openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to nasadude
Re: Let's call a spade a spade here
I don't subscribe to the "if an incumbent telco does it, it can't be wrong" philosophy, but I do subscribe to the belief that managing finite resources is a must for maintaining enjoyment of the finite resource. |
|
Yauch
join:2005-06-24
| said by 82.7% of the DSLR readers :
But like I read in a forum somewhere they they can just like flip a switch and stuff. The resources aren't finite cause if they wanted bandwidth more they could just liek do it.
|
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9  :I don't subscribe to the "if an incumbent telco does it, it can't be wrong" philosophy, but I do subscribe to the belief that managing finite resources is a must for maintaining enjoyment of the finite resource. well, you certainly buy into the telco framing about the network - their goal is to create bandwidth scarcity so they can pretend it is a much more limited resource than it actually is.
I would be willing bet that if the incumbents start charging web sites and applications for "speedier" delivery over non-paying ones, they are not going to go out on a capital spending binge to add capacity. As a matter of fact, failing to add capacity simply enhances their business model - as bandwidth demand grows providers can simply claim they can't keep up, they need more money for upgrades and raise rates.
I'll keep saying it: the easiest (and maybe cheapest) way to solve a bandwidth crunch is to add more bandwidth.
most of what I read indicates that bandwidth costs are low. how much does a large cableco have to spend for traffic management/shaping/interfering/snooping/whatever equipment?
regardless, the telcos and cablecos will milk consumers for billions of dollars until stopped by the government or a miracle occurs and competition develops (although the govt stopping this anytime soon would be a minor miracle) |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| said by nasadude :well, you certainly buy into the telco framing about the network - their goal is to create bandwidth scarcity so they can pretend it is a much more limited resource than it actually is. Even though excess capacity may be available at certain points in networks, and adding additional capacity to those points might not cost that much in comparison to building out the initial infrastructure, network capacity is still finite. Besides, I don't think any of the major carriers are seriously complaining about bandwidth issues on their core backbones, the concern is further down the path.said by nasadude :I would be willing bet that if the incumbents start charging web sites and applications for "speedier" delivery over non-paying ones, they are not going to go out on a capital spending binge to add capacity. You're foolish to think that increased SLAs and revenue won't drive capital investments in infrastructure.said by nasadude :I'll keep saying it: the easiest (and maybe cheapest) way to solve a bandwidth crunch is to add more bandwidth. Easiest...obviously. Cheapest...debatable.said by nasadude :most of what I read indicates that bandwidth costs are low. how much does a large cableco have to spend for traffic management/shaping/interfering/snooping/whatever equipment? I've read those non-fact based posts around here also.said by nasadude :regardless, the telcos and cablecos will milk consumers for billions of dollars until stopped by the government or a miracle occurs and competition develops (although the govt stopping this anytime soon would be a minor miracle) Because government intervention has a great track record for saving citizens money  |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :I don't subscribe to the "if an incumbent telco does it, it can't be wrong" philosophy, but I do subscribe to the belief that managing finite resources is a must for maintaining enjoyment of the finite resource. It is finite ONLY because the Connectivity Provider (Telco or Cable) is unwilling to spend the money to increase the resources when the demand approaches/exceeds what they are currently willing/able to provide. IOW: The "Finite Resources" are a product of an Artificial not a Real Scarcity. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Resources will always be finite. ISPs are investing a lot of money (Verizon =$18B, AT&T=$5B, cablecos=????) for "last mile" connectivity. Additionally, ISPs are continually investing money in their backbones to increase capacity. Explain the "artificial" scarcity to me. |
|
