UK ISPs Whine About People Actually Using Their Product - ISPs expect content providers to pay extra because consumers use iPlayer...
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
UK ISPs Whine About People Actually Using Their Product
ISPs expect content providers to pay extra because consumers use iPlayer...
(old news - 10:28AM Wednesday Apr 09 2008)
tags: competition · business · world · content · networking · net-neutrality
As we mentioned last week, UK ISPs' run-in with the BBC reminds the world what began network the neutrality issue: ISPs trying to get a chunk of content provider revenues even though they're already being well paid for bandwidth ( and constantly creating new revenue streams). ISPs are annoyed that the BBC has developed a player that actually uses bandwidth, so they've threatened to throttle or block the player unless the BBC pays them a "congestion fee." Last week, the BBC proposed that content providers who find themselves facing such threats should " name and shame" ISPs. Major UK ISP Tiscali apparently didn't like that suggestion, and this week complains to UK outlets that the BBC was making " inflammatory comments about blacklisting." Things might soon get "worse" for UK ISPs, given the BBC is working on a version of the player for the Nintendo Wii: The service will be offered as a beta via the console’s Opera-powered Internet Channel web browser at the regular web address, even though Nintendo will next month enable dedicated third-party channels via its WiiWare programme. Wii had previously been unable to run iPlayer due to its out-of-date version of Flash, so the BBC is re-encoding shows for Flash 7. The same ISP animosity toward content operators (and their ad income) exists here in the States, with U.S. ISPs equally terrified of becoming "dumb pipes." Still, there haven't been any fights quite like this one -- yet. It seems like DirecTV's new VOD model, which uses competing ISP bandwidth to deliver HD content, could spark similar fisticuffs should it prove popular.
Related:- NY Attorney General Investigating Comcast
- Remember How The Net Neutrality Fight Began
- Rogers Uses Deep Packet Inspection for DNS Redirection
- Canadian Regulators Strangling Independent ISPs
- Virgin Takes Aim At BitTorrent
- Verizon's Open Development Initiative? So Far It's A Joke
- Google Voice Ban Is Clear Network Neutrality Violation
- Nobody's Complaining About Comcast's New Throttling
|
Links: New Topic
Forums »
pokesph @ 9th Apr 10:30AM:
dumb pipes
That's all an ISP needs to be. I myself don't want the portals and other _advanced_ content crap.
All we want is a good connection to the net, decent email and newsnet servers.
Stop trying to be content providers, we can find that stuff on our own.
reply
openbox9 @ 9th Apr 10:38AM:
Re: dumb pipes
said by pokesph :
All we want is a good connection to the net, decent email and newsnet servers.
Do you want a dumb pipe or decent mail and news servers?
reply
battleop @ 9th Apr 10:48AM:
Re: dumb pipes
You can get that dumb pipe in the form of a T1, DS3, Metro Ethernet, etc.
reply
jc100 @ 9th Apr 10:51AM:
Re: dumb pipes
ISPS have something to moan about! It's called not living up to their end of the bargain. Customers PAY THEM for the service. If they can't afford or aren't able to provide it, then changes have to be made on their end. IT IS NOT the content provider's responsibility to limit what the user sees, nor is it the ISPS's. Their sole job is to provide the connectivity so that access can be gained to the internet. If they need to raise prices or expand their network, so be it. However, don't cry when other's point out the obvious flaw in your model. Just because you chose to skimp and now can't provide the bandwidth, is no one else's fault. Live with it ISPS. You set yourself up for the problems you face.
reply
Morac @ 9th Apr 11:01AM:
OT: Why Flash 7 anyway?
Why exactly do all the consoles (Wii, PS3, PSP, etc) only support flash 7 anyway? If Adobe would update flash for the consoles, then the BBC wouldn't have to modify anything.
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired.
reply
fatmanskinny @ 9th Apr 11:01AM:
Guess who is going to pay for this battle?
Give me a C - C!
Give me a O - O!
Give me a N - N!
Give me a S - S!
Give me a U - U!
Give me a M - M!
Give me a E - E!
Give me a R - R!
Give me a S - S!
What does that spell? Consumers!! Big business simply finding another way into consumers' pockets. We are on our way to experiencing this in the States. Coming soon to a state near you.
--
The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary.
reply
pokesph @ 9th Apr 11:04AM:
Re: dumb pipes
said by battleop :
You can get that dumb pipe in the form of a T1, DS3, Metro Ethernet, etc.
Of course but at extremely inflated prices not suitable for most home / small business users.
Now IF they would offer a best effort service with limited support and a relaxed SLA @ competitive prices, I'd be all over it. 2GigaE FTW
reply
telcolackey @ 9th Apr 11:11AM:
Re: dumb pipes
To move to a dump pipe model, the consumer must pay the cost of bandwidth as it grows (look at T1, etc prices)... Not the flat fee of high speed residential broadband. As bandwidth usage grows, it has to be subsidized somehow.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik
reply
telcolackey @ 9th Apr 11:17AM:
Karl's Content Lobby
[edit for clarity]
"ISPs trying to get a chunk of content provider revenues even though they're already being well paid for bandwidth"
Karl, you forgot about how content provider's are moving their bandwidth distribution to p2p... who is going to pay for that?
Content providers EXPECT bandwidth to be "free". This means as bandwidth drastically grows - infrastructure is required to be massively upgraded. Someone will have to foot the bill.... who do you want that to be?
The Content Providers make money the more bits they send but no additional spending from the Consumers with a flat fee pricing structure. The broadband ISPs are in the middle and have to address the costs.
Karl, you really need to think this through as your thinking and editorializing is highly flawed.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik
reply
jc100 @ 9th Apr 11:19AM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
ISPS are in their full right to UP PRICES. I agree. However, maybe they should use the expanded income to UPGRADE capacity to support their users versus pocketing it and waiting until another rainy day to moan. It's like the billionaire claiming he or she doesn't have any money to spend. While I doubt these ISPS are cash cows. It's their job to keep up with users. If they can't then the next guy will come in and find a way to do it. Simple business.
reply
Dread @ 9th Apr 11:24AM:
Waste of time
Too bad the wii sucks
reply
telcolackey @ 9th Apr 11:25AM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
The BBC expects unlimited free bandwidth distribution for high volume video... They should share the cost of delivering this content. It should not all be on the ISP to extract from the consumers.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik
reply
openbox9 @ 9th Apr 11:29AM:
Re: dumb pipes
said by jc100 :
IT IS NOT the content provider's responsibility to limit what the user sees, nor is it the ISPS's. Their sole job is to provide the connectivity so that access can be gained to the internet.
Says you. There are a lot of providers out there that disagree with your viewpoint. telcolackey's comment above is a good one. If you don't want a "subsidized" connection, then you need to be willing to pay for it.
reply
kcblack @ 9th Apr 11:30AM:
I Cry Crocodile Tears for the providers
The day that Comcast, ATT, etc and other providers starts losing money and can't afford to pay their executives outrageous salaries and bonuses anymore is the time I'll start to worry.
Until then, give me the service I PAY for and don't oversell the nodes and nickel and dime us to death and throttle our legitimate access to that bandwidth that you advertise and I PAY for.
Kevin
--
"Because we’ve invested over $4 billion in building our MegaBand network so you can enjoy the internet the way it was intended to be – fast and uncapped." (RCN marketing Promo)
reply
jc100 @ 9th Apr 11:31AM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
Wrong. It's the ISPS job to provide the capability of accessing content. Would you like the internet to be solely controlled by said ISPS? IE, all content must be first approved before uploaded? That's what you are advocating. For the rest of us, we enjoy being able to read, watch, or browse content at our leisure. Therefore, ISPS have a few options.
1) Raise prices and expand the network with additional revenue
2) Filter content and face alienating consumers.
3) Moan and do nothing.
4) This option (#4) of the content providers paying WON'T HAPPEN.
Therefore, pick your piece of cake.
reply
openbox9 @ 9th Apr 11:32AM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
said by jc100 :
ISPS are in their full right to UP PRICES. I agree. However, maybe they should use the expanded income to UPGRADE capacity
They are. Read some of the quarterly and/or annual reports from the public ISPs. They're spending billions of dollars to upgrade infrastructure.
reply
Karl Bode @ 9th Apr 11:33AM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
quote:
The Content Providers make money the more bits they send but no additional spending from the Consumers with a flat fee pricing structure. The broadband ISPs are in the middle and have to address the costs.
