dslreports logo
 story category
DirecTV's Network Neutrality Collision Course
Broadband VOD service beta starts to grow...

DirecTV is beta testing a new "on demand" service that will let broadband-connected HR-20 DVR owners download content from the Internet. The service will let you record up to three shows at once (two live feeds, one broadband download). The company has slowly been adding participants to the beta.

Click for full size

All HR20-700's received the national release software about a week ago, which enabled DOD by default. This only happened if your unit is network connected. The HR20-100 has had the service in beta test software releases for about 3 weeks.

The service is clearly still in beta (the word beta plastered on the GUI reminds you if you'd forgotten), and at the moment there is no HD content.

We're watching this rollout closely, given it's a particularly interesting shift in the industry. Niche web-based video delivery systems are springing up like garden weeds -- but here we have a major, mainstream satellite company using their competitors' bandwidth in order to (eventually) deliver massive volumes of HD content via DVR.

Click for full size
We recently asked Comcast's PR department how the company felt about DirecTV's system clogging their tubes, and the project wasn't yet on their radar. We have a feeling it will be before too long.

It begs the question: what happens when a cable or TelcoTV operator decides that DirecTV users are utilizing too much bandwidth for video delivery? Currently it's easy for Comcast to justify their traffic shaping as a legitimate anti-piracy weapon that impacts a minority of users. But what happens when millions of DirecTV users, in a quest for legitimate video, suddenly become "bandwidth hogs"?

Does an incumbent operator's right to manage their network bandwidth include the right to de-prioritize legitimate, competing video content? We're not sure we can think of a looming service that's going to test the network neutrality, cap and traffic shaping waters more thoroughly than DirecTV's VOD system.
view:
topics flat nest 

drmorley
MVM
join:2000-12-20
Three Lakes, WI

1 edit

drmorley

MVM

It's pretty sweet

There's no HD content being offered yet, but there's a crapload of shows from tens of networks available for download.

Yeah, I downloaded two seasons of Celebrity Mole.

I pity the fool that tries to use this service with Comcast HSI. Those invisible caps will be well within reach of average users once they start downloading HD content.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

2 recommendations

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: It's pretty sweet

said by drmorley:

I pity the fool that tries to use this service with Comcast HSI. Those invisible caps will be well within reach of average users once they start downloading HD content.
I pitty them too..

I also find it a little odd that providers like DirecTV are trying to offset part of their business model to other providers. DirecTV should be operating their service through their own broadband network. Maybe they won't because they'd be violating their own FAP too quickly.. I smell irony here.

If the end user wanted to send the request out through the broadband and then initiate the download through their own network using the direct-duo service (their own internet) then that would be one thing.. but DirecTV is passing on, like so many others, their traffic and costs to other providers.

I will make a prediction right now.. it's this type of actions from other providers which will push Comcast into a billing by the meg system. Mark my word. Don't think that DSL won't be too far behind either. Neither side - NO provider for that matter - is going to sit back and accept the cost for others to do business on their backs.

When you start pushing everything under the sun through the internet and the networks are impacted - someone is going to have to pay for it.

For the longest time I've never agreed with the SBC push to bill 3rd party content providers such as this.. but to be honest, the more and more this is happening, the more I agree with it.

Either the consumer will pay for this, the ISP will pay for this, or those that want to put their content on the lines will pay for it.. however, the ones that are pushing the content are making the money and therefor, I say let them pay the ISPs. That makes the most sense, business wise, anyway. If this model takes play, the consumer will ultimately win anyway.. let the corporations pay the corporations.

Camelot One
MVM
join:2001-11-21
Bloomington, IN

Camelot One

MVM

Re: It's pretty sweet

Video on Demand has been the one (and only in my opinion) thing Cable has had over DirecTV. So I think that fact alone is motivating them to roll this out, more than the idea of offloading the cost of distribution.

