page: 1 · 2  |
 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
2 edits | I Call Bull$#!+ quote:
The network owners counter that some Skype Technologies users use a VOIP connection to monitor their children at home, leaving call sessions open for hours or days on end.
I got a bit of a laugh out of this passage of the article. Anyway... so what if people do this? Aren't we paying for the Internet connection which enables to do this?
I say any ISP that wants to implement this sort of thing should go ahead and do it immediately. Go ahead and block access for Google, Skype, online gaming and any other online content provider which refuses to pay up. Do it right now so that you can quickly fall by the wayside.
quote:
I, for one, don’t want to pay the same amount of money for bandwidth while a 15-year old neighbor spends all day sucking most of it up with his limitless, gray-market BitTorrent downloads.
Anyone who thinks this is perfectly free to cancel said Internet service. This way, he/she won't be paying the same amount of money as the other user.
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! | |
|  | 
King P
Don't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul
Premium
join:2004-11-17
Inman, SC
 ·Windstream
·Charter Pipeline
1 edit | letter to the editor... said by pnh102  : quote:
The network owners counter that some Skype Technologies users use a VOIP connection to monitor their children at home, leaving call sessions open for hours or days on end.
I got a bit of a laugh out of this passage of the article. Anyway... so what if people do this? Aren't we paying for the Internet connection which enables to do this? I say any ISP that wants to implement this sort of thing should go ahead and do it immediately. Go ahead and block access for Google, Skype, online gaming and any other online content provider which refuses to pay up. Do it right now so that you can quickly fall by the wayside. quote:
I, for one, don’t want to pay the same amount of money for bandwidth while a 15-year old neighbor spends all day sucking most of it up with his limitless, gray-market BitTorrent downloads.
Anyone who thinks this is perfectly free to cancel said Internet service. This way, he/she won't be paying the same amount of money as the other user. Amen!!!!
If this guy doesn't like the fact that his 15 year old neighbor is "sucking" all his bandwidth away, then he should find a different provider. Does he even know how the internet works or does this guy know anything about BitTorrent?
The simple fact of the matter is that the gas station doesn't charge extra for unleaded gasoline because you want to speed on the interstate, so why should we pay for "premium" services when the providers of those services have already PAID for their internet connection, and we have already paid our provider for our connection.
This guy (LR Editor) needs to get over it and move on with his life. As a content provider myself, I don't expect any customer to have to pay extra to download free music from my music store, because I ALREADY paid for my connection to provide that music to them.
This practice (of QoS tariffs) is not fair to the consumers, or the content providers...period.
--
Forget 'em, Support the Indies.
»www.ind-music.com | |
| | | Shark_615
join:2006-01-17
Pickering, ON | Re: letter to the editor... The gas station doesn't but the Police will charge if you speed... So how does that analogy synch with what you are trying to prove?
Are you saying we should have internet cops to stop people from going over the predetermined bandwidth limit? | |
| | | | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: letter to the editor... These analogies are all flawed.
While ISPs have generally priced by bandwidth alone, resulting in "all you can shovel" usage, their costs do vary somewhat by usage.
Shared facilities (particularly major connections to Internet backbone networks) are maintained at a level lower than what would be necessary for 100% "full-blown" usage. Vastly increased usage, whether it's caused by file-sharing, VoIP, or gaming, does carry the likelihood of increased costs to the ISPs, even if bandwidth offerings to particular end-users aren't broadened.
These increased costs have to be passed along somewhere. I'd just rather see it happen directly, where I (and other end users) get to choose what gets prioritized and what I don't care about, than indirectly, where those choices are made under the table by ISPs and content providers in a back room.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | 
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| Re: letter to the editor... I agree. If the usage patterns of certain users are actually undermining their model, they should just impose a neutral transfer cap to control the extreme use while not imposing on the average user. Then the user can prioritize their own use as they see fit.
