how-to block ads
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | Clueless head of the FCC?!
It's scary, and sad, when the head guy has no understanding of the basic issues involved. I guess this is what you get when you have lawyers / bureaucrats involved, without any technical expertise. | |
GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| said by PDXPLT  :It's scary, and sad, when the head guy has no understanding of the basic issues involved. I guess this is what you get when you have lawyers / bureaucrats involved, without any technical expertise. I did not see it that he had no clue to the issue(s) at hand.
Have you given it a thought that they are not required to regulate the upstream? Or that they are not required to regulate if and how a network provider implements packet prioritization?
Its just as scary when the consumer body doesn't understand this, too. | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| I believe he sees it clearly.
I think he (along with think tankers and stockholders) is intentionally muddying this QoS tariff debate, with the phantom argument that ISPs can't charge more for faster service, in order to muddy the waters, confuse the public, and prevent Senate laws protecting your right to choose competing, non-incumbent, IP services. | |
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| Karl gets it, but most don't.
This has NOTHING TO DO WITH QOS. Period.
This has EVERYTHING to do with charging you based on what's in the packets. They want to assign a different value based on the value of what's being transferred, and bill accordingly. VoIP for instance, you will pay .10 cents a minute to verizon to get 'quality'. P2P you will pay .02 cents a minute to get 'quality'. Video you will pay 25% of the value of the video to get 'quality'. None of that has anything to do with QOS though. QOS is just a smokescreen to cover the real goal of the telcos/cablecos. They don't want to just charge TODAY's money making internet companies (google/yahoo/etc), they want to put in a framework, so when 'the next big thing' is released, they can get a cut out of it, before it's even invented!
The ISP's are desperate to get a new source of revenue from 'somewhere', they just don't know where yet. Instead of making money from providing transportation services, they think they deserve to make money of anyone who uses their transport services, ABOVE and beyond what they charge already.
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself. | |
NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
| said by G_Poobah :This has EVERYTHING to do with charging you based on what's in the packets. I disagree.
If I read correctly, "you" in your post above means the consumer. That is disingenuous. The consumer is not being charged more. Certainly not directly, and due to market forces and the availability of more than sufficient alternate content providers, likely not indirectly either.
Those who would provide the consumer the service, VoIP, P2P, Video, it is they who would choose to pay for what you euphemistically refer to as "Quality." And if there is little to no demand for that "quality" there will be few to no takers for that product.
Martin has repeatedly said, and repeated here directly from the front page of this very site, quote:
[Martin's] agency already has the authority to act if incumbents try to block or degrade service.
The FCC has already once brought the hammer down on an ISP that did so. I, for one, will not subscribe to the notion that this is a slippery slope argument. Presuming the status quo stability, availablity, reliability, usability, etc., remains (and I know of nothing that indicates it is under attack), this chicken little the sky is falling conspiracy theory gibberish is misleading and misguided at best.
In my opinion, the telcos and cablecos are not talking about their current networks. They are talking about the extent of their overbuild for the next generation video over IP networks.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | quote:
If I read correctly, "you" in your post above means the consumer. That is disingenuous. The consumer is not being charged more. Certainly not directly, and due to market forces and the availability of more than sufficient alternate content providers, likely not indirectly either.
No IP content service provider is going to swallow that fee. They're going to pass it directly on to the consumer. quote:
And if there is little to no demand for that "quality" there will be few to no takers for that product.
That much is true. And Google et all could simply refuse to pay (in fact they've said as much already. quote:
The FCC has already once brought the hammer down on an ISP that did so. I, for one, will not subscribe to the notion that this is a slippery slope argument.
Martin is more of a political think tank drone than technologist. His main goal is no new regulation. I've never been sold this is actually a telecom policy, as much as it is a loyalty. | |
NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
2 edits | said by Karl Bode No IP service provider is going to swallow that fee. They're going to pass it directly on to the consumer. What is an IP service provider? Do you mean content provider, a la Google or CNN or DSLReports? If that's what you mean, they will at least have to seriously think about it.
Besides what is it exactly that an IP Service Provider's payment will net the consumer? Doesn't Google, CNN, Yahoo, load fast enough today? Will an additional 10 ms mean that much? Remember, my argument above, and my acceptance of the general concept depends upon the status quo as it is today (and reasonable improvements as time goes on). If that doesn't hold true, then all bets are off.
