FightingBlue
join:2006-04-08
Warsaw, NY
| reply to kamm
Re: Slingbox issues have a solution: pay per bit
Kamm is correct here: the reality is that if networks can't keep up with people using them, the network has to be fixed. Period. And charging more isn't the answer--in fact, it's possibly the stupidest idea in the whole mess. There's no shortage of bandwidth. If you look at all the dark fiber and other unused trunk space, you'd realize that service providers, particularly backbone providers are trying to sell bottled water for $20 a gallon. Then they have the temerity to complain when someone actually uses the service as promised, because that shaves a little off their profit margins, and reduces how much they can oversell their service without upgrading it. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| I'm amused that the argument here focused so quickly on cable ISPs and their overbuilding needs--the article focused on Verizon Wireless, not cable.
I'm also in that school of thought that ISPs may have to charge by the bit to cover the cost of shared facilities (i.e., connections at peering points and the backhaul from those points to the local hub). I also agree that not immediately building facilities to let every user have 100% bandwidth to the peering points 24/7 makes good economic sense.
In the next breath, however, it's necessary to say that the ISPs' obligations include building enough shared facilities to handle demand and to disclose any limits they may place on their services up front. Having "invisible" caps is ridiculous and likely a deceptive trade practice.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
kammer
@comcast.net
| That's because people like kamm are BBR's telco lobby. In case you haven't noticed, pretty much anything he says is somehow related to how evil cable companies are.
If he were really unbiased, he'd simply say the truth: both the telco and cable industries are greedy and stupid. |
|