And while I agree with parts of your opinion, I also view it as "you advertised it, now provide it" when it comes to the internet connection itself. AT&T has said absolutely nothing to me (their customer) about not using my 6000/768 lines to move data at 6000/768. They bill me for 6000/768, and therefore I feel they have no say in what I use that connection to download. (setting aside the arguments over pirated material)

That said, I am one of the beta testers, and even given the small number of us that were using the DoD service during it's beta only trial, not once did it max out my connection. Some speculate the DTV servers just didn't have the output bandwidth to do so, but with this now a national release, they should. I think DTV is probably limiting the speed, be it on their end or via a setting on the box. So while monthly caps could still be a complaint, there really isn't an argument of them clogging up the lines with a high throughput.

dbmaven
There's no shortage
Mod
join:1999-10-26
Sty in Sky

1 recommendation

dbmaven to fiberguy2

Mod

to fiberguy2
said by fiberguy2:

DirecTV should be operating their service through their own broadband network. Maybe they won't because they'd be violating their own FAP too quickly.. I smell irony here.

If the end user wanted to send the request out through the broadband and then initiate the download through their own network using the direct-duo service (their own internet) then that would be one thing.. but DirecTV is passing on, like so many others, their traffic and costs to other providers.
DirecTV doesn't have "a network" - the former DirecWay service was spun off over 18 months ago and is now called HughesNet, and has nothing to do with DirecTV.

Interesting that TiVO is looking at similar content delivery opportunities:
Rogers also sees great potential in developing the broadband delivery of content to TiVos, noting that almost 1 million TiVo users have connected their DVRs to the Internet.

“That will be the catalyst for the on-demand world,” he said, adding: “The cable industry made a bad bet… video-on-demand is a highly constrained infrastructure. We have 15,000 titles via Amazon, and they’re encoding thousands more each month. The video-on-demand infrastructure just can’t match that.”
»www.multichannel.com/art ··· 350.html

Hmmmm. But since TiVO is in bed with Comcast and Cox, that's probably OK - unless of course you're using your TiVO to do content delivery via broadband using another ISP.....

As stated in the original article, and I agree - this will be a significant test of net neutrality. Precisely why I beleive that DirecTV will need to add some 'controls' to the product - specifying windows to allow/disallow downloads (only download after midnight and before 6AM) and bandwidth percentages/QoS limits (only use 25% of the max bandwidth I have available).

Camelot One
MVM
join:2001-11-21
Bloomington, IN

Camelot One

MVM

Re: It's pretty sweet

See my post above. I don't think they are using any sort of download times window, but something is limiting the bandwidth. (not sure if it's lack of output capabillity, or on purpose though)

dbmaven
There's no shortage
Mod
join:1999-10-26
Sty in Sky

dbmaven

Mod

Re: It's pretty sweet

We're talking about entirely different things.

D* is limiting the outbound bandwidth - kind of like a valve at a dam that only lets a certain amount of water out at a time. That may be so that they can simulate the expected download times when the service is generally available. Imagine if they didn't limit it now, and the few users that are using it got the full pipe ? Those users would be spoiled, and when the load ramped up, they'd be screaming about how "the downloads suck now - they're taking 15 times longer than they used to !"

I'm describing an enhancement on the HR2x receivers that allow a user to specify:
•when to allow DOD downloads by hours of the day
•how much of the target connection bandwidth to use. If I have a 6mpbs connection, I want to limit what DOD uses to one-third of that, or a max of 2mbps. Effectively, it's a form of QoS for the receiver. And since the download appears to be taking place over ports 80 and 8080 (straight old http or https), it would be difficult to throttle that in your router.

dervari2
join:2000-01-17
Atlanta, GA

dervari2

Member

Re: It's pretty sweet

It's not hard at all. I have a policy set up that any connections initiated by my HR20 is limited to 4mb/s GBW and 6mb/s MBW. That still leaves me 4mb/s to play with when I'm downloading and want to surf/usenet/etc.

karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Moscow, ID

karlmarx to fiberguy2

Member

to fiberguy2
But the corporation is ALREADY paying the corporation. Or do you think Direct-TV is a free backbone provider? DirectTV can't SEND the data any faster than their pipes allow. In the end, there shouldn't be any change in the services/pricing, since everyone is ALREADY compensated for whatever bandwidth they are using.