Hmm, Advertising via webmail, BVAS, selling user clickstream data, new DNS Redirection ad revenue, charging to get around spam filters, targeted behavioral advertising...
Seems to me they're coming up with ways to ramp up revenue.
On top of already very healthy broadband profit margins, dropping bandwidth prices, the dropping cost of hardware, nice TV and VoIP profit margins....and in some cases ISPs are getting into things like home and car sales.
They also need to impose a tariff on content providers and migrate to a per-byte-billing model? My, times sure are suddenly tough (and those hard times aren't reflected in quarterly earnings reports)...
I find the entire "we're not making enough money" to handle demand concept highly disingenuous. They want a slice of the content advertising revenue to please investors. It really is that simple.
reply
openbox9 @ 9th Apr 11:35AM:
Re: I Cry Crocodile Tears for the providers
said by kcblack :
Until then, give me the service I PAY for and don't oversell the nodes and nickel and dime us to death and throttle our legitimate access to that bandwidth that you advertise and I PAY for.
But that is the service you pay for. Do you seriously think you can get your connection for $50/mth on a non-oversold node or on an oversold node without some bandwidth management?
reply
telcolackey @ 9th Apr 11:39AM:
Re: I Cry Crocodile Tears for the providers
Umm... you can make all these same statements and much much more about the content companies or any other major company for that matter. Salaries are peanuts compared to capital spend for massive bandwidth growth.
As far as all the "give me what I pay for"... be careful what you wish for, you just may get it as pricing around T1's (for only 1Mb) is the cost of a real dumb pipe with full usage.
High speed broadband economics are based on historical usage models of residential service. With Content companies moving their bandwidth delivery to p2p and folks like the BBC paying no one, yet growing the bandwidth substantially toward flat fee broadband players, the only people that will lose is the Consumers!
Newer high volume bandwidth apps need to be paid for.... and if Content wants it to be free, be prepared to foot the bill.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik
reply
telcolackey @ 9th Apr 11:48AM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
said by Karl Bode :
Seems to me they're coming up with ways to ramp up revenue.
Some of your examples are accurate, some are tests, some are inflammatory and not applied to every provider and all are status quo to get the current profit margins which are not outrageous and which Wall Street expects to at least continue. If traffic 40% growth / year is about right and prices for broadband have stayed relatively flat with increase speeds then everything works well.
If Content moves to a p2p model - Content delivery bandwidth becomes "free" or if Content forces a mechanism to deliver huge amounts of video for "free", then this historical model breaks.
Someone has to pay for unexpected and exponential growth
»news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7116929.stm
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik
reply
telcolackey @ 9th Apr 11:52AM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
That is not what I am advocating. I am saying that Content delivery is not Free as the Content companies want.
I don't expect Content to pay every ISP (As AT&T's CEO said), but I do expect Content companies need to pay their share of the delivery process to someone (their ISP) and not push the delivery costs on to the consumers.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik
reply
telcolackey @ 9th Apr 11:59AM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
said by Karl Bode :
I find the entire "we're not making enough money" to handle demand concept highly disingenuous.
Karl, you need to start looking through the windshield as if you keep looking only in your rear view mirror you will crash into what is coming.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik
reply
Karl Bode @ 9th Apr 12:00PM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
None of those are "tests." They're all ideas being implemented by major ISPs, and I'd expect all of the major ISPs to be embracing behavioral advertising technology by this time next year. quote:
Someone has to pay for unexpected and exponential growth
And it's going to be the consumer, whose private usage data is now creating a brand new revenue stream that alone would probably address your phantom budgetary shortcomings were they to actually exist.
These carriers are doing fine, and actually showing quite a bit of creativity in sucking additional revenue out of their businesses. This rhetoric about content providers getting "free ride" is the marketing diarrhea of lobbyists and policy men who are trying to hoist content tariffs and per-byte billing on consumers when they're already making a solid profit.
reply
Corydon @ 9th Apr 12:01PM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
No, this is the fundamental flaw of commercial P2P (like the iPlayer): it foists ALL of the distribution costs on the consumer. This is a radical departure from how content has been delivered over the WWW, where content providers must pay their hosting company for the bandwidth consumers accessing their content consumes.
Making content providers pay to have their content hosted isn't censorship; it's how the WWW works now and has worked since the early '90s. It's also a big part of what has enabled the current consumer ISP model of extremely high (practically nonexistent, for most users) usage caps at a relatively low price.
If you push the costs of content distribution on to the consumer (which is precisely what P2P does), then expect those caps to drop lower and lower and/or prices to rise higher and higher.
I, for one, am pretty happy with the status quo. My connection costs $45 per month and I don't waste any time counting bits. I'd rather not have P2P upset my apple cart.
The fact that I'm getting ready to lose this so a bunch of teenagers can download the latest Hannah Montana crap just adds insult to injury.
reply
thevorpal @ 9th Apr 12:08PM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
said by jc100 :
Wrong. It's the ISPS job to provide the capability of accessing content. Would you like the internet to be solely controlled by said ISPS? IE, all content must be first approved before uploaded? That's what you are advocating. For the rest of us, we enjoy being able to read, watch, or browse content at our leisure. Therefore, ISPS have a few options.
1) Raise prices and expand the network with additional revenue
2) Filter content and face alienating consumers.
3) Moan and do nothing.
4) This option (#4) of the content providers paying WON'T HAPPEN.
Therefore, pick your piece of cake.
The problem occurs when some of these 'content providers' offer the content as part of a P2P service. In theory, the bandwidth they pay for drops WAY down as the distribution is offloaded to the viewers.
In a traditional setup, the content provider would purchase enough bandwidth for X number of users to use simultaneously. I don't think there are any ISPs that complain about that model.
But once you start providing content through P2P, all you really have to provide is the torrent, and the initial seed (and sometimes when the seed count drops too low, you provide it again). This puts the share of the strain on the networks of the ISPs and not the link between the ISP and the content provider.
The fact that I can see the ISPs side of this argument given the fact that I traditionally loathe overreaching ISPs should also indicate that this isn't some simple case of the ISPs making a money grab. They do have a valid arguement when it comes to P2P.
Now, how much of a leg do they have to stand on? We will see, but their complaint is not completely without merit.
reply
amigo_boy @ 9th Apr 12:14PM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
said by telcolackey :
Karl, you really need to think this through as your thinking and editorializing is highly flawed.
I agree. The news summaries (and perhaps selection) on DSLR/BBR is highly agendized. It should be renamed DSLA/BBA (advocacy instead of reports).
Mark
reply
telcolackey @ 9th Apr 12:17PM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
said by Karl Bode :
This rhetoric about content providers getting "free ride" is the marketing diarrhea of lobbyists and policy men who are trying to hoist content tariffs and per-byte billing on consumers when they're already making a solid profit.
Major content distributes are probably paying less than $10/Mbps at 95%ile peak / month. For each bit they send they make $X.
Even when Content is paying $10/Mbps for bandwidth to their ISP, it is a very large chuck of their costs. Moving that to p2p or other creative ways to remove these costs (like BBC is doing) allow them to delivery unlimited "free to them" bandwidth at very high profit margin (removed costs). Sounds great in principle, but the impact is real and not rhetoric.
It's unfortunate that you cannot see both sides of this issue given the size and diversity of your audience. Be careful what you wish for, you just make get it.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik
reply
TKJunkMail @ 9th Apr 12:19PM:
That BBC is paying fair share of Bandwidth $ is a lie
»UK ISPs Whine About People Actually Using Their Product
ISPs trying to get a chunk of content provider revenues even though they're already being well paid for bandwidth
And there is the main lie repeated over and over by those content providers using P2P software - that they pay their fair share of bandwidth costs. They don't pay their fair share. They buy a straws worth of bandwidth from the ISP and then offload a fire hose's worth of demand to the ISP, who has nowhere else to go to recover costs except from the ISP's customers, all the while collecting huge amounts of advertising dollars.
»www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/help/legal···ms.shtml
So that you can download BBC Content the BBC has provided you with the Download Manager.
