  gatorkramKaBOOM BabyPremium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:2
 ·Suddenlink
| Who should pay for network upgrades... ISPs, or content providers...
Obviously, ISPs should pay to upgrade their networks.
Believe it or not, content providers are already paying their fair share. How else would they be offering content for people to download? Not only are content providers paying but the end users, downloading that content are also paying their ISPs to access that content.
How is this even a debate?
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 | |
|  |  PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Who should pay for network upgrades... No clue.... interest access is paid for at each end so I too wonder why this is even being discussed. | |
| | | | | Re: Who should pay for network upgrades... said by PhoenixDown:No clue.... interest access is paid for at each end so I too wonder why this is even being discussed. Maybe because there are hundreds of billions of dollars involved?
A few hundred billion in expense for the infrastructure to increase capacity, a few hundred billion revenue increase for the content providers as a result of the bigger pipe.
Might seem like chump change to you, but a few hundred billion here, and a few hundred billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money. | |
| | | | gatorkramKaBOOM BabyPremium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Suddenlink
| Re: Who should pay for network upgrades... said by Claybraker:Maybe because there are hundreds of billions of dollars involved? A few hundred billion in expense for the infrastructure to increase capacity, a few hundred billion revenue increase for the content providers as a result of the bigger pipe. Might seem like chump change to you, but a few hundred billion here, and a few hundred billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money. The question, or debate is though, who should foot the bill, right?
I can't really tell from your post, what your position is.
We all know it involves a lot of money. The question is, who's money should it be.
My position is, we the end users, and also the content providers are already paying for our shares.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 | |
| | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | The solution is to upgrade, and if your company will go bankrupt, fine, go bankrupt, if a content provider had the $ to buy Transit, you can it too, actually its cheaper for ISPs since they "sink" content, not source it, since all connections are asymetrical, and a large single peer-ed ISP increases the value of a backbone provider. The other solution is, buy a Tier 1 backbone, free Transit for life cough Verizon cough. If broadband was a water company, this is what would be happening.
»www.liveleak.com/view?i=11bf57cf1f
Imagine that in a 1st world country, its unheard of, well thats how broadband companies want to run their networks. Tease everyone and never upgrade causing oversubscription from hell, and then throttle and cap people's speed to uselessness, and want everyone to bend over with a smile. | |
|
|  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4
2 edits | said by gatorkram:Believe it or not, content providers are already paying their fair share. How else would they be offering content for people to download? Some of the content providers are, and some aren't. The traditional Server/client model providers are - like Google, Microsoft, Disney, BBR, etc. They pay for enough bandwidth to connect their servers to the net to feed the number of customers they have.
But the P2P providers - like some Linux distributors; game providers; etc. are paying for a STRAW size chunk of bandwidth instead of a fire-hose. They have offloaded their bandwidth requirements to the ISPs and backbone providers by having their customers become distributors. They DO NOT pay their fair share.
And that is why the ISPs have a hate on for the P2P protocol. It has cost shifted almost the entire bandwidth cost to them for companies that distribute using P2P.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| | | gatorkramKaBOOM BabyPremium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Suddenlink
| Re: Who should pay for network upgrades... said by ThrowDemsOut:said by gatorkram:Believe it or not, content providers are already paying their fair share. How else would they be offering content for people to download? Some of the content providers are, and some aren't. The traditional Server/client model providers are - like Google, Microsoft, Disney, BBR, etc. They pay for enough bandwidth to connect their servers to the net to feed the number of customers they have. But the P2P providers - like some Linux distributors; game providers; etc. are paying for a STRAW size chuck of bandwidth instead of a fire-hose. They have offloaded their bandwidth requirements to the ISPs and backbone providers by having their customers become distributors. They DO NOT pay their fair share. I'd have to disagree with you. How many times should that bandwidth be paid for?
The P2P provider is paying, and so are all the users who are downloading and re-uploading that content as well.
It isn't the content providers fault nor the end users fault, if the ISPs have a faulty scheme for charging for their services.
No one is getting a free lunch, so to speak.
You can't use more than they give you. It sure isn't anyone elses fault, but the provider, if they aren't getting enough money for the services they provide.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 | |
| | | | | | Re: Who should pay for network upgrades... said by gatorkram:You can't use more than they give you. It sure isn't anyone elses fault, but the provider, if they aren't getting enough money for the services they provide. We have the problem summed up right here. The competition between ISPs has driven the prices too low to really be sustainable, especially with bandwidth and network intensive application and content usage increasing every day (some of my non-techie family members and friends have just discovered Youtube, etc.).
ISPs need to bring their prices back to sustainable levels so that they can invest in infrastructure to handle tomorrow's network demands. The problem is that people typically only care about price...
As well, the situation is _partly_ the creation of the ISPs for advertising an unlimited service, giving average users the impression that network capacity is not limited. Bill by the byte won't work (users don't like price inconsistency), so providers probably should evaluate caps with options for users to purchase premium packages with extremely high (500+ GB) caps or no caps. I currently pay for a connection with no usage cap and my bill is almost twice that of a residential user. | |
| | | | | PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Who should pay for network upgrades... How much P2P traffic is generated by businesses looking to distribute their software?
Warcraft patches and Linux ISO's seem to the only big ones and that has to be a relatively small portion of P2P traffic.
