how-to block ads
|
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! | |
Talis
join:2001-06-21
Houston, TX
| said by calvoiper  :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? I understand your argument, but disagree with your conclusion. In my mind the question is, what exactly has the ISP sold to the user? If I purchase a 1.5m connection and I use that connection 24/7, why should I be charged more than you, who may have purchased the same 1.5m connection but only use it 1 hour a day? The ISP sold me the bandwidth. Why am I not allowed to use it? Why is it my problem that their infrastructure can't meet the demands of what they sold?
If they aren't selling capacity, what are they selling? | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| They're selling the ability to OCCASIONALLY use very fast downloads without CONSTANTLY using them.
It's not unreasonable for an ISP to restructure its service offerings to more directly address different types of customers.
As an example, someone who wants fast downloads of web pages, but then spends several seconds looking at them, would want capacity without necessarily wanting to use it 100% 24/7. Likewise, someone who wanted to play an MMORP Game or watch a movie without advance downloading it, but for only a couple of hours a day, would be a customer of a service that provided broadband but didn't include 100% usage of the capacity 24/7 in the base price.
I understand that some folks are justifiably angry about "all you can shovel" plans that haven't delivered--but that's a separate issue from allowing an ISP to more clearly spell out TO THE END USER what they will deliver for a given price.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
