubs all traffic at its office, and buys a "big pipe" out of the boondocks to the Internet "cloud".
To increase speed to any user, without increasing capacity used by that user, the ISP needs to upgrade its connection between the hub and the end user. That more expensive connection can accurately be reflected by an increased price for the higher speed.
Now let's consider the case where the users don't need more "speed", but they are going to use the speed they have far more intensively. In this case, the end user connection remains unchanged--but the "big pipe" needs to get bigger to handle the increased traffic.
(And don't tell me the big pipe should already be big enough--NO ISP totally builds a 100% "clear through" network to its peering points--it just doesn't make economic sense not to share some facilities.)
So the question is, when shared facilities need to be augmented, do you charge everyone, or do you just charge those who are causing the augment?
Now, I firmly believe what I've just written--but the important thing is that EVEN IF I'M WRONG, the ONLY way we'll know is if we keep the big ISPs from charging content providers and let ISP competition go after the end user directly. If ISP business costs are covered for some ISPs by hidden "content provider kickbacks", then we'll never really know if these "big pipe augments" needed higher revenues or not, will we?
The big ISPs need to pass their claimed increased costs along directly so cheaper ISPs can compete with them, rather than hiding them in slush fund swaps conducted by the "big player club".
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| reply to nixen
Tom, someone using a 768k line maxed out 24x7 should be paying more than someone using the same 768k line for may be 1-2 hours of the day. That's the argument.
Of course providers have tried to enforce this in the past with caps but have been mostly shot down.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber |
|
NogustaX
@sympatico.ca
| reply to calvoiper
Calvoiper... very well written. Spin is in.
Unfortunately the telecom & cable backed ISPs are used to being able to redefine words. "Unlimited" means whatever we feel like letting you have at a given time.
Very good theory (and likely the truth) that the whole point is to reduce if not, for all realistic purposes, outright block competition. |
|
Chulategui
join:2003-11-08
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
| reply to dc_analyst
Re: Bring on the "charge by byte" model
said by dc_analyst :Charging a premium for upload bytes destroys this potential. It will shift the balance of power to those who have the most money - allowing them to use media to gain political favors and generate even more money and power. I would sure hate to see that get started. |
|
lucky644
Premium
join:2002-02-04
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :We can solve the whole problem. Start charging users by the byte transferred. With upload bytes costing about 10 times what a download byte costs. That way you kill 2 birds with 1 stone: make the hogs pay a higher price; and kill off the P2P users with high fees. Hollywood(RIAA, MPAA, etc) will be happy; the internet providers will be happy; and the content providers who push info will get a discounted byte rate for pushing downloads. The only people that will be unhappy will be the music and video thieves serving up copyrighted material. www.fileplanet.com
www.vonage.com
www.skype.com (video/voice)
video.google.com
These are just SOME legit things that require a lot of bandwidth depending on usage. Want more?
www.steampowered.com
www.xbox.com (xbox 360)
www.nintendo.com (upcoming revolution)
www.direct2drive.com
These 4 are all directed at gamers, all of which are legit uses. All of which you can purchase full games and download them right off the internet.
Your idea that the only people who use large amounts of bandwidth are only by "music and video theives" is just stupid, ridiculious and ignorant.
My GRANDMOTHER uses 40GB alone on emailing pictures/videos, talking on skype and msn video and online radio.
Come on, you're just being silly. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | reply to G_Poobah
When exactly did the cable companies join in on this argument again? So far, I've only heard AT&T/SBC, Bell South, and recently Verizon/MCI.
You keep talking about greedy cable co's in on this and I have yet to hear a word about it. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | reply to lucky644
www.vonage.com require alot of bandwidth?
You really need to go back to internet use school there bud.
VoIP doesn't take that much BW.... almost a dial up modem speed is all. |
|
lucky644
Premium
join:2002-02-04
1 edit | said by fiberguy :www.vonage.com require alot of bandwidth? You really need to go back to internet use school there bud. VoIP doesn't take that much BW.... almost a dial up modem speed is all. "depending on usage"
It's just one legit way that can be included into the pile of other stuff you can be doing to rack up your bandwidth. |
|