This article again betrays that this isn't really about QOS offerings at all. What does bittorrent traffic have to do with QOS. Bittorrent use doesn't need anything beyond best effort. It isn't real time streaming or an application for which QOS makes sense. What the article writer really means is that he wants a service reduction for heavy users. | |
| | | 
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| said by King P :The simple fact of the matter is that the gas station doesn't charge extra for unleaded gasoline because you want to speed on the interstate, so why should we pay for "premium" services when the providers of those services have already PAID for their internet connection, and we have already paid our provider for our connection. Actually, when you speed you use gas faster and less efficiently, thereby spending more on gas in the long run. Yes, I am a smart-ass. | |
| | 
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| Re: I Call Bull$#!+ said by pnh102 : Anyone who thinks this is perfectly free to cancel said Internet service. This way, he/she won't be paying the same amount of money as the other user. Why is it that there are quality levels in every other area of life - food, cars, houses, call girls, drugs, sports teams - but internet access must somehow be immune from those market realities?
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site | |
| | | 
dispatcher21
join:2004-01-22
united state
| Re: I Call Bull$#!+ There are quality levels for those things but for the same item, we still pay the same. You want a Big Mac like mine? Your gonna pay the same. Want a Yukon like mine, you'll pay the same. Internet like mine, youll pay the same. Now, if you want a better burger, a better Yukon or better internet, you can pay more. But that is why ISP's have tiered levels of service. If you want better, you can pay more, but dont put the extra cost on everyone when its you (not personally here, just general statement) want the "better" service. | |
| | | | 
Dezbend
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-20
1 edit | Re: I Call Bull$#!+ I think that the point is valid in some industries. I recently got my hair cut - the price was $12 or $15 for long hair. Same service different price for "heavier" users.
Or Walmart that sells shirts that are $2 extra for X sizes...
The practice does exist, that can not be denied. Aught it be used by ISPs? that is the debatable question.
--
If it is not recorded, it simply does not exist.
--------------edit--------------
My analogy is flawed. They are not talking about charging the end user more (even though it ultimately will cost us more). If it is the hair saloon then it would be charging a flat rate to the customers and charging the hair care product companies to prominently display their product. Does this happen? | |
| | | phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD
·Comcast
| The main problem is not the existence of different tiers or QoS but THE EFFECT it has on everything else.
In general, if I decide to eat at some fancy uber-expensive restaurant, is your ability to go to McDonald's and eat a hamburger in any way affected? Probably not.
In general, if I buy/build a million dollar house, is your ability to build a $100,000 house in any way affected? Probably not.
In general, if I buy a $500,000 sports car and drive it on the highway, is your ability you buy a $8,000 Kia and drive it on the highway in any way affected? Probably not.
In general, if I pay to have my packets prioritized, is your ability to receive non-prioritized packets affected? MOST LIKELY SO.
That is what most people take issue with. | |
| | | |
dispatcher21
join:2004-01-22
united state | Re: I Call Bull$#!+ Hmmmm.....I can kinda see what your talking about....more research needed on my part I think. | |
| | | | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | Well, since I think most of this is somewhat 'fluff' and a lot of this is considered to be some form of tariff or toll.
While I totally disagree that a QOS service should be imposed, I do see that the greed of companies are coming into play.
This can similar to 2 drivers on the freeway, and one paying for a toll highway, and not having to deal with the majority of . In many areas, all highways become 'toll' and there's no advantage.
Another analogy from a more pessimistic approach, its similar to 2 drivers with the same vehicle. Driver A is getting charged more for insurance than driver B for the ability to have on site towing/replacement car available within 30 minutes to keep going with $0 deductible, while driver B can wait up to 4 hours for a tow with no replacement vehicle.
Personally, since this type of scenario doesn't directly apply, its more of an extortion type of issue. I pay for my 1500-3000 kbps with 384/512 kbps connection. While this doesn't really take into consideration backbone to backbone carriers, I don't expect a 64kbps voice connection to have too many issues. I have the many low speed connections open on a constant basis - some for many days at a time.
