  Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | The sad part is.... The sad part is there are consumers even that post here on DSLreports that think Netflix gets a free ride.
I wish people were not so stupid. | |
|
 | | | Re: The sad part is.... everybody knows netflix gets free internet. | |
|
| |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | Re: The sad part is.... said by nanaki333:everybody knows netflix gets free internet.
whos their provider? Linksys? 
--
Oh YES! let me drop everything i'm doing regardless of who it affects to deal with your petty little problem! | |
|
| | |  pranky
join:2001-04-17
Mount Kisco, NY | Re: The sad part is.... whos their provider? Linksys?
| |
|
| Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Telco / CableCo wants to break this into a multi tiered method with tarrifs/tolls along the way, similar to old telco style (local loop + long distance + connect fee).
Last mile (first mile) folks want a big chunk - and is the most visible (customer end).
The tier1 / tier 2 providers are the grey area. | |
|
| | | John Sununu and former Rep. Harold Ford Jr are both dicks.
nuff said | |
|
| | rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
·Bright House
| Re: The sad part is.... said by gorehound:John Sununu and former Rep. Harold Ford Jr are both dicks.
nuff said Yes, but they wield more influence than any of us posting here. | |
|
| | | | | Re: The sad part is.... ...only so long as their brainless constituents keep re-electing them.
Personally, I'd prefer if Sununu went out on a book tour and never came back. | |
|
| | | | Totally. Like all politicians, they never met a tax nor a bureaucracy that they didn't like. I wouldn't cast the urine of rabid jackyls upon them if they were aflame. | |
|
| | | OK... exactly how were you reading this thread before the thread even started... Amazing! | |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 |  An analogy disputing Sununu op-ed
This guy creates an analogy to dispute Sununu's take on things:
»ideas.4brad.com/how-internet-and···lly-work
The problem arises because new services like Netflix suddenly have created a lot more demand to ship packages. More than the last mile companies counted on. They’re seeing the truck fill up and need to run more trucks. But they proudly advertised unlimited deliveries from the depot to their customers. So now, in the op-ed, they’re asking that companies like Netflix, in addition to paying the cost of shipping to the depot, pay some of the cost for delivery from the depot to the customer. If they did this, companies would pass this cost on to the customer, even though the customer already paid for that last mile delivery.
To start charging twice breaks the very important pricing model the internet was built on. I’ve argued that the internet cost contract was actually the internet’s greatest invention, the thing that made it rule the data networking world.
It’s not unreasonable to ask the customers who want to make the heaviest usage pay more for higher-service tiers. And some will argue that doing this by billing the sender, who passes on the cost, is a reasonable way to do that. But that means only well-financed senders can play, and it stomps on the great innovation breeding ground that the internet cost contract engendered.
And ultimately, this is what will happen: "The ISPs won't be able to charge Netflix(net neutrality issues), but they will be able to start using bill-by-byte, caps & overages, or more costly tiers to make the heaviest users pay more. And there will be nothing regulators will do to stop that trend.
--
Record your speedtest.net results in DSLReports SpeedWave
»www.speedtest.net/wave/afe201cb84d45c88 | |
|
| axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Re: An analogy disputing Sununu op-ed Caps and bill-per-byte are fair, but they are negatives that people would get rid of if they could. It's a good thing that caps and bill-per-byte weren't originally on broadband, or it wouldn't have come as far as it has. But now, it seems that it can't go much further.
The only way to get rid of negatives is a competitor who doesn't have them. I'm hoping that competition arises in wireless broadband. It would be nice if it were easier for people to run fiber optic cable, too. | |
|
| | | I believe the point Karl is trying to make is that the current pricing model already generates enough revenue to make the upgrades, that there is no need to move to any other pricing structure except to just make more money. | |
|
| | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: An analogy disputing Sununu op-ed And who doesn't want to make more money? | |
|
| | | | | Re: An analogy disputing Sununu op-ed That is pretty much the only argument you can make in this whole thing.
And it also just so happens to be your tagline for a vast majority of things that involve ISP's. | |
|
| | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by Uncle Paul:I believe the point Karl is trying to make is that the current pricing model already generates enough revenue to make the upgrades, that there is no need to move to any other pricing structure except to just make more money.
