Should Content Companies Subsidize Network Expansion?The British Government seems to think so... ( old news - 08:55AM Wednesday Mar 11 2009) tags: business · bandwidth · worldAround the world, the planet's largest ISPs have been whining for going on four years now. They've been whining about how despite the constantly dropping cost of bandwidth & hardware, their significant profit margins from TV, VoIP and data, years of government subsidies and tax breaks, and abundant new revenue streams ( advertising via webmail, BVAS, selling your clickstream data, DNS Redirection revenue, charging to get around spam filters, targeted behavioral advertising, content operations, car and home sales, etc.) it's hard for a poor, cash-strapped telecom conglomerate to build out enough capacity to handle user demand. In the UK, ISPs have been complaining for more than a year that the BBC's new media player actually uses bandwidth, so they've tried to argue the BBC should subsidize their network expansion. The UK just rewarded regional incumbent British Telecom's largely unambitious broadband deployment plans with less regulation and now, according to the BBC, they're apparently warming to the the incumbent argument that content operators are responsible for network upgrade costs as well: "Universal Service Obligations are not funded by the market, they are funded by regulatory or public intervention," he said. In terms of next-generation access and ensuring that super-fast broadband reaches the half of the population that are currently not included in either BT or Virgin's fibre plans, it may be that the BBC could be asked to contribute, he said. Here in the States, the phone companies have been engaged in a similar campaign, using paid mouthpieces to suggest Google uses an unfair amount of bandwidth. Therefore, they should be subsidizing network builds that carriers don't want to pay for -- because the long term returns on such projects would annoy investors. Or, as AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre said in 2005 to start the network neutrality debate: you can't use "his pipes" for free.
Related:- Canada Holds Hearings On ISP Throttling
- Cogeco Unveils 50Mbps Tier
- UK: 50Mbps For $46
- 21Mbps HSPA in Europe
- Cogeco Still Struggling With Accurate Meters?
- Dutch ISP Cripples Non-HTTP Traffic 12 Hours A Day
- DSL Vs. Carrier Pigeon
- Cisco: Average Connection Consumes 11.4 GB Per Month
|
 
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC |  Fiasco
| |
|  | | | |
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
1 edit | Re: Fiasco said by Mactron  :said by Matt :... why should someone at the other end who also does have to pay a 3rd time? Cellphone billing model ?..  If you think about it, this is a step BEYOND even draconian cell phone billing. With a cellphone (just like data transfer) both parties pay for the call (or a fixed amount of data transfer, or per byte, or even via a mutually beneficial peering arrangement) but there is no 3rd charge because you talk to Cousin Joe a lot unless you have an overage.
These companies want to institute an additional charge because the majority of their customers want to view a certain website service. It makes no sense. | |
| | | | 
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: Fiasco what ironic is if it wasn't for all those sites with all that content I wouldn't have a need to have a 20 Mbps connection. If all I'm expected to do is check e-mail, sports scores, weather, do online banking and bill pay and that kind of stuff, well I'd just drop down to 756 kbps DSL for $20 a month. | |
| | | | | nitzan
Premium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
 ·ViaTalk
 ·Comcast
| Re: Fiasco said by BF69 :what ironic is if it wasn't for all those sites with all that content I wouldn't have a need to have a 20 Mbps connection. If all I'm expected to do is check e-mail, sports scores, weather, do online banking and bill pay and that kind of stuff, well I'd just drop down to 756 kbps DSL for $20 a month. Exactly. It's such a double standard. First they want you to upgrade to the highest speed (and $$$) possible so you can view all those video sites - then they want to gouge some more profits from someone else because you actually USE your connection? I don't think so.
If it wasn't for content providers there wouldn't be a need for broadband to begin with and they wouldn't even have a fraction of the users they have now. This I-want-to-have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too from ISPs is absolutely disgusting. They suck. | |
| | | | | 
tim_k
Buttons, Bows, Beamer, Shadow, Kasey
Premium
join:2002-02-02
Stewartstown, PA
 ·Millenicom
 ·WildBlue
2 edits | Re: Fiasco said by GOLFnSUN :said by Matt : I already pay for my connection, why should someone at the other end who also does have to pay a 3rd time? Because what you pay doesn't cover all the costs to expand the network to cover the new video viewing activities. Either you pay more or they do. What's your preference? And making the ISP have no profits isn't an option. The ISP's are cutting their own throats. They keep raising speeds in order to make it sound like they are better than the competiton, but they don't want to increase capacity in order to allow their customers to use those speeds. Did you think that if the content providers have to pay the ISPs, you'll be able to use their services for free anymore? I doubt it.