I could see some potential 'throttling' of connections where users run 5 Mbps connections 24x7 out of their home, and not receiving a full 5 Mbps. No big deal.
I do have a concern where an ISP will charge extra $$$ for a QOS service unless they're running a T1 from point to point, or they have control of the network from endpoint to endpoint. I've had 384kbps frame-relay networks running for years without issue, and never had to worry about being raked for extra $$$ to provide QOS. I can only assume that ISP's are doing a poor job of capacity planning, and are attempting to pass the cost of capacity upgrades on their backbone up to the consumer. | |
| | | | |
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| Re: I Call Bull$#!+ said by en102 :I can only assume that ISP's are doing a poor job of capacity planning, and are attempting to pass the cost of capacity upgrades on their backbone up to the consumer. Who else should be expected to pay for these upgrades besides the customers? | |
| | | | | | grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY
| Re: I Call Bull$#!+ Umm they have already had billions of dollars in tax brakes, which they basically stole from the customers. I expect them to deliver or at least confess where the money has gone so the public can pass judgement. The government should never give money to any corporations it just don't work... | |
| | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Steve,
Quality levels are fine, when the consumer is choosing the level and paying for his choice.
Of the categories you mentioned, all of them fall into this category EXCEPT drugs, if you are talking about prescription drugs in a health care plan. There you have the problem the whining baby bells want to create here. While you and your physician would like to make the choice of which cholesterol, blood pressure or diabetes drug is best for you, often that choice is severely limited or outright forced by your insurance company or HMO.
If we go with the bells' "third party payor" system here, we'll get a fouled up Internet comparable to our current health care & drug benefit system.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| It isn't. "premier" internet service, or "business" grade connections??
Would these not constitute a level of "quality" in terms of advertised speeds/reliability (T1's etc.)???
Just like your examples, you can get the el-cheapo dial up (cheap drugs) or the DSL (mid grade dinner.). From there you can get standard cable (Honda Accord). Premium cable might be the call girl, and a dedicated connection, (T1 etc.) a kick butt sports team that never lets you down.
I'm lost. Of course the internet isn't "immune" from these things. It's a "best effort" system, and has been since the beginning.
I may not know all there is to know about networking, but it just seems like there haven't been to many positive technical explanations about any of this.
I'd really enjoy reading about the details, if anyone knows any.
So far, it seems they care more about money, than for a technical arguement.
Show me the technical methods/reasons for any of it first. | |
| | | cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| The problem is, who should be paying for the different quality levels? In every one of the examples the consumer pays more not the person providing the service. Those costs are passed to the consumer directly.
There currently are tiered levels of service in terms of speeds. The provider should extend this to service levels based on QOS. If you want the ability to play games then you get the "gamers" package for another $5 a month.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber | |
| | | | grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY | Re: I Call Bull$#!+ So someone's games are more important then my voip/p2p/ftp/http/encrypted unknown packets? | |
| | | |
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| "If you want the ability to play games then you get the "gamers" package for another $5 a month.
--"
If one has to pay extra to have the "ability to play games" that is unacceptable and an attempt to charge by application and not communications service level. This also can't be seen as a service offering. It is simply a service reduction and a new imposed restriction.
This is different from saying "If you are not presently happy with the best effort service level in your game playing and are willing to choose the option of buying a higher service level commitment, you should pay another $5 a month". This is still problematic since the company has the motivation to reduce service level of the best effort network to force people to move to the higher service tier and since a company can't control all infrastructure between the game server and customer and therefore can't really follow through on service level commitments. | |
| | 
quetwo
That VoIP Guy
Premium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI
| The issue becomes when they do this, and they are the monopoly in town. E.G. Comcast in some of the remote areas around here is the ONLY broadband solution, and damn near the only dialup solution. If they block access to, lets say, Google, the area they serve will be severely hurt, because they have no other broadband connections. | |
| | | grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY | Re: I Call Bull$#!+ Except they won't block Google no matter what. What you should worry about is Google blocking them. | |
| | 
mikef1
Mike
join:2004-10-28
Littlestown, PA
| Besides thinking it’s a dumb idea I see several things wrong with this two tier crap.