If you mean IP service provider as ISP, what fee exactly will they be swallowing? It is the IP Service Provider that is collecting the fee.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to NGOwner
""If I read correctly, "you" in your post above means the consumer. That is disingenuous. The consumer is not being charged more. Certainly not directly, and due to market forces and the availability of more than sufficient alternate content providers, likely not indirectly either.""
"The consumer is not being charged" and "certainly not directly" - why bother with the post? If you charge the likes of VoIP, Video, etc, where do you think it ultimately lands? At the door of the conumer.
The terms "the buck stops here" and "trickle down" apply in this case because everything is going to make it back tot he consumer in the end. Those of us with a vonage account will remember the "Good News! We've lowered our $29.99 plant ot $24.99 plan"... we will soon get another message that says "Good News! We've only raised our price to $34.95 a month! Thats STILL cheaper than traditional phone" as if it's a good thing.
You also stated that it's your opinion that telcos and cablecos are not talking about current networks but the new build. While I agree with you, I also disagree at the same time. Remember Windows 98 and your old computer? You wanted Me or XP like everyone else right? You needed a new computer so you had to take on the "next generation" of computer to run the new and better products. (I say that tounge in cheek, for you Windows haters) Same thing with the internet. There really is no "next generation" of internet. The internet just keeps getting improved over time. Newer applications and new services need that improved internet. It's also why are internet fees (well, cable for the most part) are so high... it's because they use those higher fees to keep building the internet. PHONE, however, may under price their internt and bitch about not having money to build the internet which is a whole other argument. Ultimately, to use the new goodies on the internet that the higher speeds and throughput will require, you will have invented a QoS by default. "This internet is for those that have paid more, while THAT OLD internet is for everyone else".. by default, you have now invented, over time, a QoS situation.
When does the current internet become the "old internet" and the next generation internet become the "new internet?" The internet is the internet, period. Eventually their "pay for better service on the "new network" isn't going to cut it. That's the same as the whole dial up vs DSL argument. Dialup, for the most part, is a dinasaur thanks to the way phone has priced DSL. Dial up can be more expensive than DSL in some cases yet dial up is slower. This whole QoS argument or pay per packet type is in itself a smoke screen. This dog will only hunt for a short time, but it gives them time enough to sell their new ways while people forget about the "old ways"...
I have one other thing to say.. when SBC announced the $14.95 DSL a few months back, his statemet was "people will come here for the price. It's good for 12 months in which time we will have a chance to roll out our advanced services. Once they are a customer it's easier for us to market our services to them and keep them where they are as they are not as likely to roam elsewhere."
Migrating those who are willing to pay to the "new and faster" service will be those sitting there while this diversion plays out 'over time' making it easier to devalue the old way of providing internet. I hope this made sense. | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to NGOwner
I think it's clear Karl is talking about content providers.
Any thought that increased cost to content providers won't get passed on to consumers is naive--distressingly so, in fact. Money doesn't grow on trees. If it costs a content provider twice as much to distribute their product, they have to recover it somehow.
It's basic economic ignorance like this that gets us totally screwed up systems like USF.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
3 edits | said by calvoiper :Any thought that increased cost to content providers won't get passed on to consumers is naive--distressingly so, in fact. Money doesn't grow on trees. If it costs a content provider twice as much to distribute their product, they have to recover it somehow. It's basic economic ignorance like this that gets us totally screwed up systems like USF. calvoiper Counterpoint: »Good Ol' American Capitalism
said by NGOwner :There are far more options companies can use to allocate costs. Just because the cost of something increases (by small amounts or small percentages) doesn't mean that those increases are passed along to consumers. Many such increases are absorbed by the manufacturers, or recaptured elsewhere in the cost equation. To use your vernacular, calvoiper, it is distressing to me that there are those who, either naive or ignorant, believe that every cost increase experienced by a company is passed on to the consumer without any regard for the environment in which the company operates.
The fact remains, that given suffient quantities of like or identical replacement goods at like prices (which is, in my opinion, a fact in the content provider arena); the supplier of a single good (google, or CNN, or Napster) in that category DOES NOT has the ability to unilaterally raise price (for whatever reason) without negatively affecting their revenue, penetration, churn, margin, EBITDA, etc. figures. Any one company attempting to do so would be committing economic suicide.