--
RIP my babys Buttons 1/15/94-2/9/07 & Beamer 7/24/08, Buttons, Buttons video, Beamer
| |
| | | me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Who is "they" the ISP or sites like google? If google use more than it pays for I think they should pay more. If they don't use more than the y pay for they should not pay more. Am I the only one who thinks like this? | |
| | | | 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: Fiasco said by me1212 :Who is "they" the ISP or sites like google? If google use more than it pays for I think they should pay more. If they don't use more than the y pay for they should not pay more. Am I the only one who thinks like this? This particular question arises here over and over at BBR. Yes, video content providers(especially P2P sites), pay for their connection to the internet and the data they move. But a lot of it is delivered thru one straw at their end and thru thousands of straws at the ISP's last mile end. So, while they generate tremendous demand at the ISP end, they pay only a little at their end.
Now that model does keep costs low at the content provider end. But it generates very high costs at the ISP end of the connection. So costs at the ISP end will rise as more and more users start watching video(especially using P2P delivery mechanisms). Someone has to pay for the increased costs at the ISP end. It will be you directly thru higher monthly flat charges or thru bill-by-byte tiers. Or indirectly thru fees levied on content providers who then use advertising models to pay more at their end. And, of course, advertisers mean higher costs for all the goods people buy that are being advertised.
So, in the end, you will pay more for all this new video growth occurring on the internet. The big question is HOW you will pay for it, directly or indirectly, as shown above. As for me, I prefer that ISPs move to a bill-by-byte tier system. I watch very, very little video thru an internet connection and would love to see my costs contained. And for those who are downloading hundreds of videos online, their costs should rise in my opinion.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | | me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
·VOIPo
| Re: Fiasco I agree, if it cost the ISP $.10 a Gb then they charge us $.30 per gb(I don't know how much it cost them, just using easy #s) I would be ok with that IF and only IF they offer end their highest speed everywhere, or at least 3m. I have 512d 128u and its ok, but I would rather have embarqs 10m. If they want to charge me the max they MUST in return give me the max.
they would also have to get rid of throttles as that would be anti-productive. as people would not be able to use the bandwidth they can be will be charged for. I do not know if I use p2p, just youtube and veoh r they p2p? And I think if p2p is that bad it should be out lawed for the most part. granted the cablecos would loose money with tat plan because people like me would be all, "if they want to charge us fer each Gb I will go all iptv and use each gb I can". | |
| | | | | 
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| said by GOLFnSUN :Yes, video content providers(especially P2P sites), pay for their connection to the internet and the data they move. But a lot of it is delivered thru one straw at their end and thru thousands of straws at the ISP's last mile end. So, while they generate tremendous demand at the ISP end, they pay only a little at their end. I've seen bandwidth bills for Big Content Providers, and I don't think anybody would call it a little: the costs of providing the infrastructure to provide Big Content Sites would just take your breath away.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl | Unix Wizard | Microsoft Security MVP | Orange County, California USA | my web site | |
| | | | |
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| said by GOLFnSUN :said by me1212 :Who is "they" the ISP or sites like google? If google use more than it pays for I think they should pay more. If they don't use more than the y pay for they should not pay more. Am I the only one who thinks like this? This particular question arises here over and over at BBR. Yes, video content providers(especially P2P sites), pay for their connection to the internet and the data they move. But a lot of it is delivered thru one straw at their end and thru thousands of straws at the ISP's last mile end. So, while they generate tremendous demand at the ISP end, they pay only a little at their end. Now that model does keep costs low at the content provider end. But it generates very high costs at the ISP end of the connection. So costs at the ISP end will rise as more and more users start watching video(especially using P2P delivery mechanisms). Someone has to pay for the increased costs at the ISP end. It will be you directly thru higher monthly flat charges or thru bill-by-byte tiers. Or indirectly thru fees levied on content providers who then use advertising models to pay more at their end. And, of course, advertisers mean higher costs for all the goods people buy that are being advertised. So, in the end, you will pay more for all this new video growth occurring on the internet. The big question is HOW you will pay for it, directly or indirectly, as shown above. As for me, I prefer that ISPs move to a bill-by-byte tier system. I watch very, very little video thru an internet connection and would love to see my costs contained. And for those who are downloading hundreds of videos online, their costs should rise in my opinion. Who is talking about P2P Tk? They specifically mention GOOGLE who most definitely does NOT use P2P to deliver video. If Google has to pay for a straw that is big enough for all the little ISP straws to suck through, why should they have to pay more? | |