When you install the Download Manager you will also install peer-to-peer file sharing software from Verisign Inc. This software has a file share feature that enables other BBC iPlayer users to download BBC Content through your personal computer (using part of your upload bandwidth)
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
reply
Ammler @ 9th Apr 12:41PM:
Re: That BBC is paying fair share of Bandwidth $ is a lie
I normally agree with Karl on this issue, but you bring up a very valid point.
Once these Content Providers foist there wares unto the various P2P systems, that is free bandwidth to them provided by none other than the consumers ISP.
If these content providers on going to cry fowl about the ISPs trying to charge for network use, than they better make sure they are providing 100% of their services, otherwise it is a mute point, and they themselves become hypocrites.
reply
Jmartz @ 9th Apr 12:42PM:
Re: Guess who is going to pay for this battle?
said by fatmanskinny :
What does that spell? Consumers!! Big business simply finding another way into consumers' pockets. We are on our way to experiencing this in the States. Coming soon to a state near you.
It actually seems more like anti-competitiveness to me, and could be subject to many, many lawsuits if such tactics are undertaken here in the United States. There is no way an ISP could win a case forbidding DirecTV from providing VOD services over a third party internet connection. Then the ISP's would start suing YouTube and Yahoo! Music and iTunes, etc.
It just will not stand up.
reply
TheGhost @ 9th Apr 12:43PM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
said by telcolackey :
That is not what I am advocating. I am saying that Content delivery is not Free as the Content companies want.
I don't expect Content to pay every ISP (As AT&T's CEO said), but I do expect Content companies need to pay their share of the delivery process to someone (their ISP) and not push the delivery costs on to the consumers.
Don't the content providers pay their OWN provider to deliver content to the net, just like Yahoo, Google, and CNN? Does the BBC somehow get free bandwidth and the ISPs want them to pay something, or do the ISPs want to double-dip?
reply
telcolackey @ 9th Apr 12:46PM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
Peer to peer
reply
Karl Bode @ 9th Apr 12:50PM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
quote:
At even $10/Mbps their bandwidth costs toward their ISP is a large chuck of their costs. Moving that to p2p or other creative ways to remove these costs (like BBC is doing) allow them to delivery unlimited "free to them" bandwidth at very high profit margin (removed costs). Sounds great in principle, but the impact is real and not rhetoric.
Well see, that's our disconnect. ISP employees think it's the content provider's job to pay you extra money because they innovated and created a business model that cut their costs while raising yours. It's actually your job to come up with additional revenue, which you already are, in the form of turning user privacy into a revenue stream and other forms of advertising.
It's called competing and adaptation.
If ISPs feel they also want to try and sell American consumers on the idea of also billing users by the byte and charging content carriers a tariff, good luck! You say it's time for them to do this, so if you're an ISP employee, start pushing to make this happen if you really think it's the solution....
reply
Karl Bode @ 9th Apr 12:58PM:
Re: That BBC is paying fair share of Bandwidth $ is a lie
Well one, TK again repeats the false premises that (1) these carriers are actually suffering in any way economically and (2) this traffic creates an unmanageable load on the network when the BBC estimates it's a single digit percentage load bump for ISPs.
But why is it the content provider's (BBC, Vuze) job to fix the broadband industry's business model? These developers developed a system that cut their costs and raises the costs of ISPs.
ISPs then adjust by creating new revenue streams via a multitude of creative ways (bogus fees, DNS redirection ads, clickstream data sales, behavioral advertising, termination fees, charging to pay a bill in person, charging to pay a bill via a real person over the phone)...
If this revenue isn't enough (and it's never enough to investors and employees who benefit, obviously), try charging new transmission fees for all content carriers that try to use the network and see how it works.
reply
telcolackey @ 9th Apr 01:03PM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
said by Karl Bode :
Well see, that's our disconnect. ISP employees think it's the content provider's job to pay you extra money because they innovated and created a business model that cut their costs while raising yours. It's actually your job to come up with additional revenue, which you already are, in the form of turning user privacy into a revenue stream and other forms of advertising.
Perhaps, but in reality (and something people debate), a user allowing a Content company to use the bandwidth that was sold to them towards delivery of a 3rd party services is, to me, a clear violation of the terms around Residential Service.
said by Karl Bode :
If ISPs feel they also want to try and sell American consumers on the idea of also billing users by the byte and charging content carriers a tariff, good luck!
Tariff, no. Unless they want a direct relationship vs. via another carrier.
Bill based on usage, makes sense (see Electricity, Water, Gas, etc). However this is a marketing challenge.
Generally I think the issue of cost of major growth has to be shared by both Content and the ISPs before the customers. Unfortunately, the ISPs are demonized by Editors like yourself Karl, who take a side and argue only that (as you have done consistently)
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik
reply
fatmanskinny @ 9th Apr 01:06PM:
Re: Guess who is going to pay for this battle?
Good point. On a similar note, I feel our government is bought and paid for by corporations and they will eventually pass their additional charges off to consumers, as always.
--
The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary.
reply
RARPSL @ 9th Apr 01:09PM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
said by TheGhost :
Don't the content providers pay their OWN provider to deliver content to the net, just like Yahoo, Google, and CNN? Does the BBC somehow get free bandwidth and the ISPs want them to pay something, or do the ISPs want to double-dip?
The BBC pays for the bandwidth to run the Tracker as well as seed the files. If I were designing the application, I would add some sanity code to it to identify what ISP the Client is running on and to prefer peers running on that ISP's LAN to peers on the Internet (with the BBC as 2nd priority and non-IPS/Non-BBC as 3rd). IOW: Favor those Peers who are on your ISP's Network to keep the transfers local, have the BBC seed their fair share, and only go ISP-to-ISP for the rest.
reply
KrK @ 9th Apr 01:15PM:
Here is your connection--- Cut us a check!
Here is your internet connection.... You owe us us xx a month, pay up!
OH, And BTW, don't you DARE to actually *use* your connection for anything.... we will sue, overcharge, cap, throttle, and ban and blacklist you.
Have a nice day!
reply
Boogeyman @ 9th Apr 01:15PM:
Re: dumb pipes
Business connections arent priced on speed. You dont pay way more than resedential because its faster, you pay way more for it because they have minimum service garuantees, more competent techs and fast problem resolution.
THATS why business class connections cost so much more, it has nothing to do with not being "subsidized".
reply
RARPSL @ 9th Apr 01:15PM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
said by thevorpal :
But once you start providing content through P2P, all you really have to provide is the torrent, and the initial seed (and sometimes when the seed count drops too low, you provide it again). This puts the share of the strain on the networks of the ISPs and not the link between the ISP and the content provider.
Since this is a dedicated P2P application (not a generic BitTorrent type application), it can be designed to only connect to peers via the Internet when the swarm running on the user's ISP is too small. IOW: Have the client poll "local" (ie: Same ISP) peers before Internet reachable ones to keep the traffic on the local network.
reply
amigo_boy @ 9th Apr 01:16PM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
said by Karl Bode :
... because they innovated and created a business model that cut their costs while raising yours. It's actually your job to come up with additional revenue, which you already are, in the form of turning user privacy into a revenue stream and other forms of advertising.
If ISPs feel they also want to try and sell American consumers on the idea of also billing users by the byte and charging content carriers a tariff, ...
Are you saying you support ISP's doing the above? I've gotten the impression from previous advocacy/editorials that ISPs would be slammed for doing any of the above.
Mark
reply
touchtone561 @ 9th Apr 01:16PM:
All the major US ISP are a side business anyway
Comcast, Cox, Verizon, AT&T, whatever.
In all these cases these guys are just running a side business. "Oh you need high speed, we got that, and by the way..." I'm not knocking it, it is good for America, just be real about it and stop trying to crunch numbers and nodes for them.
If the speed makes sense for them to do and keep their competition away from the core business they will do it!
We tend to forget that the content providers also have to buy bandwidth to get this stuff to us. You think they are using 1-5 Mbps upstreams (LOL)
About 8 years ago some folks used to pay $45 a month for AOL dial-up and a second line at data rate of 56 Kbps. Now you can get 6-8 Mbps for $42.95 with Comcast, stop trying to your geometric progressions to calculate your "Provider's" side business.