The majority of P2P appears to be from users sharing files and content with other users. | |
| | | | | | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: Who should pay for network upgrades... said by PhoenixDown:How much P2P traffic is generated by businesses looking to distribute their software? Warcraft patches and Linux ISO's seem to the only big ones and that has to be a relatively small portion of P2P traffic. The majority of P2P appears to be from users sharing files and content with other users. especially since warcraft patches arent that common, atleast not big ones when they do happen. and when i big one is due out they start a week or so in advance with an optional backround patcher which does help even the load.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | | ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4
1 edit | said by gatorkram:I'd have to disagree with you. How many times should that bandwidth be paid for? The P2P provider is paying, and so are all the users who are downloading and re-uploading that content as well.
It isn't the content providers fault nor the end users fault, if the ISPs have a faulty scheme for charging for their services. It isn't a question of fault, but one of costs.
One can't ignore the over-subscription model that the ISPs built their systems on. And the fact that their pricing structure is based on the over-subscription model.
Of course, the ISPs can change the model they work under in order to function with a P2P model. They can greatly reduce the over-subscription model by vastly increasing their infrastructure. But when they do, their costs are going to go up. How much they go up is a matter of great debate and depends on network engineers modeling the new paradigm.
As a retired director responsible for a network engineering department at a major company, I am familiar with that process. I can make an educated guess based on growth projections I have read here at BBR and elsewhere that ISP infrastructure costs could go up 60% as P2P use(especially videos) ramps up.
Will customers be willing to stop paying $43/mo at Comcast for example and start paying $68/mo. Many would, but many would not - switching to cheaper, but slower and more congested services. The marketing and corporate planning departments of ISPs no doubt have research on how many customers they would lose at the higher rates. So they can accurately predict whether, overall, they would lose money or not. Based on their current resistance to P2P protocols, I submit they are resisting because they KNOW it would mean lower profits. And companies are in business to make money - not serve some greater good.
Of course, there are ways to finance the increased costs and at the same time minimize the demands for more bandwidth(thereby slowing the rate of cost growth). And that would be thru more income thru bill-by-byte(unpopular); caps(to reduce cost growth). Both of those are very possible, but would also be unpopular and could drive away customers. So, for the short term, P2P throttling becomes the default action, so that cost growth can be spread over the next 5 years.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| | | | |  gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
3 edits | Re: Who should pay for network upgrades... Even the bit torrent author stated it used a ton of bandwidth.
He said he was working on a less bandwidth intensive version to compromise with his corporate investors.
The pirate versions and their improvements are still going to be out there from when it was open source.
At least the legal users will be able to sleep at night knowing they aren't hogging up the bandwidth of their ISP 
P2P is just a hint of whats to come with HD On Demand.
The infrastructure needs to be built to be able to handle that demand as well as other future and current technology.
The public bonds, matched by state and fed programs can do it. It's already working to put fiber networks in some states.
With the people involved in the process, we wouldn't have to lose whats left of our local CLEC's. And some big company wouldn't be the only access in town worth beans ...
Copper is obsolete in communications/data lines. | |
| | | | | | | "Based on their current resistance to P2P protocols, I submit they are resisting because they KNOW it would mean lower profits."
Why should this be a problem? I understand businesses would always like to increase their profit but investment is a basic part of running a business. It isn't an evil that a business plows profits back into building capital. That is the very nature of capitalism.
Profits are a residual, they aren't a guaranteed income.
If needed investment reduces this residual then that is also the nature of capitalism. | |
|
| | | | said by ThrowDemsOut:But the P2P providers - like some Linux distributors Yes, because some of them are non-profits that run entirely on volunteer effort... They don't have the budgets to pay for Gbps of connectivity. | |
|
|  yuutomoThe Wonder KitterPremium
join:2001-08-27
Missoula, MT |  Who should pay for network upgrades...
| |
| | | | Re: Who should pay for network upgrades... I've got a better idea. Let's just outsource management to India. That $40,000,000.00 salary will only cost $400,000.00 if they outsource all the fat cats. And that leaves $39,600,000.00 that can be used for capital expenditures instead.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
| | yuutomoThe Wonder KitterPremium
join:2001-08-27
Missoula, MT | I'd do it for $100,000.00 a year myself. | |
|
| | Here's a novel idea... How about your roll YOUR profits back into YOUR business to build what you never cease to remind us is YOUR network to meet the demands of YOUR customers. It's a little thing called capitalism.
And I don't care whether it is expensive or hard. If you can't find a way to accomplish it without having to whine that other businesses should shoulder your costs for you then your business should die and be replaced by another business that can accomplish it. Maintaining your present profit level isn't an entitlement. | |
| | | Verizon makes a billion and ... Still cry's and complains and raise prices??? Am i the only one that does not understand big corporations, i know they are in it to make money but come on? | |
| |  tenbase
join:2000-07-19
Alexandria, VA | Re: Verizon makes a billion and ... Because they have to answer not only to their customers, but to their shareholders. And investors these days are the most impatient bunch of twitch-spazz daytraders I've ever seen.
Look what happened to VMware today, they missed Q4 earnings forecasts by barely 1%, and their profits are up over 100% from Q4 2006, and the stock is now down $28 (almost 34%) for the day. Fucking ridiculous.
--
I would kill everyone on this forum for a drop of sweet beer.. | |
|
| |
|
|