| | | | | | 
digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09
49533 | Re: Fiasco He likes to throw P2P into every conversation. | |
| | | | | 
Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA
| said by GOLFnSUN :This particular question arises here over and over at BBR. Yes, video content providers(especially P2P sites), pay for their connection to the internet and the data they move. But a lot of it is delivered thru one straw at their end and thru thousands of straws at the ISP's last mile end. So, while they generate tremendous demand at the ISP end, they pay only a little at their end. The content providers are paying for "one straw" and yes it goes through thousands of "straws" at the ISP's end, the ISP's are ALSO getting paid for each of those "straws". It isnt like google is paying $10/month for thier end and the ISP's only getting $10/month for those thousands of connections. | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: Fiasco said by KrK :said by GOLFnSUN :But a lot of it is delivered thru one straw at their end and thru thousands of straws at the ISP's last mile end. So, while they generate tremendous demand at the ISP end, they pay only a little at their end. This isn't true TK. If 100 people download the same file from a site it's not like the site pays for it once and the ISP has to pay 100 times. The site has to pay for each "Straw" to that file.... so if 1000 people download it, the site pays 1000 times for it. Not when the site is serving up the videos, or software, or game updates with P2P software. And a tremendous amount of video is delivered that way, even if it is done illegally in many cases.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| said by GOLFnSUN :said by Matt : I already pay for my connection, why should someone at the other end who also does have to pay a 3rd time? Because what you pay doesn't cover all the costs to expand the network to cover the new video viewing activities. Either you pay more or they do. What's your preference? And making the ISP have no profits isn't an option. I'm sorry, but $50+ dollars a month most definitely DOES cover the costs and also provide a healthy profit margin. | |
| | | | | | |
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: Fiasco said by KrK : however the additional use DOES mean network expansion is required... and the ISP's don't want to pay for it at all. They want to charge for usage of it but not build or maintain it--- You know that claiming they don't spend for infrastructure is entirely incorrect. Go to the annual or quarterly reports for AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, TWC and read how they EACH spend BIllions of dollars per year on capital projects, expanding & upgrading & maintaining infrastructure.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | | | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| said by Matt :.... I already pay for my connection, why should someone at the other end who also does have to pay a 3rd time? because the monopoly broadband providers want you to.
without meaningful competition, it's not necessary for them to upgrade their facilities as demand increases - they do low cost tricks like "network management", which consists of throttling and caps or they huff and puff about charging everybody more. | |
| 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Stupid
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
| |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: Stupid said by pnh102 :Content providers already pay for bandwidth from their internet providers. not to mention that at least SOME of the money we pay on our bills should be used to improve infrastrucuture. | |
| | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
1 edit | Re: Stupid Unless the AT&Ts of of the world are willing to be just dumb pipes their arguments are nonsense and they should STFU! | |
| 
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
·Skype
| Forgotten? Apparently ISPs have forgotten about the revenue stream they get from their CUSTOMERS to pay for these operating, maintenance, and expansion costs.
I guess they've gotten so caught up in other revenue streams, they consider customer payments for the use of their network resources to be an entitlement now that's part of their baseline and they feel they deserve more money from any entity that would dare make content available to their customers.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com | |
| 
BloodRoses
Gods lend wings to tainted hearts
Premium
join:2003-03-17
clubs: | No. No. I can't be bothered to waste any more time on such a moranic (sic) 'issue'. Just, no. | |
| 
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ | No they shouldn't. Because then that will justify them charging subscription fees for content. The internet has to remain free and open. | |
| | | bngdup
join:2007-02-20
Old Bridge, NJ
·Cablevision
| Re: YES! The major ISP's were granted government subsidies to provide full internet access, not just HTTP port 80 access. You are arguing that because content providers are actually using the megabits that they pay per megabit for that there should be an extra surcharge because it eventually makes it back to my house?