The problem is that Netflix, iTunes, Amazon, etc will take TV business away from the ISPs like Comcast, TWC, Verizon, AT&T, etc and it is that TV business that pays the freight for all the last mile infrastructure. Karl may be correct now about revenue/costs coverage, but as the cable TV business shrinks, the Comcast's of the world will have to charge more on the Internet side to pay for the existing infrastructure and also for expansion of that infrastructure. The ISPs are now trying out billing mechanisms to see what will work in the new world(all video being point to point instead of broadcast channels) coming down the pike in the next 5 to 10 yrs.
Many say to the Comcast's of the world - "Just suck it up and accept lower revenues and profits". Well, in the business world, the prime directive is grow or die. And people saying suck it up don't understand anything about business.
--
Record your speedtest.net results in DSLReports SpeedWave
»www.speedtest.net/wave/afe201cb84d45c88 | |
|
| | |  myosh
join:2001-05-03
Cupertino, CA | Re: An analogy disputing Sununu op-ed said by Linklist:The problem is that Netflix, iTunes, Amazon, etc will take TV business away from the ISPs like Comcast, TWC, Verizon, AT&T, etc and it is that TV business that pays the freight for all the last mile infrastructure. Karl may be correct now about revenue/costs coverage, but as the cable TV business shrinks, the Comcast's of the world will have to charge more on the Internet side to pay for the existing infrastructure and also for expansion of that infrastructure. The ISPs are now trying out billing mechanisms to see what will work in the new world(all video being point to point instead of broadcast channels) coming down the pike in the next 5 to 10 yrs.
Many say to the Comcast's of the world - "Just suck it up and accept lower revenues and profits". Well, in the business world, the prime directive is grow or die. And people saying suck it up don't understand anything about business.
All the more reason why the pay-tv companies shouldn't be involved in the internet access business. Hopefully this will lead to rebirth of the independent ISP like Sonic.net in northern California. There's no TV business to protect so they could care less what their customers do with their internet connection (as long as it's legal). | |
|
| | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: An analogy disputing Sununu op-ed Unless the pay TV business subsidizes the buildout of the infrastructure to provide the internet service. | |
|
| | | | | myosh
join:2001-05-03
Cupertino, CA | Re: An analogy disputing Sununu op-ed said by openbox9:Unless the pay TV business subsidizes the buildout of the infrastructure to provide the internet service.
Obviously, you have no knowledge of how Sonic.net operates. While their DSL service does piggyback on AT&T's POTS lines, they are building their own next-gen fiber network.
I suspect that most of the money to build this network is coming from... wait for it... profits! It's called reinvestment. | |
|
| | | | | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: An analogy disputing Sununu op-ed said by myosh:said by openbox9:Unless the pay TV business subsidizes the buildout of the infrastructure to provide the internet service.
Obviously, you have no knowledge of how Sonic.net operates. I suspect that most of the money to build this network is coming from... wait for it... profits! It's called reinvestment. »www.northbaybiz.com/General_Arti···Boom.php
Author: Karen Hart
August, 2011 Issue
Santa Rosa’s Sonic.net, once a local startup, is now a booming regional business.
The company is also a bit of an anomaly in today’s business world. “Sonic has no debt,” says Loher. “Everything we do is in cash. We have no investors, no board of directors. We can react quickly to technological changes and bring those to our network users. It’s a great way to run a business. We’re a very significant anomaly. We’re doing something right.”
--
Record your speedtest.net results in DSLReports SpeedWave
»www.speedtest.net/wave/afe201cb84d45c88 | |
|
| | | | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | How did Sonic get to a point that it could invest in its own infrastructure? I'm not demeaning Sonic at all. On the contrary, it's one of the few companies that used the 1996 TA as it was envisioned. The main point is that subsidies exist in various forms and simply building a network and profiting and reinvesting those profits isn't necessarily as straightforward as some might suggest. | |
|
| | | |  FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | I miss the days of having a joe nobody ISP. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: An analogy disputing Sununu op-ed said by FBGuy:I miss the days of having a joe nobody ISP.
Which means you also miss dialup.
I don't miss dialup. | |
|
| | | | | | FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | Re: An analogy disputing Sununu op-ed I also miss the days of the fly by night pirate BBS. | |
|
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·Bright House
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: An analogy disputing Sununu op-ed said by FBGuy:I also miss the days of the fly by night pirate BBS.
lol, me too... I ran a 2 line Renegade system for YEARS on a Tandy 2500! | |
|
| | | | | | | | You mean competition, because back in the day of dial up you could use any provider that had modems you could connect to as all you need an ISP for an IP address.