Face it - in another 8 years we will be laughing at 50Mbps downstream.
reply
Karl Bode @ 9th Apr 01:18PM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
quote:
Unfortunately, the ISPs are demonized by Editors like yourself Karl, who take a side and argue only that (as you have done consistently)
Yeah, I'm mean. Stubbornly stating that ISPs already have more than enough revenue to handle the added load without resorting to content taxes or per-byte billing. quote:
Tariff, no. Unless they want a direct relationship vs. via another carrier.
Bill based on usage, makes sense (see Electricity, Water, Gas, etc). However this is a marketing challenge.
Better get to work, then.
reply
KrK @ 9th Apr 01:18PM:
Re: That BBC is paying fair share of Bandwidth $ is a lie
said by Ammler :
but you bring up a very valid point.
A very invalid point...
Once these Content Providers foist there wares unto the various P2P systems, that is free bandwidth to them provided by none other than the consumers ISP.
Which the CONSUMER pays for. Sheesh. If I want to UPLOAD a file, I should be able to--- I pay for the privilege!
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)
reply
peerimpact @ 9th Apr 01:20PM:
The Wii cant do p2p
All you guys complaining about p2p remember the Wii doesn't use the iPlayer download manager and probaly cant due to is low storage space/memory and processing power, its a flash web based version of the iPlayer form the iPlayer website .
reply
jc100 @ 9th Apr 01:20PM:
Re: dumb pipes
Exactly. You forgot about the SLA of 99.9 percent. Basically, if my internet goes off, they bring a tech out immediately. We're both given the same line. One has a guarantee to be fixed immediately (Business) and the other just has to be repaired in a reasonable time (home).
reply
telcolackey @ 9th Apr 01:21PM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
Low bandwidth parts (BBC pays) vs REALLY HIGH bandwidth elements (BBC pushes to the ISP / Consumer).
Being more efficient with localized delivery helps, but the biggest cost of delivery has historically been the last few miles in every network design (DSL, Cable, Fiber, etc)
The Consumer doesn't care if content is p2p or direct. Large growth still has to be paid for and P2P is a silver bullet for Content to shoot into the ISP and the consumer.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik
reply
Karl Bode @ 9th Apr 01:23PM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
Nope, I think both would be marketing suicide.
But clearly this is what ISP execs want to implement, so either try it and watch what happens to your brand, or stop whining about companies developing tools that actually use bandwidth.
reply
jc100 @ 9th Apr 01:24PM:
Re: dumb pipes
How so? If you are implying a dedicated line, that's a whole new argument. It's not speed we're bantering about, it's the fact ISPS are wanting to be compensated for usage in general. Basically, ISPS are sick of being the pipe. They now want handouts in conjunction with performing their duties. Wrong. They need to either raise prices and expand their networks, or quit moaning. Simple. It has nothing to do with your line and the speed given. It has everything to do with ISPS not wanting to live up to their end of the bargain. the web is just that, a network and collection of MANY IDEAS big and small. I don't want the ISP moaning at which idea they like and which they don't. It's not their job. Their job is to provide me with the capability to access whatever. If they need to adjust their business model, so be it. Let it be adjusted in terms that resolve the issue (better capacity as I said) versus ignorance and moaning at the people who write said content.
reply
KrK @ 9th Apr 01:24PM:
Re: That BBC is paying fair share of Bandwidth $ is a lie
said by TKJunkMail :
They buy a straws worth of bandwidth from the ISP and then offload a fire hose's worth of demand to the ISP, who has nowhere else to go to recover costs except from the ISP's customers, all the while collecting huge amounts of advertising dollars.
Explain how they transfer the bandwidth expense to the ISP....
The Internet is a network. Since the beginning of networks, in fact the very reason networks exist, is to allow the transfer of files. BOTH WAYS. Not this new "You sit and consume, and never upload" crap. A network IS two way communication and when an ISP sells you a connection you ARE allowed and DO PAY FOR the right to UPLOAD a file.
So let's review:
1) I buy a connection to the Internet from an ISP. This connection includes a charge that makes profit for the ISP above and beyond their expenses of providing the connection, which includes the bandwidth I use and could use.
2) I choose to upload a file. DONE. PAID FOR.
3) 'Nuff said!
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)
reply
Karl Bode @ 9th Apr 01:25PM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
quote:
Large growth still has to be paid for
And again, Comcast doesn't have the revenue to handle "large growth"?
reply
KrK @ 9th Apr 01:28PM:
Re: That BBC is paying fair share of Bandwidth $ is a lie
said by Karl Bode :
ISPs then adjust by creating new revenue streams via a multitude of creative ways (bogus fees, DNS redirection ads, clickstream data sales, behavioral advertising, termination fees, charging to pay a bill in person, charging to pay a bill via a real person over the phone)...
If this revenue isn't enough (and it's never enough to investors and employees who benefit, obviously), try charging new transmission fees for all content carriers that try to use the network and see how it works.
It's pure greed, because the stock speculators or the owners in the case of private firms demand that profits and growth go up by insane numbers each year for their own personal gain. Gone are the days when making a 10% profit was considered acceptable. Now it's gotta be %30+ and repeat year after year or the stock tanks.
Also, the employees rarely benefit... Maybe they have some 401k, but they rarely benefit, as they get "Cost-squeezed" to DEATH and required to do the work of 3 people.
reply
amigo_boy @ 9th Apr 01:28PM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
said by Karl Bode :
Nope, I think both would be marketing suicide.
Then aren't you being disingenuous? You praised content providers for creating revenue streams, and then suggested a variety of ways ISPs could create their own revenue streams -- all of which are ways you would slam them for.
I don't see how you're argument is sincere. You've praised yourself for "stubbornly insisting ISPs have enough money already." Couldn't the same be said about content providers? Heck, I insist you have enough money already and should pay more for your ISP services. I deem it to be so.
See what I mean?
Mark
reply
telcolackey @ 9th Apr 01:30PM:
Re: That BBC is paying fair share of Bandwidth $ is a lie
said by KrK :
Which the CONSUMER pays for. Sheesh. If I want to UPLOAD a file, I should be able to--- I pay for the privilege!
Agreed!! But should say Netflix or DirecTV be able to use your PC or set top as a CDN distribution point for profit? Is that part of what should be considered residential service?
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik
reply
Karl Bode @ 9th Apr 01:31PM:
Re: dumb pipes
quote:
They need to either raise prices and expand their networks, or quit moaning.
That's precisely it.
Notice the year or two of constant complaining, yet they don't want to take the marketing hit from raising prices, imposing per-byte-billing or telling Google they'll now be paying a "congestion charge."
reply
Karl Bode @ 9th Apr 01:33PM:
Re: That BBC is paying fair share of Bandwidth $ is a lie
quote:
Agreed!! But should say Netflix or DirecTV be able to use your PC or set top as a CDN distribution point for profit? Is that part of what should be considered residential service?
The consumer is choosing to use these services. Who cares if the pipe is filled with movies or donkey porn, it's your job to ensure that the capacity is there for the services consumers want, and it's your job to ensure that the capacity can be paid for.
Since you're suggesting your employer (who, Comcast?) can't fund said deployment without things changing, why don't you raise prices, implement your idea of per-byte billing, or try to impose a content fee?
You folks have been making this sales pitch for two or three years now....
reply
KrK @ 9th Apr 01:35PM:
Re: That BBC is paying fair share of Bandwidth $ is a lie
All excellent points, Karl.
I don't know if I'm a regular user or not, but one of the reasons I pay for broadband is because I am waiting for the future to arrive--- The future of video over the net, advanced gaming, advanced file sharing, real-time shopping, etc etc
All these things will create new bandwidth demands on the network... but that's what I pay for. If you want to stay in business as an ISP, you need to deliver your end of the contract. If you try and put me in a cage, I don't see why I should have to pay you (contractually or legally) anything... just because the providers want to protect their other revenue streams... tough cookies. I want the Internet in all it's glory... that's what I paying for... if you refuse to deliver, get out of the business and just die already...
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)
reply
amigo_boy @ 9th Apr 01:35PM:
Re: dumb pipes
said by Karl Bode :
they don't want to take the marketing hit from raising prices, imposing per-byte-billing or telling Google they'll now be paying a "congestion charge."
I still believe you're being disingenuous. You'd contribute to that "marketing hit" by slamming them for any of the above. But, if a content provider offloads the expense of their business model to ISPs you praise them for "innovation."