First these broadband providers want yahoo, Google and the like to pay for qos, why? Most of the traffic going over their networks is not traffic to and from Google or yahoo. It is p2p. Sure I might search Google 10 times today, but how much traffic does that involve, 150k? How much bandwidth is the latest screener divx taking up? This first argument doesn’t make sense.
Second, why would anyone think that even with a high qos tier that the service would be any different? We are talking residential customers here. They would actually have SLA’s with residential customers? I don’t think so. The same TOS will be used stating they will try there best, but won’t guarantee a thing. I thought this was part of what the difference between business and residential was anyway.
Third, how would they accomplish this two tier? What technology would they use to make sure top tier is faster than bottom? Packet shaping? If bandwidth is such an issue they should be packet shaping now. Shape the p2p to have lowest priority, seems like it would work to me.
--
mike
HouseOfMike | |
| 
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
 ·T-Mobile US
| Playing home? "62 percent of Light Reading readers (largely industry insiders and investors) think that broadband network operators have every right to ask for a "QOS fee" from content providers wanting to ensure smooth delivery of their IP services. Being a consumer-centric site, we'll assume the results of our poll will look drastically different."
I guess it explains everything about this Light Reading piece of... article.  | |
| 
odog
Cable Centric Vendor Biased
Premium
join:2001-08-05
Norcross, GA
clubs: | Hmm how about a sliding scale... the more bits you push... the lower the priority they become?
Talk amongst yourselves  | |
| | | amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| Re: So WTF am *I* paying for? I've wondered this too.
I've got a band site. So what if there isn't much content, a few songs, a few pictures. What, am I supposed to ask EVERYBODY to pay up another 'access' or 'quality' fee just so some random fan out in nowhereville can look/listen? Should that same nowhereville person get more 'quality' from google, which displays mostly text, instead of just wanting to listen to a song or two?
I'm really confused by this.
What the heck did I just pay for hosting for?
Where does that monthly bill go for my isp?
Answer: To connect people. Straight up. If I want to host video's, I'd probably have to get a dedicated server, and pay more, and more for more bandwidth. This would be for the fans, not me, but guess what, I (yes I, Me, Myself) would PAY FOR THAT!
Those fans also pay for their link to the WORLD wide Web.
I fail to see where this imaginary "QUALITY" comes into play ANYWHERE!
If they're so bent that they just spent a load of money on fancy new routers/fibers/what the heck ever, TOO BAD! Just raise rates by $.25 for everyone and be done with it! Explain that it's to cover upgrades, and people will understand.
Why did they "upgrade" to begin with? To provide FASTER more RELIABLE, QUALITY, HIGH SPEED INTERNET! Otherwise, yeah, we'd all be stuck on dial up I guess.
Really, would ANY competent network engineer like to explain this one clearly to an average user? To an average owner of a website? To any company that hosts websites? To anyone besides greedy telco's???
This is getting really tired. | |
| | | 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Re: So WTF am *I* paying for? said by amungus :I fail to see where this imaginary "QUALITY" comes into play ANYWHERE! Just think of it this way:
"Dat's a nice website youse got dere. Would be a shame if something happened to slow it down."
Now you're getting close to the teleco's plan. They ignore the fact that Yahoo, Google, your band site, etc all pay for their pipe access. Instead they start by assuming that you're somehow getting online for free. After all, you're not paying them. They don't care if you're paying someone else. You "need" to be paying them or else you're just using their network for free.