Anyone can get 99.9999% of the rest of the internet with just an IP address thus they are nothing more than a dumbpipe and are trying hard to make themselves relevant anyway they can. | |
|
| | | | | | said by myosh:All the more reason why the pay-tv companies shouldn't be involved in the internet access business. Hopefully this will lead to rebirth of the independent ISP like Sonic.net in northern California. There's no TV business to protect so they could care less what their customers do with their internet connection (as long as it's legal).
Be thankful that pay TV got involved in internet access.
Pay TV already had the wires run - high (at the time) bandwidth coax fed by fiber. Without them we'd still be stuck with dialup and possibly slow DSL.
It took years after the cable companies made broadband the new standard for the phone company to upgrade. | |
|
| | | | | | The small companies are out here, and we are trying, but it is REALLY hard to deploy and find customers. People tend to go with names they know. Pretty much no matter what you can offer them.
Keith S. Chalmers
»www.newstarnetworks.net | |
|
| | |  jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | I understand your point, but if most folks in the country had the choice between 3-5 viable broadband providers, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all, don't you think?
--
If they told you wolverines make good house pets, would you believe them? | |
|
| | | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Internet is profitable on its own. TV is more profitable.
I agree that companies should make as much money as the law and regulations allow. But, there should be balancing forces that encourage competition and eliminate collusion. | |
|
| | |
| Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | Tiers make no sense for usage as cost are not porportional to usage.
Now it does make sense to have speed tiers. If you want faster speeds then you pay more. | |
|
| | | The whole point of "broadband" is that customers pay more for heavy usage. The problem is that ISPs got used to very high profits by getting people who only needed 1mbit DSL to buy 15 Mbit cable. Now that they are starting to want to use the bandwidth the ISPs are feeling withdrawal symptoms--CEOs are making do with only 1 kilo of coke and three hookers per night until metered broadband can fix this disastrous situation. | |
|
| | FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL Reviews:
·Comcast
 ·T-Mobile US
| Re: An analogy disputing Sununu op-ed said by Wilsdom:The whole point of "broadband" is that customers pay more for heavy usage. The problem is that ISPs got used to very high profits by getting people who only needed 1mbit DSL to buy 15 Mbit cable. Now that they are starting to want to use the bandwidth the ISPs are feeling withdrawal symptoms--CEOs are making do with only 1 kilo of coke and three hookers per night until metered broadband can fix this disastrous situation.
thanks for the visual. | |
|
| | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | said by Wilsdom:The problem is that ISPs got used to very high profits by getting people who only needed 1mbit DSL to buy 15 Mbit cable. Now that they are starting to want to use the bandwidth the ISPs are feeling withdrawal symptoms That is EXACTLY the problem. They sold too much speed for prices too low hoping that customers wouldn't use the extra speed. All of a sudden, streaming video comes along and now the ISP's who played the speed game are stuck. They set the bar for what people expect for speeds and prices, and many simply can't support the bandwidth growth, or had the investors get used to raking in the money. It is hard to move a brick wall once the mortar is solid. | |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | What they don't get If it wasn't for thing like Netflix I wouldn't be paying $50 a month for my 18 meg internet. So ok make the internet for only checking email and the weather. Well I don't need 18 meg for that. So I'll just drop to the 1 meg tier for $20 a month. Oh wait I can do those things on my smartphone so maybe I'll just cancel my internet all together. Hmmm. How does my ISP like the idea of losing $600 a year? Now multiply that by MILLIONS of customers. ISPs should be happy there are things out there that make us customers want to pay for high speed broadband. | |
|
|
See 9 replies to this post |
|
 JohnInSJPremium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA | Komrad Karl... Sheesh Karl. Are you a socialist or something? Imagine, the horror of paying your stockholders a return on their investment.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us | |
|
|
See 44 replies to this post |
|
| | Content Providers pay When I ran sites that provided content I had to pay per megabit for the bandwidth my site was required to provide a quality service. So saying content providers get a free ride is ridiculous.
Content providers (website operators) pay per megabit on a 95th percentile scale. That money enables datacenters to cover bandwidth and expand their infrastructure and resources. ISP's are just greedy. | |
|
| | Post the bills! If anyone from Netflix, Google, and any other provider being accused of getting a free ride is reading this, I have an idea for you. Take your most recent bills from all your connectivity providers and post them online. It'll be a huge amount of money, I know, and it might serve to make these telecom/cable execs and paid shills look like the liars we all know them to be. | |
|
 drslashGoya AsmaPremium
join:2002-02-18
Marion, IA | Op/Ed? Karl, are you no longer tagging articles with Op/Ed where appropriate? Other than that, it is a good article. | |
|
| | Build it and they will flood... Developers are the fault of homes in areas that get flooded, but you never hear about them getting a finger pointed.