Mark
reply
KrK @ 9th Apr 01:37PM:
Re: That BBC is paying fair share of Bandwidth $ is a lie
said by telcolackey :
Agreed!! But should say Netflix or DirecTV be able to use your PC or set top as a CDN distribution point for profit? Is that part of what should be considered residential service?
Absolutely. If they provide the content I want, and I agree to the terms, then so be it. It's my connection I'm using and slowing down... but I get to watch the said video stream.
I don't want an ISP saying "NO! You're not allowed to watch video from Netflix, the BBC, or DirecTV! Ban! Block! Throttle!"
etc
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)
reply
jc100 @ 9th Apr 01:38PM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
I think you're missing the point here. Let's say BBC uses X colocation for their webserver or X isp. They pay this ISP to make said content available to the world. However, we now have ISPS moaning that too many of their users are accessing BBC's content. So whose fault is that. BBC has a good product then. Just like everyone else, they MUST PAY to have their stuff hosted, which means they are contributing. ISPS are just getting greedy, because large number of users are flocking to said entity to watch videos. As per the p2p argument, the same stands. Even if users are seeding the files, it doesn't fall outside of the ISPS capacity. Lets say the ISP offers 8mbit down and 1mbit up and sells to 20,000 customers. Logic would dictate that the ISP should be capable of having 8mbit x 20,000 for download and 1mbit x 20,000 for upload. Therefore, if the network is in used constantly, others don't feel the pinch. The problem ONLY arises when said ISPS who neglect their infrastructure run into the issue of holding 20,000 users on half the capacity. Instead of 8mbit x 20,000, they bank on only 10,000 users and sell to 20,000 anyway. Consequently , if more than 10,000 get on and use their net, said pipes are overloaded. Hence, no matter how you slice it, the ISPS are at fault. Don't blame the messenger for bringing material. Blame the ISP for not being able to properly relay that message.
reply
amigo_boy @ 9th Apr 01:41PM:
Re: That BBC is paying fair share of Bandwidth $ is a lie
said by KrK :
If you try and put me in a cage,
That seems to be the crux of the issue. Are they putting *you* in a cage, or the content provider? I've got a feeling that if ISPs charged BBC (for example) they wouldn't be praised by Karl (et. al.) for being "innovative in creating revenue streams." If they throttle the bandwidth they won't be praised either.
What are they supposed to do? I haven't heard any serious suggestions. Just sarcasm (suggesting they do things that are violently opposed). Or, assertions that they don't need more revenue (while there's noticeable silence on this topic concerning content providers' need for revenue).
Mark
reply
amigo_boy @ 9th Apr 01:43PM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
said by jc100 :
I think you're missing the point here. Let's say BBC uses X colocation for their webserver or X isp. They pay this ISP to make said content available to the world.
JC, I think you're missing the point: Why didn't BBC use that business model instead of distributed distribution via their consumers' networks? They must've done if for a reason. Right?
Mark
reply
Karl Bode @ 9th Apr 01:46PM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
quote:
Then aren't you being disingenuous?
Nope. quote:
You praised content providers for creating revenue streams, and then suggested a variety of ways ISPs could create their own revenue streams -- all of which are ways you would slam them for.
Technically I called them "creative." quote:
all of which are ways you would slam them for.
Correct. quote:
I don't see how you're argument is sincere.
Do you work at an ISP? quote:
You've praised yourself for "stubbornly insisting ISPs have enough money already."
Actually I didn't. quote:
Couldn't the same be said about content providers?
They're not trying to get ISPs to pay a content carrier charge.
reply
telcolackey @ 9th Apr 01:46PM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
First of all, I want to say this is a good debate and hopefully people get a more rounded view of this issue vs. just the editorial view... Now to answer Karl's question
quote:
And again, Comcast doesn't have the revenue to handle "large growth"?
This is not about revenue required to handle traffic. This is about the cost burden shift of carrying traffic growth from a multi-party system (as it is today with content and consumer) to a one-party system (the consumer).
Once done, this enables Content to have a zero cost ability to substantially grow this traffic (which may be a good thing for them), but also changes the economics and perhaps the environment. On top of it all p2p consumes all available network resources from other apps (games, voice, etc) by exploiting TCP (another discussion)
I'm not saying this is bad, but the impact of it should not surprise people and the real loser may be the consumer. My point is, the Broadband ISP is in the middle of this with fingers pointed at them from both sides (Consumer and Content) while the Content provider quietly laughs all the way to the bank.
Karl, this won't happen over night and is not something you can see in last months revenue numbers.... this needs to be played out. Look in the windshield not in the rear view mirror.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik
reply
Karl Bode @ 9th Apr 01:48PM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
quote:
This is not about revenue required to handle traffic. This is about the cost burden shift of carrying traffic growth from a multi-party system (as it is today with content and consumer) to a one-party system (the consumer).
Glad you cleared that up.
reply
telcolackey @ 9th Apr 01:52PM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
And to add to that, if the cost burden not only doubles to carry the traffic (paying for both sides), if the traffic doubles, triples, quadruples, etc because Content no longer has a delivery cost (see BBC).... Then that changes the revenue requirements, hence the consumer cost.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik
reply
Karl Bode @ 9th Apr 01:53PM:
Re: dumb pipes
quote:
I still believe you're being disingenuous.
Well then we are at a "disingenuousness" stale mate because the feeling is mutual. quote:
You'd contribute to that "marketing hit" by slamming them for any of the above.
Actually, so far I've only hit them on behavioral advertising when they don't clearly alert customers, but if you say so. quote:
But, if a content provider offloads the expense of their business model to ISPs you praise them for "innovation."
Yes, well we're only talking about BitTorrent, perhaps the most revolutionary media distribution concept created in the last decade.
reply
amigo_boy @ 9th Apr 01:58PM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
said by Karl Bode :
They're not trying to get ISPs to pay a content carrier charge.
Are you saying you'd view such a move as valid? I thought you'd slam them for violating "network neutrality."
Which, again, makes me feel you're being disingenuous. But, I could be wrong. Socrates said "Wisdom begins with a definition of terms." Thus my questions.
Mark
reply
Karl Bode @ 9th Apr 02:02PM:
Re: That BBC is paying fair share of Bandwidth $ is a lie
quote:
What are they supposed to do?
Provide bandwidth?
reply
amigo_boy @ 9th Apr 02:06PM:
Re: dumb pipes
said by Karl Bode : quote:
You'd contribute to that "marketing hit" by slamming them for any of the above.
Actually, so far I've only hit them on behavioral advertising when they don't clearly alert customers
You'd be ok with metered billing? I've gotten the impression from the editorials that you wouldn't. Or, at the very least you'd contribute to the customer angst rather than pointing out through your editorials that it's a valid business model in the face of "revolutionary media distribution" changes. I.e., I *didn't* get the impression you'd provide balance on that topic.
said by Karl Bode :
, but if you say so.
There's no need to be churlish. I'm sincerely asking what ISPs should do to offset costs which would have been paid to the content provider's ISP before this "revolution." I always get the impression ISPs can't do anything to avoid criticism.
Mark
reply
telcolackey @ 9th Apr 02:10PM:
Re: That BBC is paying fair share of Bandwidth $ is a lie
You guys may have missed my point.... Receiving content from these systems is one thing.... Should you be part of the for profit delivery infrastructure to provide content to others on the Internet 7x24?
Sound like residential service to you?
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik
reply
Karl Bode @ 9th Apr 02:11PM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
quote:
Are you saying you support ISP's doing the above?
quote:
Are you saying you'd view such a move as valid?
Are you saying you enjoy consuming rodent blood?
Mark, you know I always enjoy our discussions and your unilateral and unwavering defense of the industry, from the support for wholesale warrantless wiretapping of Americans to imposing unnecessary taxes on content providers simply for the sake of pleasing myopic, insatiable investors...
But we'd get so much farther if every one of your posts wasn't an attempt to reconstitute my points into a new and indefensible position as if we were in fifth grade debate club...
My position is more than clear.
Content taxation is an unwarranted cash grab by ISP executives who desperately want to avoid being dumb pipe providers. They see a future (and rightly so) where they're largely tasked with providing bandwidth and it terrifies them.