What I would REALLY like to see, is DirectTV to use a torrent based system to provide the shows. That would allow them to provide MUCH faster bandwith, to many more people, at the same time. Guess what COMCRAP, your little sandvine experiment will come crashing to the ground, as net neutrality advocates will most CERTAINLY have a case to argue that the technology is interfering with LEGITIMATE traffic.

The ONLY solution, which is the one I advocate, is that the ISP's only SELL what they CAN PROVIDE. If comcast is incapable, or unwilling to provide the bandwidth THEY ARE SELLING, then they either need to lower the speed, OR upgrade their networks to provide WHAT THEY ADVERTISE.

sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ

1 edit

1 recommendation

sporkme to fiberguy2

MVM

to fiberguy2
said by fiberguy2:

I also find it a little odd that providers like DirecTV are trying to offset part of their business model to other providers.
...

If the end user wanted to send the request out through the broadband and then initiate the download through their own network using the direct-duo service (their own internet) then that would be one thing.. but DirecTV is passing on, like so many others, their traffic and costs to other providers.
You seem pretty clueless about how the internets work.

DirecTV, or really anyone who provides any sort of content, has to pay for the bandwidth they consume. They pay this to either a hosting outfit or to whomever their bandwidth provider is. It is not their responsibility to help comcast or whomever modernize their network, the subscribers pay for that. There is zero precedence for Whitaker's "hoster pays twice" model.

Do you think Justin should bill each ISP for every post here? Sounds silly, doesn't it?

edit: quite entertaining reading your follow-ups. So you're a hoster and you believe you should pay both your 3 transit providers and every access network your customers want to reach. Interesting viewpoint, but still smells like arguing for the sake of arguing to me.

You're argument is not compelling in the least - if you're in the business you know DTV is not getting a "free ride" - you know full well they are paying their transit provider to deliver their traffic. You should also know full well that the more they use the more they pay.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

2 recommendations

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: It's pretty sweet

Look, clueless Charlie.. don't assume shit. ok?

I happen to own my own ISP, data center, and 3 redundant connections to serve my facility. I know how the internet works. I also know that You pay for what you transport on the internet as well.

You guys continue to live in your utopia world more and more each day. I stand by my comments and won't back down to internet hippies that want it all for nothing.

The way you guys view the internet is this sort of free ride on the world.. it's electronic so it must be free. You couldn't be far from true. You also don't have any respect for TOS agreements.. you guys seem to think that typical residential use is wide open throttles as well. You're going to continue to define things the way you are.

People like you guys are dangerous to the rest of us, and the mass in whole. You want to say your so-called freedom fighters, or soldiers of network neutrality, a myth at best right now. You guys cry for all this network freedom and all you're going to do, which you all have conveniently avoided, is cause the masses to start limiting their use or paying like they're at the gas pump.

I"m getting sick and tired of you modern day hippies who won't live in the REAL WORLD while sitting with rose colored glasses on acting like you know it all. Wake up and smell the pot you're smoking. When you start looking at the whole picture and not your own selfish needs, then maybe you will realize what impact you are having on everyone. What people like you propose only ends up doing more damage than good since you can only see life with blinders on.

While in theory, you're right that networks need to be upgraded.. but I've got news for you, clueless, it doesn't happen over night, and it ain't cheap. Who's going to pay for it? And back off the corporate "they're being over paid" crap. Business isn't in business to break even.. it's there to make a profit. If the current models in place didn't work, you'd still be dialing up on your 33.6 modem over a twisted pair on your second line that cost you $22 a month and the dial up account for $25 paying damn near $50 to which you can pay as little as $15 today and share the connection.

Stop with your "modernize their network" crap. It's an 8 year old (circa) network and I'd say that's anything BUT not modern.