A case study which illustrates pricing impotence in the face of rising costs is the airline industry. Costs for airlines has been rising steadily for years, yet the price of tickets (or to be more specific, the price per mile flown) has dropped over the same period. Why is that? Competition from other carriers with identical products.
Furthermore, your comment that it would cost the content provider twice as much to distribute their product is misguided and inflammatory. No one knows what the additional charge will be for preferred access, and as much as you believe it may be exactly that which a content provider is already paying for their own Internet connectivity, I am firmly in the camp that says it will not be anywhere near that amount. After all, if the product the telcos/cablecos will be offering is priced too high itself, no company will buy it. Economics 101.
I believe that content providers will be squeezed by the telcos and cablecos. These content providers will in turn be unable to pass whatever that cost increase there would be onto consumers because there is nothing "unique" in what the content providers are offering; unique in the sense that whatever is being provided by the content provider can't be obtained elsewhere on the Internet from some other content provider who decided not to pay the telco/cableco preferred QOS fee. Let's face it, most of us would rather save a few bucks a month and wait an extra five seconds for our bittorrent to download.
Lastly, all this is predicated on the fact/belief that the non QOS pipeline to the home works as well as it does now. Degradation of what we have today is NOT factored in to the argument.
[NG]Owner
P.S. USF is a government (FCC) mandated socialist program designed to enable ubiquitous telephone coverage throughout the United States at subsidized rates. I am sure you were not trying to confuse us by comparing capitalist workings of large companies using supply and demand to create a new product with a governmental mandate for ubiquity.
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| You may think that consumers haven't paid for recent cost increases that airlines have experienced, but have you flown lately? There are ways of passing "costs" along to consumers other than straight price increases, and those HAVE occurred. Free booze went a long time ago. Recently, free meals, free pillows, free headsets, free movies, and free blankets have gone away. Seat sizing has shrunk, both in "pitch" (legroom) on current jets and in width as US airlines are ordering the new Boeing 787 "Dreamliner" with 9-across seating instead of the expected 8-across seating. Cost pressures experienced by the airlines have most definitely been passed on to consumers, for consumers are getting much less than they used to. The fact that these costs have been passed along as service cutbacks rather than price increases is due to the airlines' perception of customer desires, but is not relevant to the concept that cost increases get passed along.
Additionally, the airline industry has three particular aspects which set it apart--first, very high "fixed" or "sunk" costs (which may be unrecoverable); second, significant overcapacity in the marketplace ; and third, widely varying cost structures within the industry (union/non-union, new/old aircraft, etc.)
The argument you make does apply in industries where companies providing essentially the same product have different production structures and cost increases hit one but not all producers--not the situation that the greedy RBOCs contemplate here. They will hit all providers with the "cost" of either "kickback payoffs" or decayed service.
The limited application of your argument is shown by your example that no single content provider could unilaterally raise prices--but this won't be ONE content provider--big Ed wants to squeeze them all. Rest assured, these cost increases will be passed along by multiple providers as surely as the cost of air bags and catalytic converters are passed along to today's auto buyers.
Indeed, with much current "content", particularly from portals and search engines being "free", there may be no direct "price increase". Instead, the available content will be cut back or restricted--still a "cost" passed on to the end user. There is indeed no product that some chiseler cannot make a little shoddier or cheaper.
Regardless of whether it comes as a price increase or a service cutback, I don't want to see end users indirectly feeding Big Ed and Little Ivan's piggybanks. If those guys need more cash for providing ISP service, they should raise their own prices (and restructure their rates to the extent necessary) and compete for the money, not squeeze it out of companies that have no say over whether and end user buys the extorting ISP's product or not.
calvoiper
PS--you don't like my USF example? Too bad, I still think it's a great example of what happens when costs are hidden and consumers have no choice about paying them. But let's consider an example perhaps more relevant--imposing taxes on businesses because businesses don't vote. These taxes of course get passed along to voters--or perhaps the businesses leave the jurisdiction. Of course, there's always some fuzzy thinker standing around willing to justify such fees, always saying that it can be "squeezed" out of the (evil) corporations without it being passed along to the consumer. Does this sound familiar? Maybe because Ed & Ivan's proposal is effectively a "content tax", but one that will fatten their piggybanks instead of the government treasury?