What am I paying my ISP for then if not for synchronous access. So the ISP gets paid by end user for access and gets paid by content providers for access. Please explain to me who this mystery bandit is that is stealing all this money?
If I stream an HD video from netflix than I pay Verizon for the ability to download that. Verizon also gets paid by whoever hands that traffic off to them.
So this is just the ISP's bitching that they can't share in the profits being made by these companies that are using "their pipes" to run a business. They were paid by the government to provide a service, they build said service and now are whining that its not profitable enough.
I say then build your own non-subsidized network sans public funding and see if your new pricing model holds water then. | |
| |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by Mr Matt :  The content providers should be required to pay for any synchronous type traffic that they generate. learn how the internet works. those companies ALREADY pay for bandwidth. so do their customers. | |
| | | Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Re: YES!  Actually I do know how the Internet works, in view of the fact that I was a Telecommunication Manager for one of the largest regional ISP's in the state of Florida. I do know how the financial side of the Internet works. I was on the team that negotiated the contracts with broadband providers and local exchange carriers for PRI's for dial up customer access.
In 1996 the company had POPs across the state of Florida with 28.8 Mb Modems and in some cases back haul circuits to POPs were as low as 56Kbps. By the year 2000 all back haul circuits had been upgraded to T-1's. For connection to the Internet they leased a T-1 from a major broadband carrier from the network operations center and primary POP to the Internet peering point in Atlanta.
By the time they sold out to a major national ISP all modems were upgraded to V.92 standards or 56K, at a substantial cost. They had several DS-3's and an OC-3 to carry traffic from their Dial Up customers and web hosting operation.
Holding time on a modem increased from about 23 Minutes of measured service in 1996 to about 47 Minutes of flat rate service in 2000, while monthly fees decreased from about $25.00 per month to about $16.00 per month.
Network operations constantly monitored traffic on each circuit so that we could high quality service to our customers. As a result of the rate at which traffic increased and the number of modems required to provide satisfactory service, it became apparent that by 2005 the company would be losing money. Unfortunately there is no such thing as a free lunch. I would rather have the content providers pay, than having the cost for my broadband access fees increase. The ISP's will have to pay to upgrade their networks if they expect to carry the increased traffic offered by the content providers. The question is who should pay for the cost of the upgrades. | |
| | | | bngdup
join:2007-02-20
Old Bridge, NJ
·Cablevision
| Re: YES! Well thanks for the resume but your argument still does not hold any water.
You are essentially saying that because your company undersold its lines to stay competitive and did not invest sufficiently for the future that content providers should pay you an extra tax on top of what you already charge other providers?
They pay your company to send and receive X amount of traffic or your company charges a connecting carrier for that. The end users pay your company to send and receive X amount of traffic. So on top of that, you want more money because it costs your Company money to route that traffic?
You being a Manager for X years and citing Dial-up business models has absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand. | |
| | | | | Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Re: YES!  When I was Telecommunication Manager in 2003, Dial-Up was basically dead and the incumbent broadband ISP's (Cable and Telephone Companies), essentially shut out the competition by not allowing access to their subscribers. When the ISP I worked for was invited to offer DSL service by one Local Exchange Carrier, the pricing model indicated that our net profit would be less for a DSL Subscriber then the net profit earned from a dial-up subscriber.
There is a significant difference between carrying typical TCP/IP traffic and continuous high volume downloads.
The only thing that is a fact, other then our government any for profit organization that does not make a profit will not be in business for long, consider General Motors. The difference in price between an OC3 and OC12 in 2003 was not linear. Many Dial-Up ISP's sold out to larger companies because they did not have the capital or revenue to subscribe to circuit capacity support a large customer base. They could not afford to pay the difference between a DS-1 1.544Mbps and even a fractional DS-3 at less than 45Mbps. | |
| | axiomatic
join:2006-08-23
Tomball, TX
| DISAGREE! What the fuck is my monthly payment for? These greedy ISP's need to stop with the ridiculous upper management and CEO bonuses and use that cash to upgrade networks. Thats how it was done forever until the last 10 years when board members and COE's started looting their own companies out of greed.