Stop acting like you are owed something. If DirecTV wants to offer a VOD service (which the name is a little deceiving at best) then let them do it over their own infrustructure. Yes - I have a REAL problem when one company in the same business wants to utilize the network of another. The day where your Satellite based "VOD" service interrupts my ability to use the internet is the day you see the real fight.

People come to this site almost daily crying that their connections are slow.. same time, bandwidth hogs come here crying because they are cut off. Guess what - it's not YOUR place to tell ANY ISP to update their network. The key is "THEIR NETWORK"... you have every right NOT to buy it.. be it Comcast or AT&T..it's something you are renting. Don't like it? move on. Just because it's invented doesn't mean it has a place on the internet. As things mature, sure.. but right now.. no. Your desires don't trump my rights.

Don't like it? too bad. I'm really sick and tired of you cry babies who want it all for $14.95 a month and don't care about anyone else than yourself.

I know things are changing but I'm realistic in my expectations and know it takes time... I'm not selfish like you. You want VOD? Go to a provider that can provide "VOD".. not Video-When-Ever.

drmorley
MVM
join:2000-12-20
Three Lakes, WI

drmorley

MVM

Re: It's pretty sweet

You have the makings of a compelling argument, however when you resort to name calling and condescension you lose whatever cred you might of had.

fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: It's pretty sweet

I believe the condescending name calling started, as usual, on the other side of the fence. But, since most people don't agree with my point of view, people tend to ignore or dismiss those who attack from the other side. It's ok.. I'm used to it around here.

karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Moscow, ID

1 recommendation

karlmarx to fiberguy2

Member

to fiberguy2
So, you are your own ISP. That explains a LOT. What do you sell exactly? Access to fiberguy network? I mean, you're like AOL, right? People can connect to YOUR NETWORK, and use it on YOUR TERMS. Of course, they can't get to google, or youtube, or anywhere else, but at least you can control your costs.

NO, you don't sell FIBERGUY network access, you sell INTERNET access. So, MAYBE you aren't charging enough. Why don't you try and sell 1mb access for $1000.00 a month. Oh, wait, you CAN'T, cause no-one would buy it. So please explain exactly what you sell? Cause from all your whining, it sure sounds like you are selling 'some sort of limited access to some places where me (the corp) gets to decide you can go'. If that's what your SELLING, then that's what you should advertise, and see how many customers you get.

AGAIN, it's NOT YOUR PIPE. WE are paying YOU to TRANSPORT DATA. PERIOD. DirectTV is paying SOMEONE to TRANSPORT DATA. PERIOD. DirectTV CAN'T SEND MORE THAN THEY PAY FOR. WE CAN'T RECIEVE MORE THAN WE PAY FOR.

It's as simple as that.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: It's pretty sweet

Nope... there you go assuming again.. it's called HOSTING and DATA SERVICES. Where did I say I offered access?
itguy05
join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA

1 recommendation

itguy05

Member

Re: It's pretty sweet

quote:
Where did I say I offered access?
Right here....
quote:
I happen to own my own ISP, data center, and 3 redundant connections to serve my facility. I know how the internet works. I also know that You pay for what you transport on the internet as well.
And I'm glad you don't run my ISP or host my website. Just a hint: I pay Comcast for INTERNET ACCESS. What I do with that access is my business. Period. Same as the phone. You didn't hear the phone companies bitch when the Internet first started because those of us with modems were staying connected to our ISPs for hours and hours with our unlimited local phone calls? Same with the ISP's. Put up or shut up.
Enlightener
join:2006-01-28
Cedar Park, TX

Enlightener to fiberguy2

Member

to fiberguy2
I can't agree with you at all. DirecTV pays the cost in servers and network peering costs for the bandwidth and I pay the cost to AT&T to get my 6MB FTTP connection.