If you think imposing content taxes on content providers is a good idea, work to make it happen. Per-byte billing? Godspeed. Good luck.
As an aside, I'm more a fan of Plato's Allegory of the Cave....
reply
Corydon @ 9th Apr 02:15PM:
Re: dumb pipes
said by Karl Bode :
Yes, well we're only talking about BitTorrent, perhaps the most revolutionary media distribution concept created in the last decade.
It may well be revolutionary...but revolutions aren't necessarily good things (the October Revolution for one).
It is revolutionary in the way that it uses bandwidth far more efficiently.
The problem with this efficiency is that current business models for residential customers rely on a certain amount of inefficiency—not every customer can be using their connection at all times or else the network crashes.
Incidentally, this isn't a problem limited to MSOs, nor is it a new model. Again, going back to the '90s, dial-up ISPs consistently "oversold" their service because they could safely assume that not all of their customers would be online at once.
If the old assumptions no longer apply (i.e. that people will not be using their connection most of the time), then it's also logical to assume that the old sales model will disappear as well (i.e. cheap, always available, near-unlimited usage).
Why is it such a surprise to discover that the people who aren't interested in downloading most of the crap that Hollywood churns out really like things as they are and really don't feel like subsidizing people who are?
I don't want my prices going up and I don't want the hassle of tracking my usage and I really don't want to be arguing with my ISP over how much my connection has been used.
reply
amigo_boy @ 9th Apr 02:16PM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
said by Karl Bode :
But we'd get so much farther if every one of your posts wasn't an attempt to reconstitute my points
Unfortunately I've failed to grasp your points. And, it appears you're trying desperately to avoid delving into them. From what I've gathered:
1. ISPs should do the things you'd slam them for (disingenuousness on your part).
2. ISPs have enough money, they don't need more (but nobody's supposed to ask if content providers have enough money, and therefore why was it "creative" for them to develop a new revenue stream which also reduces their ISP costs).
3. ISPs should provide bandwidth (without revenue being an issue because, according to #2, they don't need more revenue).
I honestly believe this is just a personal grudge against ISPs. Not a meaningful attempt to balance competing interests.
Mark
reply
Ammler @ 9th Apr 02:16PM:
Re: That BBC is paying fair share of Bandwidth $ is a lie
I agree with your argument to a point.
If you choose to upload a file that is your choice, and is something you pay your ISP for.
What about these systems like iPlayer that while serving you the service you asked for, you are required by the same content provider to upload part of the same content to other users for said provider?
The provider is now getting free bandwidth off of your ISP as you are uploading distributing the content yourself.
Things would change in a heartbeat if you the consumer now had to pay distribution fees (Bandwidth Costs) to your ISP, as the content provider is not giving you a cut of the profits to offset your distribution costs.
reply
Karl Bode @ 9th Apr 02:18PM:
Re: dumb pipes
quote:
You'd be ok with metered billing?
Sigh.
Are you saying you support content taxes?
Are you saying you support per-byte billing?
Are you saying carriers cannot survive under the current flat-rate pricing model?
Are you saying all content providers who already pay for bandwidth should now be double dipped, and pay ISPs an additional fee for reaching the consumer?
reply
Karl Bode @ 9th Apr 02:21PM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
quote:
Unfortunately I've failed to grasp your points.
Sorry to hear it. They're amply documented and you seem bright. Perhaps reread them? quote:
I honestly believe this is just a personal grudge against ISPs.
Yes, well an ISP killed my sister as a child, so...
reply
amigo_boy @ 9th Apr 02:28PM:
Re: dumb pipes
said by Karl Bode :
Are you saying you support content taxes? per-byte billing?
I'd rather see that than my bandwidth reduced because of new content distribution models which some people benefit more from than others.
said by Karl Bode :
Are you saying carriers cannot survive under the current flat-rate pricing model?
No. I'm saying we don't get something for nothing in this world. The BBC obviously knows this or they would have delivered their content the traditional way. It was clearly in their financial interest to use p2p. They are getting something for nothing.
Clearly someone has to pay. The BBC has shifted its costs. You seem to be saying it's not significant enough. To turn your reasoning back on you, are you saying carriers cannot survive by giving me my connection for free? I'd like the same deal the BBC got.
Mark
reply
Karl Bode @ 9th Apr 02:33PM:
Re: dumb pipes
Are you saying that a consumer who freely chooses to use their bandwidth for the iPlayer, sends a check to his ISP, and that check somehow gets lost in the time/space continuum?
reply
Karl Bode @ 9th Apr 02:46PM:
Re: dumb pipes
quote:
I don't want my prices going up and I don't want the hassle of tracking my usage and I really don't want to be arguing with my ISP over how much my connection has been used.
You really think, that if American ISPs start charging content providers a delivery tax, that the whole "debate" ends there? That they won't continue to pursue additional caps/charges/fees irregardless of real world network strain and operating expenses? That you won't still subsequently see low caps and overage charges?
This is about protecting turf and the ceaseless need for quarter over quarter stock results, far more than it's about broadband network topography. It's about executives using public relations to convince the world there's a looming bandwidth apocalypse that will only be cured if you allow them to do "X".
Who cares what X is, it changes from week to week (regulation, per-byte billing, new fees, Google delivery tax).
Surely any one of these folks that support such an idea would gladly show us real world budgetary impact, or the traffic impact of Vuze on Comcast's overall network performance?
If it is in fact such a dire situation that we need to begin taxing upstart entertainment developers before they've even cornered 1% of the video delivery market...
reply
Corydon @ 9th Apr 02:50PM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
said by jc100 :
Lets say the ISP offers 8mbit down and 1mbit up and sells to 20,000 customers. Logic would dictate that the ISP should be capable of having 8mbit x 20,000 for download and 1mbit x 20,000 for upload. Therefore, if the network is in used constantly, others don't feel the pinch.
This is the crux of the matter. Residential ISPs have never offered connections that are capable of being used to full capacity 24/7. The entire business model has always assumed that consumers will use their connections intermittently, not constantly.
Look at dial-up back in the '90s. Did the dial-up ISPs have a modem available for every customer they signed up? Of course not.
Cable and DSL providers make similar assumptions. Not everyone will be using their internet connection all the time. Right now, my cable modem at home is sitting idle. So it's not a problem if the bandwidth available to the node is not enough to service every subscriber at once. My neighbors and I can share a fast connection while our costs are kept down because we're not all online at the same time. As long as the overselling doesn't get out of hand, everyone wins.
P2P threatens to destroy this arrangement, because now everyone is trying to use their connection 24/7. So the ISP either has to upgrade their infrastructure (which isn't free—guess who pays for it in the end) or they have to enforce the bandwidth sharing arrangement through caps. Either way, the consumer ends up losing.
The only way out of the bind that I can see is to come up with some way of deprioritizing P2P network traffic so that it doesn't interfere with everything else on the internet that we expect to go through in near real time. Then the P2P applications can use the excess capacity that no-one is using at certain times, like late at night or early in the morning, or during the day when most people are at work, while not interfering with everyone else during prime time.
To hear Comcast tell the story, this is exactly what they were trying to do: deprioritize (or "delay") the BitTorrent traffic, and we can see what that got them. Unfortunately, BitTorrent and P2P in general also don't have a good track history of playing well with others. Hopefully, Comcast and BT can come to some kind of arrangement that allows both sides to win, but if not, we as consumers could very well be screwed.
reply
Corydon @ 9th Apr 03:10PM:
Re: dumb pipes
said by Karl Bode :
You really think, that if American ISPs start charging content providers a delivery tax, that the whole "debate" ends there? That they won't continue to pursue additional caps/charges/fees irregardless of real world network strain and operating expenses? That you won't still subsequently see low caps and overage charges?
Of course not, although I'm not advocating a "delivery tax" or similar nonsense. What I am advocating is the status quo, where if you have content you want to sell or give away, you have to pay an ISP (any ISP) to host it. I'm sure you're well aware of how this works; no doubt the costs of hosting this site are substantial. That seems fair to me.
P2P gets around this by effectively hosting content on your consumers' computers and using their ISPs to deliver it. No wonder content providers love it so much. The costs of hosting content are almost entirely offloaded onto the consumer's ISP (and ultimately the consumer).