Of course, it could be argued that the teleco's need the content providers or else their shiny new networks are useless. ("You'll have 10mbps access, but can't access any websites. Care to sign up?") So perhaps Yahoo, Google, and your band site should charge the telecos for accessing the respective web site content without paying for the privilege?
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com | |
| | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: So WTF am *I* paying for? DING DING DING!!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!!!
Nothing but simple extortion.
My guess is their TOS will STILL read that there is no guarantee but we will try harder if you pay more.  | |
| | 
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| Well what you expect really from someone who has there head up there ass?
The internet will soon become like phone plans.
1. It does not cost anything to send data through your own private network. So if a bellsouth customer wanted to send a file to another bellsouth customer and the route is all down through bellsouth's systems then consider it like a local call.
2. It does cost to send data from one provider to another without the bounds of your network. So if a bellsouth customer wanted to send data to a verizon customer it would be like a domestic call.
3. It costs money to send data from one provider to another provider across the ocean because more equipment/cabling/satellites need to be used.
So it would be like a international call.
Now if they plan to do it on a hourly or data bases is up to them. But frankly I think they would prefer the data base option because that way they can limit how much data a broadband user can use.
There priority is not you or the content but there profit. The only problem is that without content the internet is just a bunch of apache servers saying index.html cannot be found. So in return fighting with content providers is going to hurt your profits. But now they want to roll out IPTV and other such services. They want to not just dominate the telecommunication industry but the content industry as well. They want complete dominance so you are forced into just one option, and wether you like it or not that's there decision and one person simply crying out won't do you any good. If Directv plans to make there own wimax network that would be a threat to them.
You really don't need to use the telco's to route data when you can do it wirelessly and with a satellite communications that Directv has therefore bypassing the land lines.
When you look at it close the only thing they do is allow the bridge from point A to point B and access to this huge network called the internet.
The problem is that most of us are scared of monopolies because they eventually become greedy bastards beyond belief.
But that's how the ball rolls. I too prefer competition but once the telco's are broken again or actually go bankrupt (I can dream can't I?) who will be the person to stop the successor? (Directv)
Directv provides content and now wants to provide delivery.
Telco's provide delivery and now wants to provide content.
Each want there own type of setup
Both don't agree.
Conclusion = Battle against each other.
So basically they want to create a private network for I dunno maybe content delivery and instead of saying "we gonna increase your bill because we wanna build our own network" they just put it up as a "Qos tariff" so instead of you yelling at them you are yelling at the government for the ridiculous tariff. | |
| 
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | And again... All the bandwidth is already paid for on both ends. The telcos are the ones that need to stop whining. Oh, and call a price increase a price increase. That's what they really want anyways. | |
| 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit |  Sounds like LR editor advocating per byte bb
»www.lightreading.com/document.as···tease3_2
And the people who pay for better experience should get it, rather than those who don't. I, for one, don’t want to pay the same amount of money for bandwidth while a 15-year old neighbor spends all day sucking most of it up with his limitless, gray-market BitTorrent downloads. If my adolescent neighbor wants to spend all day playing high-quality real-time online gaming, he should have to pay for it. Downloading illegal Widespread Panic bootlegs and playing multiplayer Quake doesn't mean you are carrying forward the cradle of democracy
Would charging more for such activities mean extortion? Please. Are the airlines extorting you because they require you to pay $300 for a seat to fly across the country? Well then, go Greyhound.
The industry has to create value by aggregating the capabilities of the network, coming up with new services, and generating additional revenues by charging customers for them.
In the end, tiered services, or quality of service (QOS), is inevitable. It's not a dirty word. And it won't threaten democracy. Surfing the Web has already been established as the baseline for Internet service – which is in fact a best-effort service that shouldn't require any special engineering or fees.
As far as I can tell, nobody's proposing to charge you extra so that you can read Bawdy Bill's Blog.