DirecTV isn't getting a free ride from AT&T. Please....
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory

Member

Re: It's pretty sweet

Well, Now we all know why fiberguy is the avatar of the ISP "dumb pipe".

factchecker
@bellsouth.net

factchecker to fiberguy2

Anon

to fiberguy2
If the end user wanted to send the request out through the broadband and then initiate the download through their own network using the direct-duo service (their own internet) then that would be one thing.. but DirecTV is passing on, like so many others, their traffic and costs to other providers.
Completely, totally and utterly false. That statement would only be true if DirecTv was not paying for the bandwidth that connects them to the internet. The FACT is that Directv pays for access to its providers, on up the chain. No one is getting a free ride.

Perhaps you need to hang out in a group like NANOG where people who know what they are talking about can explain it to you because it is clear you don't have a clue, even for someone who claims they own an service provider.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory to fiberguy2

Member

to fiberguy2
Well, I consider the rate hikes by some cable companies as the customer paying for the bandwidth. I hope DirecTV causes the issue to bubble to the surface with this. That way we can get a clear answer from the gov't. The bandwidth is cheaper than we think to provide. The ISP should have been building towards this over the last decade...

dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI

dnoyeB to fiberguy2

Member

to fiberguy2
I'm not buying into it. I paid for the bandwidth. Its not Comcast's its mine. And its not DirectTV users downloading HD Content, its Comcast users downloading HD content as you can't download HD contant over Comcast's network unless you are a paying Comcast user.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 edit

1 recommendation

FFH5

Premium Member

Caps and pay-by-byte is just around the corner

said by fiberguy2:

I also find it a little odd that providers like DirecTV are trying to offset part of their business model to other providers.

DirecTV is passing on, like so many others, their traffic and costs to other providers.

I will make a prediction right now.. it's this type of actions from other providers which will push Comcast into a billing by the meg system. Mark my word. Don't think that DSL won't be too far behind either.
This will just be one more thing that will drive all the ISPs to either implement monthly transfer caps or reduce the size of their caps. Or they will start charging for "tiers by bytes transferred" instead of "tiers by speed".

JasonD
@comcast.net

JasonD

Anon

Re: Caps and pay-by-byte is just around the corner

I'm all for byte billing if it's fair. Wholesale bandwidth pricing for the big guys is cheap (somewhere south of 5 cents per gig). If whimpy Canadian provider TekSavvy can offer increments of 100 gigs for $10.00 if paid up front, with overages at .25 a gig, Comcast could certainly do better.

.........But we all know that won't happen, so I'm not holding my breath for anything to change anytime soon.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

4 edits

1 recommendation

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: Caps and pay-by-byte is just around the corner

Again, the only way that billing-by-the-byte takes off in the U.S. market is if every single ISP gets together and decides they're willing to implement an entirely new pricing scheme in unison while completely ignoring consumer revolt. An ISP would take major subscriber losses were they to single-handedly try to change the American pricing model to mirror Australia's just to please investors like Tom (HCT, Retire Rich, TCH, or whatever pseudonym he's using this month).

If Comcast started suddenly billing by usage, customers would flee to competing bell services. It would be marketing seppuku in an industry that's drilled unlimited use into the consumer consciousness.

I expect we might start seeing overage fees in extreme (400GB+ monthly) cases, but that will be the extent of this model in the U.S. I think this face-fanning, capacity apocalypse rhetoric is largely the territory of men in the industry eager to buy new boats.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

1 recommendation

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Caps and pay-by-byte is just around the corner

Boy did you just rear your ugly socialist little head, Karl.

It's all about new boats huh? Seriously... jealous of those who worked hard and earned something? I suppose anyone that does work hard to get where they are should give it up so you can have cheaper broadband?

And no.. you're also wrong. You see things only one way - and it shows you have no business experience what so ever.

There are two ways prices raise.. one, you're right.. they tend to do it at once. RARE.. VERY RARE. The only industry, outside of regulated industries, that raise in lockstep are the airlines. The other way is usually when one person takes the first step - the others fall in step. Gas stations do this all the time. One of the 4 corners will raise a nickel and the others will follow the next day.