I officially don't give a shit about the ISP's money problems as they created the situation themselves with greed. | |
| wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| I think it's perfectly reasonable that content providers pay to expand ISP networks. So long as the content providers then get a slice of the ISP's "expanded" revenue stream. Otherwise, I pay for my connection, the content provider pays for theirs, and the ISP can just suck it up and maintain and upgrade their network. Which is what the monies paid by provider and consumer is for in the first place. | |
| Jaghar
join:2001-01-30
Painesville, OH
| Look At Electric Utility Deregulation It really sounds like the telecoms want a system similar to what the electric utility industry has gone to because of deregulation.
There are generating companies (providers) and transmission (infrastructure...pipes).
The utility in Illinois wants the utilities in California and Ohio for "shipping" electricity from Ohio to California via their lines.
It's a legitimate issue because the lines in Illinois where probably never designed for cross country "traffic" combined with the local "traffic". That's one of the reasons that transmission is still regulated.
It's very complicated.
Transfer that over to the internet world, and you have at&t upgrading their equipment because of "joes info service" traffic from Comcast. You can bet joe isn't paying at&t for bandwidth, yet at&t suffers a financially.
However, with that said, I really don't sympathize with the pipe owners and telecoms. Google from California should absolutely not have to pay for at&t equipment in Ohio (directly). I just don't know the answer to the problem.
Well...I know one answer, but it involves the government...and we really don't want that.
--
We will always be much more human than we wish to be. | |
| | bngdup
join:2007-02-20
Old Bridge, NJ
·Cablevision
| Re: Look At Electric Utility Deregulation The problem is not a problem at all. They carriers get paid by all sides for the traffic. The carriers ship information. ITS WHAT THEY GET PAID TO DO. The do not get paid to create content. The issue is that they are able to single out a few companies that are making boatloads of money and they want to share in that because everyone wants money. No different than the Mob asking local businesses for "Protection" fees. | |
| | | Jaghar
join:2001-01-30
Painesville, OH
| Re: Look At Electric Utility Deregulation Well...joe pays Comcast since he's hooked up to it.
The customer pays at&t because he's hooked up to it.
I would venture that there are some pipes in between not owned by either company that don't get any money from the transaction.
Either way..I don't agree with the telecom's desired resolution. I firmly think that greed is the ultimate reason for their resolution and nothing to do with expanding, maintaining and upgrading their system.
--
We will always be much more human than we wish to be. | |
| |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by Jaghar :It really sounds like the telecoms want a system similar to what the electric utility industry has gone to because of deregulation. There are generating companies (providers) and transmission (infrastructure...pipes). The utility in Illinois wants the utilities in California and Ohio for "shipping" electricity from Ohio to California via their lines. It's a legitimate issue because the lines in Illinois where probably never designed for cross country "traffic" combined with the local "traffic". That's one of the reasons that transmission is still regulated. It's very complicated. Transfer that over to the internet world, and you have at&t upgrading their equipment because of "joes info service" traffic from Comcast. You can bet joe isn't paying at&t for bandwidth, yet at&t suffers a financially. That's bull because what about "joe info service" traffic from at&t that goes over Comcast's pipes? See it goes both way. That's what you call a push.
at&t isn't suffering anyways. Not when they literally charge 10,000X the actual cost of a text message. not when ther wirless data plans have $503 per GB overage fees. at&T is just fine.
Besides if I can't use the internet for anything there is no point in having it and at&t won't get ANY business. | |
| | | Jaghar
join:2001-01-30
Painesville, OH | Re: Look At Electric Utility Deregulation What I'm saying is that joe is connected to Comcast and his customer is connected to at&t.
Don't misunderstand my opinion. I'm saying I understand their issue, however I don't agree with their resolution. | |
| | lovswr
join:2001-09-15
Stockbridge, GA
| Well let me take a stab at it 
Probably the Government should become the "dumb pipe" provider. AT&T et al are really complaining because there is no revenue GROWTH as just the pipe holder (all puns intended).