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
| said by calvoiper :The fact that these costs have been passed along as service cutbacks rather than price increases is due to the airlines' perception of customer desires, but is not relevant to the concept that cost increases get passed along. This is absolutely relevent. It is the crux of my argument. If consumers believed that such "free services" were worthwhile consumers would be willing to absorb the cost increases. People are not. Therefore the free services get axed. They weren't worthwhile in the eyes of the consumer in the first place. The only thing that matters to consumers is the hit to the pocketbook. Vote with your wallet. BTW if consumers want those free services, they still exist in first/business class for the appropriate upcharge. Oddly enough, the number of coach seats to first/business seats is roughly 15 to 1. I'd say the dollar signs win.
said by calvoiper :Additionally, the airline industry has three particular aspects which set it apart--first, very high "fixed" or "sunk" costs (which may be unrecoverable); second, significant overcapacity in the marketplace ; and third, widely varying cost structures within the industry (union/non-union, new/old aircraft, etc.) Sounds a lot like the telco industry to me.
said by calvoiper :The argument you make does apply in industries where companies providing essentially the same product have different production structures and cost increases hit one but not all producers--not the situation that the greedy RBOCs contemplate here. They will hit all providers with the "cost" of either "kickback payoffs" or decayed service. The limited application of your argument is shown by your example that no single content provider could unilaterally raise prices--but this won't be ONE content provider--big Ed wants to squeeze them all. False on two counts. First, service will not be decayed. Every telco exec has repeatedly said exactly that. Second, all providers will be given the opportunity to purchase the enhanced service. No one is required to. Content providers' service offerings will work tomorrow exactly like it works today. No improvement. No degradation.
Think of it as the three grades of gas at the pump. Content providers will be able to select the higher grade, but not forced to. The car will still run on the regular gas that's been available all the time. And frankly for 95% of the content providers out there, it won't make (economic, business, financial, distributional) sense to use Premium.
said by calvoiper :Rest assured, these cost increases will be passed along by multiple providers as surely as the cost of air bags and catalytic converters are passed along to today's auto buyers. Federally mandated safety improvements equally applicable to all automakers. Not optional. Different animal altogether. QOS is not a mandated product. Completely and fully optional. Behaviour will therefore be different.
said by calvoiper :Indeed, with much current "content", particularly from portals and search engines being "free", there may be no direct "price increase". Instead, the available content will be cut back or restricted--still a "cost" passed on to the end user. That remains to be seen. I for one don't believe it because content providers are not required (by any stretch of the imagination) to purchase this product, and content is not unique. (Substantially) the same content stuff will be available elsewhere for a price which does not include the additional cost of the QOS service, thereby limiting the ability of those who pay for the QOS service to raise price. Again, in my opinion there are only a precious few content providers who might perceive a competitive advantage to puchasing this new product. The simple availablility of a product is not inherently evil, as some are trying to convey.
Ultimately it will be the telco/cableco's new network. As long as things are made available on an equal basis, telcos/cablecos should be free to structure their products as they see fit.
said by calvoiper :Regardless of whether it comes as a price increase or a service cutback, I don't want to see end users indirectly feeding Big Ed and Little Ivan's piggybanks. If those guys need more cash for providing ISP service, they should raise their own prices (and restructure their rates to the extent necessary) and compete for the money, not squeeze it out of companies that have no say over whether and end user buys the extorting ISP's product or not. Once again, this QOS product is optional. Not required. It is a new product running on a to-be-built network (overlay or otherwise). They are doing exactly what you asked. And adopting the "fewer throats to choke" model.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Sure, sure--existing service won't be "decayed", it'll just be behind the "kickback klub" members.
We disagree as to whether these costs will be passed along to the end user.
Time will tell on these items. Let me ask you this--what is wrong with telling Big Ed to charge his customers for the service they are using, rather than trying to hold 3rd parties WHO ARE NOT HIS CUSTOMERS hostage?
Face it. Big Ed and Little Ivan can't compete straight up, so they are trying to retreat to what they know best--assessing fees against entities that are not their customers, but only want to reach their customers over lines that their customers are already paying for. RBOCs made huge profits charging LD companies to "access" their local customers, and they want to repeat this in the Internet world. They're extortionists, plain and simple.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