It's funny how you talk about Comcast in your example with customer who would flee to competing bell services. All I've seen in the news is Bell wanting to charge more for transport - and mostly because they cut their own throats when they tried to undercut Cable with the $14.95 pricing. It was only then that the 3rd rail charges reared...

I don't buy your take on this at all. It's clear you hate cable, and that's your choice, but your opinions are far from reality.
Enlightener
join:2006-01-28
Cedar Park, TX

Enlightener

Member

Re: Caps and pay-by-byte is just around the corner

You clearly don't know anything about gas stations or airlines.

In the case of airlines ( I have a lot of friends in revenue mgmt at a major US airline ) and the way it always goes down is one carrier raises the price and then prays to God that the others will follow so it can `stick`. It almost never does. One or two might match and then one will go back and others will chase them in fear. You'll hear exec's talking about how `we are a premium product` but it's all B.S. Travel ( and gas and internet access ) is a commodity product.

And in gas stations... you'll frequently find different prices for gas on different sides of the street because the pricing is all done by zones.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Caps and pay-by-byte is just around the corner

Clearly huh? You say I clearly don't know anything about it and then you confirmed what I said. Nice.
Expand your moderator at work

sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ

sporkme to fiberguy2

MVM

to fiberguy2

Re: Caps and pay-by-byte is just around the corner

said by fiberguy2:

Boy did you just rear your ugly socialist little head, Karl.
...says the guy that railed against name-calling earlier
said by fiberguy2:

It's all about new boats huh? Seriously... jealous of those who worked hard and earned something? I suppose anyone that does work hard to get where they are should give it up so you can have cheaper broadband?
See, here's what I love about your posts. Let's lay out how we get to pot-kettle-black territory:

-You claim DTV is in the wrong with this because they are getting "free" bandwidth, since they'll only be paying a ton of cash to whomever their transit providers are. They make money on the VOD service, they pay their transit providers to deliver the bandwidth to customers, they pay the copyright owners for the showing.

-You then state that you are an "ISP" and a "datacenter" with 3 whole connections. You also state quite clearly that you only do hosting and don't do any access. As someone who's also in the business, I can describe your traffic as very assymetrical. You send out data that end-users at home or work request and do not receive a large amount of data from customers

-Knowing that these 3 other ISPs that you buy bandwidth from do not generally give it away for free, I think we can assume you pay three bills for transit each month. (hint: consider some access - the way most people bill, you have a bunch of "free" inbound traffic you're leaving on the table - don't thank me, that tip's on the house).

-Looking at the above, it sure looks like you are getting the same "free ride" that DTV is. The only difference is the content you're hosting.

Please explain, Mr. Black Kettle.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

1 recommendation

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Caps and pay-by-byte is just around the corner

I can see what you are saying however there are two things here.

1) My particular product line is what pretty much built the internet today. My "three whole connections" (Pretty standard redundant connection these days there bud.. ) I pay for the amount of data I transport. My customers are putting their websites on the internet.. they're not running a television network over it.

2) DirecTV is not a "web provider".. they are a TV distributor that wants to move from the direct to home model (ie: satellite beamed) to selling their content over another provider's line.

In my opinion, that's where the difference is.

I'm all for the internet evolving, however, I'm also in belief that the mass majority of home users want to use residential type use.. they don't want to run their televisions over the internet. I don't think the internet is anywhere near ready to handle everything that's being thrown at it - but in time it will.

I personally don't care to see my use deteriorate because some shmow wants to save a nickel (so they think) by getting something over the internet.

Some people think that because it's E-based that it will be cheaper - that's far from true in the long run. Eventually, and very quickly, the cost will go from BnM businesses to the internet. This move on the part of people like DirecTV will only make the internet more expensive for the masses, or, simply limit what people will be able to do with it void of paying expensive overages.

I'd rather let the internet evolve at a pace it can handle rather than going to the phone bill model of a base rate and then per minute charges for long distance. I like having one flat bill for reasonable use. There is this small group of so-called internet pioneer warriors that think they are going to gain a victory for the masses when all they are doing is messing things up for the majority.