So let me reframe the question: do you want to pay someone for a TV show or movie and then have them offload the costs of distribution on to you on top of what you've already paid? That hardly seems very consumer friendly.
(edited second paragraph for clarity and grammar)
reply
Lazlow @ 9th Apr 03:11PM:
Re: I Cry Crocodile Tears for the providers
What does not make sense to me is the price/speed. If Japan/Korea/others can offer 50/50 (up/down) speeds for sub $45 per month then why can't we? Do not give me the population density bull either. That only applies to non-metro areas. If these other countries are able to offer ten times the speed and still make a profit (stay in business) then our ISPs can certainly handle the extra costs of upgrading their system to handle the load. Do not bother mentioning that some of these other countries are subsidized because the US also subsidized. This is pretty much just a matter of the ISPs being greedy.
reply
openbox9 @ 9th Apr 03:16PM:
Re: dumb pipes
said by Boogeyman :
Business connections arent priced on speed. You dont pay way more than resedential because its faster, you pay way more for it because they have minimum service garuantees, more competent techs and fast problem resolution.
I didn't say anything about "speed". If anything, your comment reiterates what I stated. The lack of guarantees, overselling, latency, etc. on residential connections allow them to be priced lower than business connections.
reply
openbox9 @ 9th Apr 03:26PM:
Re: dumb pipes
said by jc100 :
it's the fact ISPS are wanting to be compensated for usage in general.
Gasp...why is this so wrong?said by jc100 :
They now want handouts in conjunction with performing their duties.
What handouts are you referring to? And their "duties"? I'm assuming you're referring to their "dumb pipe" duty. Once again, if you want a "dumb pipe", you're free to purchase access to one.said by jc100 :
They need to either raise prices and expand their networks, or quit moaning. Simple.
Bring it. And then we can smack all of the whiners that will complain that the poor consumer is being picked on by greedy ISPs who keep raising their rates so that they can get a 20 Mbps connection to replace their 15 Mbps connection. Not so simple now. I personally like my lower cost service if it's subsidized by other revenue streams.
reply
Karl Bode @ 9th Apr 03:33PM:
Re: dumb pipes
quote:
So let me reframe the question: do you want to pay someone for a TV show or movie and then have them offload the costs of distribution on to you on top of what you've already paid?
Again though, I disagree with the whole idea that it's anybody but the ISP's problem. I'm sorry Vuze is using Comcast's bandwidth to compete with Comcast, but why should the consumer care?
Correct or not, the consumer believes that bandwidth is theirs after a decade of marketing suggesting as much. They paid for it. The software developer developed a system that uses this bandwidth to provide a service to consumers.
If the service the consumer is choosing to use is consuming too much bandwidth, the ISP can charge them more. Move them to a higher tier. If the network is suffering from problems because the old architecture can't meet the realities of new delivery systems (and I think this isn't really a problem, but is overstated for political effect), it's time to upgrade the network, make the protocols more efficient and engage in some degree of sensible traffic shaping (all three are happening).
What the ISPs want here is to have their cake and eat it too: Hint at all you can eat connectivity while quietly throttling and booting high-consumption users, and have someone else pay for their network expansion without suffering the PR headache that comes from having to charge more to meet bandwidth demand. This is mixed with a desire to keep competition for video services at bay.
There's a lot of farmed FUD out there by think tanks and PR execs that get reconstituted by lower level employees as gospel...
And as an aside, I love how so many people preach about the free market ceaselessly, but then when it does something they don't like their first impulse is to tax, impose fees, and get Uncle Sam to pass laws protecting their interests...
reply
openbox9 @ 9th Apr 03:36PM:
Re: That BBC is paying fair share of Bandwidth $ is a lie
said by telcolackey :
Should you be part of the for profit delivery infrastructure to provide content to others on the Internet 7x24?
Kind of ironic that some people are more than willing to screw one greedy corporation for another. I guess they really don't care as long as they get there's....
reply
Karl Bode @ 9th Apr 03:45PM:
Re: That BBC is paying fair share of Bandwidth $ is a lie
quote:
Kind of ironic that some people are more than willing to screw one greedy corporation for another. I guess they really don't care as long as they get there's....
Isn't that the consumer's M.O.? They want the best deal at the lowest prices. Why should Joe Consumer care if a multi-national entertainment conglomerate (who takes every opportunity to strip away their rights and nickel and dime them) suddenly gets the short end of the stick?
reply
amigo_boy @ 9th Apr 04:18PM:
Re: dumb pipes
said by Karl Bode :
That they won't continue to pursue additional caps/charges/fees irregardless of real world network strain and operating expenses? That you won't still subsequently see low caps and overage charges?
Odd that you're using the "it will never stop" argument, and then apparently denying the legitimacy of that same argument if ISPs use it:
said by Karl Bode :
If it is in fact such a dire situation that we need to begin taxing upstart entertainment developers before they've even cornered 1% of the video delivery market...
They may have an interest in getting in front of this before it gets larger. And, if it wasn't an impact on them, why would content providers use this medium instead of traditional delivery via http (and all the bandwidth charges they would incur)?
Mark
reply
openbox9 @ 9th Apr 05:48PM:
Re: That BBC is paying fair share of Bandwidth $ is a lie
Great. Then I'm all for the ISPs killing all P2P and other bandwidth sucking applications so that ISPs don't have to raise rates and connections are rock solid 99.99% of the time.
Even if pitting greedy corporations against each other is the consumer's M.O., then it's the corporation's M.O. to squeeze every single penny out of the consumer that they can and to exploit them as much as possible. Which one do you think is going to win? I know where I'm putting my money.
reply
battleop @ 9th Apr 06:10PM:
Re: dumb pipes
For level of service you get these services are hardly inflated.
reply
kcblack @ 9th Apr 06:33PM:
Re: I Cry Crocodile Tears for the providers
said by openbox9 :said by kcblack :
Until then, give me the service I PAY for and don't oversell the nodes and nickel and dime us to death and throttle our legitimate access to that bandwidth that you advertise and I PAY for.
But that is the service you pay for. Do you seriously think you can get your connection for $50/mth on a non-oversold node or on an oversold node without some bandwidth management?
Well, actually, I pay $85 a month for 20/2. I expect every darn megabyte of that bandwidth when I need to use it. I don't use all of it, every minute or every day, but just like the water tap, I expect it to be there when I need it. If they oversell then thats their fault.But again, when they can actually PROVE that they aren't making money just like I said (exec salaries and bonuses) I'll throw in the towel and admit it. The cable guys whine because they didn't put the money into the TWO-WAY infrastructure that they agreed to when they got all their concessions and freebies from Uncle Sam. Again, like someone also said, if they ca do it in 3rd world countries, then why can't they do it for the same price point in the Metro Chicago area.
Reasonable bandwidth management I can handle. Throttling specific traffic en masse when they won't or can't even keep zombie PCs from eating up network bandwidth, nope, not gonna buy it. Forging packets, nope, not gonna buy that either. Get their own house in order before they start to mess with what I pay them for.
Kevin
reply
anon @ 9th Apr 06:52PM:
Re: dumb pipes
said by pokesph :
That's all an ISP needs to be. I myself don't want the portals and other _advanced_ content crap.
All we want is a good connection to the net, decent email and newsnet servers.
Stop trying to be content providers, we can find that stuff on our own.
No, nobody wants ISPs to provide e-mail services. Specially if they are as bad as Comcast's.
reply
mech1164 @ 9th Apr 09:48PM:
Re: I Cry Crocodile Tears for the providers
said by openbox9 :said by kcblack :
Until then, give me the service I PAY for and don't oversell the nodes and nickel and dime us to death and throttle our legitimate access to that bandwidth that you advertise and I PAY for.
But that is the service you pay for. Do you seriously think you can get your connection for $50/mth on a non-oversold node or on an oversold node without some bandwidth management?
Short answer YES!!!!!!!!!!!
Long answer, ISP's have been getting away with murder here in the states. Oversold nodes, lack of commitment, FUD as far as you can see, ect. ect. ect. And still a good portion of the country is lucky to have dialup. Most of Europe is onto 2 to 5 times faster speeds then the best we have here. Then we have the those Kooky Asians in Korea and Japan That make Europe look like they are using tin cans and string.