Tiered services? Get over it. It's the way the world works. As for me I have no problem with tiers based on bandwidth consumed instead of speeds.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page
Conrail Photo Album | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
| |
See 18 replies to this post | |
digitalis99
join:2003-07-26
Bellevue, WA
|  Charge the end user, if anyone
Of course, the ISP better be prepared to deliver to the higher tier... | |
| | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Charge the end user, if anyone quote:
Why not charge the end user for what QOS they want to have?
Because the goal here is to increase income to subsidize next-gen network deployment without making it obvious they've raised prices. Get their cake and eat it too.
They charge content providers more, who then pass those costs on to you. You blame the content provider for higher-prices, while getting only marginal improvement in your connectivity quality. Not entirely unlike the "regulatory recovery fee" tacked on your phone bill, which is really just a rate hike, but disguised as an official fee so you direct your ire at Uncle Sam, not the provider.
These are men who have made a delicate and beautiful art out of screwing you. | |
| | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Charge the end user, if anyone said by Karl Bode : ... You blame the content provider for higher-prices, while getting only marginal improvement in your connectivity quality. ... I would add only that you might end up blaming the content provider for "higher-prices or more PITA ads," which is what we may see.
Well put, Karl.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| lgkahn
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Londonderry, NH | new bus op. I smell a new bus. op.
when these jackasses start charging a tarrif to reach google or other high use sites and some refuse.. I will start a service that redirects packets from my network to google etc. and back ... | |
| RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN | New poll I wish they'd do a poll and ask if you expect everything in life for free, or just high quality broadband. | |
| 
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| If they 'tier' it, then they are not selling acces What they are proposing is no different than what AOL did with it's 'walled garden'. If Verizon wants to charge more for google/whomever to pass data through their network, to pay for network upgrades, that IS verizons right. The problem comes up for the rest of the world, who doesn't work that way, but that's a whole new issue.
Verizon is no longer selling 'internet access'. Verizon is selling 'Verizon Brand AOL'.
If that's the case, then I demand that verizon pay back ALL the subsidies, surcharges, fees, right of way access, tax benefits, and anything and everything else that WE subsidized with higher rates for the last 50 years(i.e. ALL copper). Just like the FCC is forcing TV stations to auction off spectrums, Verizon/SBC/etc should be forced to aution off all 'their lines'. Remember, it's eminent domain seizure, for the public good. If a corporation can sieze property from a taxpayer under the guise of 'public interest', then my local government can sieze from verizon in under the guise of 'public interest' too.
--
Sure the internet has lots of porn and piracy, but I'm sure there's a downside to it. | |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
1 edit | It's clearly against equal opportunity Scenario 1: you can barely afford the current $15 768k Verizon DSL or some cable lite package but your son loves it - it's not that fast, you know it but it's unlimited, so it's an excellent compromise for you. This is what you can get today.
Scenario2: you get the same, cheap package but you are not allowed to unlimited downloads anymore but only use email and web and such, to a certain extent (traffic limit). No streaming video, no music video, nothing - because that would either eat up your monthly bandwidth or push you into the next pricing tier which you cannot afford.
Which one you prefer? Because it's clear the cable giants would prefer the #2 - as somebody very well put it above this is their wet dream, charging for use, not for access.:o | |
| |
See 16 replies to this post | |
dispatcher21
join:2004-01-22
united state
| Im confused now Ok, im kinda confused. I thought that these QoS charges that are being suggested by the telcos would only apply to the ISP's that the telcos own and run, Qwest.net, Verizon, SBC, not to other local ISP's or Earthlink and stuff like that and not the backbone providers since thier job is just to take traffic from point A to point B no matter what it is. Wouldnt this bite the telcos in the end since the companies like Blizzard and stuff could have thier "We recommend......ISP" that would put a bad spin on the telcos ISP's? | |
| 
TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO
| What is the Internet? The author wrote, "In the end, tiered services, or quality of service (QOS), is inevitable. It's not a dirty word. And it won't threaten democracy. Surfing the Web has already been established as the baseline for Internet service – which is in fact a best-effort service that shouldn't require any special engineering or fees."