Those people should be proud of themselves.. and then tarred and feathered.

sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ

sporkme

MVM

Re: Caps and pay-by-byte is just around the corner

said by fiberguy2:

I can see what you are saying however there are two things here.

1) My particular product line is what pretty much built the internet today. My "three whole connections" (Pretty standard redundant connection these days there bud.. ) I pay for the amount of data I transport. My customers are putting their websites on the internet.. they're not running a television network over it.

So you both pay, you both serve content, but somehow DTV is getting a "free ride" and you are not. ????
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory to fiberguy2

Member

to fiberguy2
Funny, gas stations around here usually raise it all at the same time, city wide. I rarely see a price difference from one side of town to the other... Talk about oligopoly... Hopefully there are enough ISPs around to not let this happen.

I'm all for profit. I owned a business and worked really hard only to have it wiped out by a hurricane a couple of years ago. I don't not want you to make a profit.
I like to make money as much as the next person, but I also like to treat the consumer fairly. There can be a happy medium.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Caps and pay-by-byte is just around the corner

You're right about treating the consumer fairly - however, as you know that's objectionable.

For example, I'd say that $29.00 broadband connections are MORE than fair yet many here don't feel that way. They think it should be less and less and less. $29 is fair considering dial up at $25 (not including the second phone line fees) was just behind us. not to mention, you couldn't share it and the connection was pretty worthless. Now, for about $30 average, you get a good rate of speed that multiple computers can use.

Many people believe it's over priced, even at $40 which is STILL far less that what dial up cost a few short years back.

Some people look at price alone when they wonder if they are being treated fairly. They'll look at, say, your price for something.. find it cheaper elsewhere on price alone, and then look at you like you're ripping them off. They don't take into consideration many factors such as what the product is and what you get for that money.

People, by large, are not fair, or to be honest, well educated, in their perceptions and don't take the time to enhance their knowledge. Often time, the consumer's anger is misplaced or unfounded. (Not a popular opinion around a group of such 'informed' consumers here ) And yea.. I honestly feel that the average consumer is an idiot.

All I can do, and have ever done all my life, is do the best job I can for my customer (be it one of my own, or a customer of my employers) and know that I did the best I possibly could. In myself, I know I did the right thing. In the end, if the consumer doesn't like it, they can go elsewhere. What I've found, many times over, is these well informed, and sometimes unhappy consumers, bail for the most idiotic reason, spend more money in the long run, and eventually come back because they realize they were wrong in the first place.

This country has fuck-up fatigue. It is quickly losing grip with reality in the name of "I need to feel important and good about everything"...

I have a very blunt and direct attitude towards life and things around me and that's my choice. Some people want to spend their time chasing every penny in quantity.. I, however, chase quality. In the long run, I get a better class of customer and I get a better return on my investment and time. I never cow-tow to a customer who calls in and feels butt hurt over something and then wants a free year of everything. I will do EVERYTHING to make a customer whole and right, but I do NOT and NEVER will EVER give a consumer any "Credits" for when they feel they were wronged. Shit happens all the time and I believe you make it right for them.

There are many things that make up "consumer fairness"... I just go about it a different way than the average consumer would like me to. To be honest... if my customer base was made up of BBR people, I'd go broke. I honestly would never cater to this crowd. (Just being honest here) I frequently cut ties with people who are unreasonable and out of line regularly. In this particular business line I have, the product is solid and it is priced well. I have no room for the constant complainer who's expectations are higher than they should be.

I believe there are MANY ways to provider value and fairness to the consumer and I attack that on many fronts. I just don't give in to unreasonable demands.. I'm very aware of the consumer who plays business to their advantage with baseless threats (see - "how do I play the cable company for a better price? .. should I threaten to leave?") and the consumer who complains to no end in order to get the company to give something for free. We live in a world of "you hurt me, now give me something free"... I refuse.

In the end - I'm here, I've weathered many storms, I've been growing strong, and I have a customer base of extremely satisfied customers.