So, IMHO, it would be best if the Government just provided the access & let anybody provide the service (that is access to the pipes). All service providers would pay a percentage (say 2%) of their own revenue to the Government to pay for the upkeep/maintenance. & so on & so forth for the pipes. Then the service providers would, you know, actually have to compete with each other over who gives better service. Now of course the AT&T's of the world would scream bloody murder over stranded/legacy costs (even though we the public heavily subsidized these networks) so we would have to bribe them.
Say we pay them a one time amount equal to 20% of each companies (the existing dumb pip providers) CAPEX for the last 3 years. I realize that this would be a huge amount of money, it is the only way I can see that this idea could get off the ground.
--
lovswr = good hivswr = bad | |
| Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
2 edits | I agree.. they should without question subsidize it. I agree 100% content providers and the users should help subsidize network expansion 100%.
Why should everyone in the world get free internet access and be able to access everything without ever paying a penny for it?
Oh wait.... that's right. WE ALL ARE SUBSIDIZING IT ALREADY!!!!
I pay an ISP to provide me a connection, the content providers pay someone for their connection. The more people paying ISP's for a connection to get that content from the content providers causes the content providers to pay someone even more for a bigger connection to be able to provide service to those wanting it. BEAUTIFUL! | |
| 
jsz0
join:2008-01-23
Jewett City, CT
·Comcast
| Yes, with some caveats. 1) The ISP would ultimately pay for the bulk of the expenses. The content provider would pay some percent of it. For example if you monitor your edge bandwidth and find out 10% of all traffic is NetFlix streaming it would be reasonable to ask Netflix to pay some portion of the upgrade cost. Lets say it's a 50/50 split. In this example Netflix would pay 10% of half of the total upgrade cost or in other words 5% of the total price tag or perhaps even less.
2) Traffic that didn't meet a minimum level of usage would be excluded. This would ensure only highly viewed (therefore very profitable) sites are being asked to pay. The little guys would be excluded from paying.
3) The ISP and the content provider could enter into a marketing agreement to promote the service. So for example if you sign up for AT&T DSL maybe you get a free month trial to Netflix. This cross promotion helps both companies. In some cases competition between services might prevent it from being a reality but there's a big opportunity there.
4) None of this should be legislated and should be worked out privately between the companies. The deals could be structured in such a way that both companies are benefiting from it. No one should be forced into it and the ISP should give no preferential treatment at the network level to a content provider who declines to make a deal.
5) Caching services installed at the ISP headends would go a long way towards relieving edge bandwidth congestion. This is another option for content providers. Perhaps they won't pay for any portion of the network upgrade fee's but will pay for the server to be located at the headend. This is a good middle-ground that requires almost no money to change hands. | |
| | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: Yes, with some caveats. said by jsz0 :1) For example if you monitor your edge bandwidth and find out 10% of all traffic is NetFlix streaming it would be reasonable to ask Netflix to pay some portion of the upgrade cost. So netflix has to pay you for being popular to your customers who are paying you so they can get to netflix, as well as paying the folks who provide netflix service to get enough bandwidth to feed your people.
So do you break down all your traffic and send out thousands of bills to everyone that your customers touch that are not under your control? Or just to the rich and popular providers? What about popular sites that do not make a lot, if any, profit?
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | |
jsz0
join:2008-01-23
Jewett City, CT
·Comcast
| Re: Yes, with some caveats. ^^ That's why I mentioned it should only apply to very high volume traffic. At that point both the content provider and the ISP are getting a benefit from the service so why not make sure it can be delivered to as many customers as possible with the best possible experience? Also why I think it should be a business choice -- not a government requirement. Both companies need to look at it and see if a deal makes sense for their mutual interests. | |
| spk037
join:2006-09-02
Orlando, FL
| BLAH the media conglomerates need to be broken up. the wholesale ownership of content and delivery mechanisms must be abolished.
competition for subscribers over existing infrastructure must be legislated.
im tired of these whining, conniving, multinational, monopolistic, thieving isps moan about the cost of maintaining and expanding their networks. if they cant do it, just get out of the way and let someone else take over. | |
| | | | |
|
|
YES!