Really, the web is the Internet? Here I was thinking my email is the Internet, my VoIP, my Newsgroup service, my instant messaging, my streaming audio. My first suggestion for this author would be to learn what the Internet is before writing a story about whether or not access fees are extortion.
Although the author seems to get that both sides (consumers and content providers) pay for access. He fails to find extortion in these access fees comparing them to the price of a seat on an airplane. But his analogy is misplaced. His airline doesn't make his flight stop in mid air so that a flight with QoS can go by.
He seems completely unaware that content companies are forced to enter multi-year contracts (typically 3 yr) for their backbone connections to guarantee pricing. These contracts keep Bell from raising rates on their content customers. So to circumvent these contracts and subsidize their well below market price of $12.99 for DSL they want to levy access fee taxes.
If bell needs to make more money, than they need to raise their rates to end users or to content providers at the backbone connection level. QoS will do nothing but create a new digital divide that puts giant corporations that are able to absorb their un-mandated taxes and an unfair advantage over smaller independent companies and stifle investment.
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com | |
| bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| This fact still stands... When I buy internet service, I'm paying the service provider to simply move the bits... Not mangle them... Not QoS the hell how of them so they can run their network above capacity... Not to do all these cutesy little things that make my internet experience better or [ insert market buzz word here].
I pay for my ISP to move my packets as quickly as possible... And they should stick to doing that. If I want QoS, I'll buy a router with it or I'll pay them to do it. Until then, just move my bits.
--
Too logical to be a conservative... Too practical to be a liberal... Too realistic to be a Libertarian. | |
| 
AthlGrond
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
·Comcast
| Why Not Ask The Same Question? said by BBR :
Being a consumer-centric site, we'll assume the results of our poll will look drastically different. Why not ask the same question(s) if you are going to try to compare results?
said by BBR Poll :
Do you approve of the telco's desire to impose a quality of service broadband tariff? -vs-
said by Light Reading Poll :
Should broadband providers ask for a "QOS fee" from content providers that want to ensure the smooth delivery of video and other content?
--
You are now free to paint your hair wild colors and run around naked. -dg2 | |
| |
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| Re: Why Not Ask The Same Question? The BBR poll states the issue in a less misleading way than the lightreading poll does.
The telcos aren't offering a higher optional service level. Both sbc and verizon have said that google and vonage are freeloaders. Key bellsouth people have said that itunes should be cutting them 5-10 cents per download. If it is up to them this will not be optional, it will be imposed. Tariff, rather than "asked for fee" is also more accurate.
As for ensuring smooth delivery, do you think these companies are actually going to contractually obligate themselves to higher service level agreements or do you think they will likely only commit themselves to the same obligations they have under the present best effort terms? | |
| | |
AthlGrond
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
·Comcast
| Re: Why Not Ask The Same Question? said by asdfdfdf :
The BBR poll states the issue in a less misleading way than the lightreading poll does. Which only highlights my point, they aren't the same question!
--
You are now free to paint your hair wild colors and run around naked. -dg2 | |
| 
MMGambit
join:2003-07-16
Ropesville, TX
clubs:
1 edit | Who should pay Well I feel that the backbone providers and the ISP have no right to demand or ask for more money because QoS for certain types of packets. They should work off a "best effort" system and that leads to competition between each market. If another ISP moves in with better speeds and/or better effort QoS customers will switch. The same goes for ISP's looking for a backbone.