So, I believe that I've found MY happy medium.

And by the way.. I've noticed in WI the same thing on prices at the pump. They all raise fairly quickly and all do it about the same time. When I first started working, it was for Chevron corporation. I'm pretty well verse on how they raise their prices... and I will also say that how prices raise today are not the same way just a few short years ago. It's more volatile today then before.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to JasonD

Premium Member

to JasonD
said by JasonD :

Wholesale bandwidth pricing for the big guys is cheap (somewhere south of 5 cents per gig).
The price you quote is for backbone transfer prices. It does NOT include the costs of upgrading residential distribution networks to handle much larger bandwidth loads. The cost to do those upgrades has to be included in the "per byte tiers". And it won't be 5 cents or 25 cents per gig. It would have to be closer to a $1/gig.

•••••••

jgnj
@verizon.net

jgnj to JasonD

Anon

to JasonD
There needs to be a way of making sure that one of my kids does not click on a link that cost me $50 in bandwidth overages.

Whiskey Tango
@ameritech.net

1 recommendation

Whiskey Tango

Anon

Re: Caps and pay-by-byte is just around the corner

Yes.

Don't let them click on any links.
gaforces (banned)
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA

gaforces (banned) to jgnj

Member

to jgnj
said by jgnj :

There needs to be a way of making sure that one of my kids does not click on a link that cost me $50 in bandwidth overages.
Id smash my computer if that were even possible.
We will just have to bypass those carriers lines that attempt to destroy the internet by overcharging.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory to JasonD

Member

to JasonD
Gee, we in the U.S. can go to this like the Brits do for their home phone service. Pay by the minute... That's not going to work here.

EverAndAnon
@verizon.net

EverAndAnon

Anon

A file is a file is a file...

It's not "their" bandwidth; it's "my" bandwidth--I'm paying for it, so I expect to use it in any legal way I see fit.

••••••

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

itguy05 (Since the other topic is locked)

said by itguy05:

Just a hint: I pay Comcast for INTERNET ACCESS. What I do with that access is my business. Period. Same as the phone. You didn't hear the phone companies bitch when the Internet first started because those of us with modems were staying connected to our ISPs for hours and hours with our unlimited local phone calls? Same with the ISP's. Put up or shut up.
Actually, the phone companies *DID* complain quite loudly before broadband started gaining wide adoption and took some of the pressure off the PSTN. It took 3 seconds with google to find a bunch of examples like these:

»pqasb.pqarchiver.com/was ··· l=google

»ardmoreite.com/stories/0 ··· e03.html

If you want a dedicated connection that you can truly do whatever you want with, be prepared to shell out a heck of a lot more than $50/mo.

•••••

Bell System
Premium Member
join:2005-12-04
Strongsville, OH

Bell System

Premium Member

Unmetered Electric

It seems right now the "internet" is much like the power grid in it's infancy. People payed for a line and used power. Soon after, meters came into play for obvious reasons. Can you imagine, you pay electric company a $50 charge every month for all-you-can-eat power? Instead we pay access charges every month, then for every kilowatt-hour. Same with water/sewer; same with gas/propane. How easy would it be for data providers to do the very same. Likely the only reason it is not yet that way is because of competition. In fact, believe that is the case. Doubt not that every ISP wants it to be the latter of the electricity example... as I believe it should be.

••••••
stridr69
join:2003-05-19
San Luis Obispo, CA

stridr69

Member

Content..

I'm curious how DTV is going to provide INSTANT On-Demand service. I'll bet you'll have to plan ahead, which is what I already do with my cable DVR when I want to record a movie/TV show, ect.... On-Demand is just that-I WANT IT NOW!!!
I want to see some specifications-like how fat a pipe do you need to get the true on-demand service.
Since I have on-demand thru Charter cable I'll guess around 6Mbs.
On-Demand is nice, but the controls aren't like using a DVD(or a recorded dvr show)-as in WAY SLOW reaction times, ect.
Otherwise, I love it.
If DTV can pull this off..well....

•••