Instead, let's blame the cart for the horse!
--
Splat | |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | They can lobby all they want The fact is they forgot besides Netflix, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Amazon and Wal-Mart all have their own streaming services and I'm pretty sure they do not want to pay double for their badnwidth.
simple math
Netflix, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Amazon, Wal-Mart money > ISP money | |
|
| | Pizza Delivery Companies Getting A Free Ride In related news, AT&T has said that local pizza companies who take calls and deliver pizzas to people are "getting a free ride" and are profiting on AT&T's phone service investments. They demanded that all pizza companies pay them a fee for being able to be reachable to AT&T customers. AT&T spokesman Lyle Cheatandsteal said this "Pay To Contact Our Subscribers" program would soon be expanded to Chinese Food delivery companies as well as non-food related industries such as exterminators. "All of these companies are making money off of AT&T and this is going to stop," Lyle said. "We won't rest until nobody profits off of AT&T's services!"
--
-Jason Levine | |
|
| Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | Re: Pizza Delivery Companies Getting A Free Ride Its funny because its true. | |
|
| | | Seriously thanks for bringing some sanity to the argument. This is a perfect example of the absurdity of the ISP / Sununu argument.
Netflix contracted with the backbone internet providers at cost X. If the ISP thinks they deserve more money then they need to renegotiate with Netflix, not punish individual consumers who may or may not use the Netflix service that particular day. To do anything other than renegotiate the contract with Netflix is duplicitous. | |
|
| | Zen6
join:2011-06-04
Saratoga Springs, NY | Re: Pizza Delivery Companies Getting A Free Ride In my girlfriends apt house they have 1 internet account with a linksys router which all 5 apartments use for netflix, surfing and whatever else. I can only imagine the bandwidth used for the price of 1 account. Usage based billing would certainly be appropriate for people who do things like this. | |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Tragedy of the Commons, Revisited Its a simple fact: Netflix is abusing the goodwill factor of the Internet - utilizing far more than any "fair share" it would receive on a reciprocal basis, which was the original basis for traffic settlement.
Without placing a value on the bandwidth consumed, ISPs will have no incentive to provide it, and Netflix will have no reason to make their delivery efficient. How is that almost overnight, they were ready and willing to reduce their bandwidth-hogging stream volume by 75%? That's right, they didn't want to lose customers to caps.
Left unchecked, Netflix might triple its subscriber base, and every household will eventually have 3-5 1080x60p sets. Where would the bandwidth come from if it isn't paid for? What would be become of the other subscribers when their local cable is saturated by IPTV traffic?
There is nothing wrong with putting a price on priority bits.
Sununu understates the case. | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
 EdrickI aspire to tell the story of a lifetimePremium
join:2004-09-11
Woburn, MA | Sonic.net Can you ISPs please take a note or two from Sonic? I WANT A DUMB PIPE. YOU GIVE ME THE BANDWIDTH I DO WHAT I WANT WITHOUT ALL THESE FLUFFY ADDITIONS.
So tired of stock holders and investors, I get it the whole point is to get a return on your investment. | |
|
| Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | Re: Sonic.net said by Edrick:Can you ISPs please take a note or two from Sonic? I WANT A DUMB PIPE. YOU GIVE ME THE BANDWIDTH I DO WHAT I WANT WITHOUT ALL THESE FLUFFY ADDITIONS.
So tired of stock holders and investors, I get it the whole point is to get a return on your investment.
Most stock holders are not investors.
The investor is the person who buys the IPO stock.
Stock that might only be tied to $10 a share of real investment might be selling for 10 times that amount. Stock has no ties to company financials, so if the company is more profitable the stock price will not change unless people start paying more for the stock and there is no law forcing people to buy stock when a company is more profitable. If you buy stock for more than what it was originally invested for then that is your own damn fault.