Now I think if a content provider or ISP customer wants to request a guaranteed QoS they should have to pay for it. Lets say a gamer wants his connection prioritized for gaming he can pay his ISP extra for that service. The same if World of Warcraft wants it's incoming service prioritized they can pay for that. | |
| 
Bskll
join:2004-02-02
Toronto, ON
clubs:
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| My Opinions on the debate The only way i'll go along with this plan of paying by the byte is if the isp provide me 100-mbps connection to my house. then i have no problem paying say $50 a month for say 50 gigs of data. Either we get unlimited data at a slow speed or limited amount of data at max speed. either way is fine but not limited amount of data at slow speed. | |
| mykey2k
join:2001-11-19
Aurora, IL
1 edit | Want two tiers? Standardise service! quote:
"I, for one, don’t want to pay the same amount of money for bandwidth while a 15-year old neighbor spends all day sucking most of it up with his limitless, gray-market BitTorrent downloads. If my adolescent neighbor wants to spend all day playing high-quality real-time online gaming, he should have to pay for it."
Why does it need to be a neighbor? Why should the same broadband from the same provider be $80 in LA, $15 in NY, $200 in Kansas and not available in Podunk?
They want two tiers, they need to standardise their offerings across their service footprint, and offer it to everyone.
But no. That would "stifle" their innovation and the roll out of new speeds!
And even though I am no where near a teenager, I find it ignorant to single out teenagers doing such acts. That's ageism as much as it could be racism if you substitute "black" instead of "15 year old."
-m | |
| 
danza
Premium
join:2002-08-23
| Bah, well the BT have done it.. »Bit Torrent Encryption Beats Shaw Throttling
Let's all add encryptions into our softwares. That way EVERY single packet, be it VoIP, MMORPG, P2P/BT, HTTP will be indistinguishable from the ISP's point of view. The only thing ISP will need to know is the from and to address on our packet. | |
| |
Industry_Pro
@comcast.net
| Re: Bah, well the BT have done it.. or, use something like the onion router system ( »www.onion-router.net/ ) and they won't know the to and from addresses either.
Actually I think that would be quite funny if users and internet industry insiders set up a giant, strong and powerful onion routing system that could handle gigabits of traffic - THEN let's see the Bells do their evil on our traffic hahaha hehe oh it kind of tickles me just thinking how angry "Evil Ed" Whitacre would get about that. I am sure their lobbyists would get hard at work getting the government to outlaw Onion Routing technology even though the government (US Navy) mostly invented it.
By the way, while we're all worried about how the Bells are going broke because, doggone it, Google is getting a free ride and all, well let's check "Evil Ed's" compensation:
"Ed Whitacre, who last year engineered SBC Communications Corp.'s stunning takeover of AT&T Corp., took home $17.1 million in salary, bonus and other compensation in 2005, company documents show."
that's here: »www.mysanantonio.com/business/st···c7f.html
Oh yeah, he's getting ripped off allright. They could freakin' wire up whole rural counties in Texas for what they pay this guy in one year. Booh-hooh for the poor Bell guys, huh? Content providers are getting a "free ride" - well free not counting the tens of millions paid to Bell execs, I guess. | |
| | | 
superdog
I Need A Drink
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-13
Lebanon, PA
| Tired of getting it in the............. I for one am VERY , VERY, VERY, tired of the Bells getting tax breaks because they promise us the world, and then never deliver because they used all of their $$ for higher paid executives and stock dividends. In PA alone, Verizon was cut millions of $$$ in tax breaks, and in return, they promised fiber to every home in the late 90's or so. Well, They got their money, where is our fiber??. I know, its OK that Verizon bent over the PA public, because we should just shut up and take it?. Now they want $$ for internet access I already paid for???. Verizon can kindly go reproduce themselves.
I own and operate an ISP. How come I don't get a couple of million $$$ in tax breaks???. I'll bet it's because I can't afford a bus load of lobbyist's. The saddest part about all of this is that I am going to pass this extra cost right down the line to the end user. Don't we all think broadband is expensive enough already??
--
»www.wavecrazy.net Join WISPA today! »www.wispa.org/ | |
| | | |
|
|
Playing Both Sides in Two-Tier Debate
·
·