Once an investor sells his IPO stock then he got his return on his investment. The person that buys the stock from him is just a gambler hoping someone else will buy it for more than what he paid. The stock holder who cannot find someone to buy the stock for more than he paid is one that loses. | |
|
SunnyD
join:2009-03-20
Madison, AL | Off topic, sorta... but I'm laughing... I keep reading his name as "John Snu-Snu". | |
|
| | Reality... Allot of this issue is based on profitability on a GROWTH factor each and every year. What happened to profitability based on a good stable business that went along every year making money but not necessarily growing profits every year? Share holder speculation is driving this because they want it NOW so they can trade in the near future instead of long term investment like that of years ago. Returns were based on dividends instead of share speculation appreciation. What if all ISPs were to be regulated as utilities, conflict of interest content removed from their control and competitive sharing of an all fiber network? There is TOO much profit motive to pay large investor returns and golden parachutes than to innovate and compete. I truly believe in the American free enterprise system, but we have become extremely dependent on the Internet to the point it is a national security and financial issue. | |
|
| | | Re: Reality... This. The problem isn't the profit motive, or wanting to make money. The problem is investors trying to require companies to make more profit, quarter after quarter after quarter, regardless of almost any other consideration.
In fact, that is a large part of the problem of our jobs being outscourced overseas, exhorbant executive packages (rewarding the "leaders" of industry that play along with the game), lack of competition and almost all the major problems of the modern economy. It all traces back to the unrealistic expectation of unlimited growth. | |
|
|
Reviews:
·Charter
| I have a great idea.... What if for six months all the content providers on the internet cut off access to their networks unless the internet providers ponied up cash? Since CONTENT makes the INTERNET what it is if you cut off CONTENT the internet provider is a dead pipe.
Google, Netflix, YouTube, Facebook - if just a handful of sites like that cut off access to their sites unless the internet providers signed a permanent deal giving them unfettered access to the customers then what choice would these greedy internet providers have.
They are nothing but dumb pipes and without content at the other end of the pipe they aren't even that. Cut off the content and watch those greedy providers squrim like we've never seen before.
Trust me, it would work and work fast. Who wants internet that can't access Facebook? | |
|
|  SnakeoilIgnore Button. The coward's feature.Premium
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
kudos:1 | Re: I have a great idea.... Agreed. If there was no content, why surf the net? | |
|
|  Rogue WolfReally Ties The Room Together
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY | What you've described is the first half of every ISP accountant's wet dream.
Of course, the second half is where users still, for some bizarre reason, pay $100 a month for superfast connections just to check their Email.
(Text-only Email, of course. Photos mean you're a bandwidth hog.)
--
Justin Timberlake brought sexy back. I'm putting it away again.
This content may not be retransmitted by your cable company without significant rate increases! | |
|
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX | So does everybody else... So? what is he bitching about? so does my crappy webpage, what's his point?
It's the Internet, it's how it works, don't like it? don't offer internet service, problem solved. that way Netflix can't access his network.
PROBLEM SOLVED! | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Re: So does everybody else... guys like John Sununu make their money controlling you. the desire to regulate usage and have that seem proper is a big part of that. they're going to give you what you want, even if you never realized how much you wanted it, before.
nobody gets how the internet works, or the government or money, none of it. but it's organized and here.
all i know is Sununu has never been involved in anything that could be described as "transparent" or "straight". in this day and age, he's someone to be admired. he's bringing you a brave new world! | |
|
| | This what happens when you let content companies own pipes Nationalize broadband and make it universal. Make it a Title 2 common carrier at least. AT&T (Southwestern Bell) cannot be trusted. They are swine. | |
|
| | Amazon They shoukd go after Amazon.com as well for flooding the Post Office and UPS with to many shipments.
Maybe that is a job for retaliers? | |
|
| bt
join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1 | Re: Amazon Well, then the oil and car companies go after the brick & mortar retailers for getting a "free ride" on getting their merchandise from their store to the consumer's home. | |
|
| | Wecome to the US of Crappy Business Basically, this whole debate connects to the business environment in the US today. Netflix, I'm sure, has substantial hosting costs and connectivity costs, so by no means do they get a "free ride". ISP's should not be charging (or for that matter, making) what they make today. This country is headed towards a ultra rich and poor class, with no middle class remaining. All of those millions (and billions) of dollars that are "returned to investors" or are part of "compensation packages" are dollars that are drained out of (largely) the middle class and handed to the upper section of the US economic tiers. This will lead, eventually, to a impoverishment of the US that will destroy businesses as people will no longer be able to afford the products that are being made. We've lived on plastic for so long to keep up, and wages haven't risen. We keep talking about "higher wages" being detrimental to the economy, while the problem right now is that those who have the money (ie big banks, isps, oil companies) won't lend or hire, and unemployment has climbed. This cap and fee schedule is just another way to redistribute the wealth to the rich, all the while screaming that the current administration's raising of taxes on the rich would be detrimental to the economy. Our economy sucks right now because we, the players in it, can no longer afford to purchase the products that we make! | |
|
|
|
Help me?