This is about one thing and one thing only GREED plain and simple. Do I think this will get resolved, not anytime soon. But I'm not gonna sit here and take it. If a better service comes along, I'll be on it like white on rice. :D
reply
openbox9 @ 9th Apr 10:09PM:
Re: I Cry Crocodile Tears for the providers
said by mech1164 :
Most of Europe is onto 2 to 5 times faster speeds then the best we have here.
Really? What parts of Europe? Europe includes many countries that I seriously doubt rival our "best" service, let alone 2-5 times better.said by mech1164 :
Then we have the those Kooky Asians in Korea and Japan
I wasn't impressed with the wonderful Korean internet access that I had for 2 weeks last year when I was there.said by mech1164 :
But I'm not gonna sit here and take it.
What are you doing then?
reply
anon @ 10th Apr 12:46AM:
Re: That BBC is paying fair share of Bandwidth $ is a lie
It seems to me that your position hinges on a particular belief that I don't agree with, namely that fairness requires that someone who has content, that others are interested in, must bear all the costs of the distribution of that content themselves.
I agree with you that it is certainly true that p2p moves the cost of distribution from the content provider to the mass of p2p users. I don't agree that this is inherently unfair.
Certainly people who create want what they create to be experienced by others. Others, however, desire to experience that content and benefit by the experience. If those others choose to run p2p apps and they aren't bothered by the fact that they are carrying some of the distribution costs(and I claim it is they who are carrying the costs not the isp) why is this unfair? It doesn't bother them mostly because p2p spreads the distribution costs over a large number of people to reduce the burden on any particular person.
My claim above leads to the other key issue that you argue that isp customers who use p2p are NOT carrying the cost of their use.
I don't think you can deny that people who use p2p applications are paying for their connections.
You don't, however, feel that they are paying enough and therefore costs are being pawned off on the p2p customer's isp. This is a matter of much debate and it isn't clear how much bandwidth consumption crosses the line where the customer is not carrying the cost of servicing him.
IF, however, your belief is true then I think the most sound of way of dealing with that, without drastically altering the nature of present business models or the established customs of the internet, is that prices have to go up for the residential user to properly reflect the costs of their consumption.
reply
anon @ 10th Apr 12:46AM:
Re: That BBC is paying fair share of Bandwidth $ is a lie
"If they throttle the bandwidth they won't be praised either."
"What are they supposed to do?"
Content neutral throttling, such as you mention is one way.
Raising prices to residential users is another.
No they won't be praised. Yes people will complain. These are, however, legitimate ways to approach the problem.
I don't believe that limitations imposed on particular apps or uses or going after content providers are legitimate approaches.
reply
anon @ 10th Apr 12:07AM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
The irony is that this entire issue of content providers using P2P would evaporate over night if backbone providers and ISPs could get multicasting to work reliably, securely and sanely.
If anything, content providers and ISPs should have renewed interest in multicasting, but alas, it still sits in the wings, underutilized and languishing.
reply
amigo_boy @ 10th Apr 10:18AM:
Re: That BBC is paying fair share of Bandwidth $ is a lie
said by asdfdfdfdfdfdf :
Content neutral throttling, such as you mention is one way. Raising prices to residential users is another.
No they won't be praised. Yes people will complain. These are, however, legitimate ways to approach the problem.
Thanks. I agree. If they raise prices I think I would prefer metered billing. I don't do much more than surf the web and read email. I'd like it to be fast. But, I don't want to pay for the capacity necessary for this kind of offloaded, distributed content delivery service. I respect some people (most?) will find value in it. I don't have a problem with that as long as they're paying for it, and not slowing down my activities.
Regarding your response to TK (disputing whether it's "fair."). Karl referred to content tax yesterday. That caused me to think about how content providers using p2p is similar to a tax. Politicians often approve more programs because "it will only cost everyone in the country 2 cents, nobody will notice it." But, the problem is that after enough politicians rationalize expenditures like this, suddenly everything is costing each person $2000. It adds up.
This content-delivery issue seems similar. It's obvious the content folks don't want a million people individually downloading a 500meg movie. It would cost the content folks a fortune to pay for the bandwidth necessary for that. Their rationale for distributing the delivery seems similar to the politicians' and taxation. If it's distributed among many people it will be almost unnoticeable.
It seems like a corporate tax upon all internet users. And, the more content providers doing it, the more we'll notice the cumulative effect (just like government taxes).
Mark
reply
kcblack @ 10th Apr 10:48AM:
Re: That BBC is paying fair share of Bandwidth $ is a lie
I just think to myself that if its such a problem, then there are things to do to mitigate the problem.
Me as a content provider:
I'm gonna be putting out a whole bunch of video. I understand that the ISPs are not going to be happy, so I work with those interested to see if there is a way that we can all win. If people can't get my content for whatever reason they aren't going to be happy with me. I lose
Me as an ISP:
I see that my customers want the rich content from the provider. I don't think its fair, but hey that's business. If I block the service, people or going to leave or the government is going to get involved because I'm censoring content or not being network neutral or whatever. I lose..
What to do, what to do.
Here's an idea. Work with each other. Agree to work on solutions like having copies/copy of the content cached at point(s) in my network that help ease congestion. Disk space is mondo cheap these days. Make it a marketing gimmick. Makes it faster to the customer so that it makes my network look faster. Maybe even make a deal so its part of my VOD lineup or directly available from my internet portal. Customer is greatly pleased with content provider for fast access to content. VOD or portal placement makes my content that much more accessable.
Sounds like WIN, WIN, WIN all around. Customer wins (like that hardly ever happens), ISP wins, Content Provider wins.
Wooohoo!
Kevin
--
"Because we've invested over $4 billion in building our MegaBand network so you can enjoy the internet the way it was intended to be: fast and uncapped." (RCN marketing Promo)
reply
wentlanc @ 10th Apr 11:19AM:
Re: Karl's Content Lobby
Now something to consider is that some portion of the bandwidth will remain in the providers network. Instead of the session being between the user and the BBC, the session(S) would ideally be between the user, and other users within the same ISP. Interior bandwidth is much more affordable than exterior bandwidth to other ISP's.
I'm pretty sure this was the intention of the protocol. Instead of bitching about it, maybe they can work with the protocol developers to make it a little more aware of the BGP processes, and possibly localize itself within the providers AS???
No solution is perfect, but with some actual work instead of just throwing our arms up, and screaming that the sky is falling, I believe we could actually have a happy medium.
CW
reply
degauss1 @ 10th Apr 03:59PM:
Re: dumb pipes
The content providers pay for their bandwidth requirements as does the user. The ISPs collect on both sides already.
Asking them (content providers) to pay more for XYZ ISP to allow users to access said content is completely against what the internet was meant to be. We don't need thousands of AOL's folding up around us. We need reliable, cheap fast dumb pipes.
There are providers for email, news group access out there already. Their services in most cases are better than what ISPs provide.
reply
a333 @ 12th Apr 09:40AM:
Re: The Wii cant do p2p
Everyone here, consider this fact VERY carefully. The content providers are definately not freeloading off of ISP bandwidth. THEY are also shelling out thousands of dollars/month, for dedicated T3/DS lines, and they deserve to be able to reach their customers, without paying any premium access fee.
When you get down to how peering agreements work, you ISP shills will notice that Provider A (content provider's ISP) pays provider B (customer's ISP), to transmit a said packet to the consumer. These charges, in turn, are what is passed on to the content provider in the form of their monthly bill. There's no such thing as a free lunch. ISP's are already getting any payment they deserved, and should be 'content' (no pun intended) with it. I see no reason for them to moan and b**tch about it.
Also, concerning the p2p issue, it's the customer's decision whether or not to use a certain protocol through their connection. When I buy a cable/dsl line, I don't see any mention of me not being allowed to use p2p apps on my connection.
Finally, it's funny how, now that we're using p2p for LEGITIMATE applications, ISP's still cry foul, same way they did when p2p was used for 'piracy'. And yet, people still defend them.......
reply
james @ 13th Apr 12:16AM:
Re: dumb pipes
Dumb Pipe only please. There are enough companies out there that can supply me with mail and news thanks.
reply
openbox9 @ 13th Apr 11:16AM:
Re: dumb pipes
Great, but that's not what pokesph was asking for. Also, I would venture to guess that most "typical" users are fine with their providers' mail servers. You aren't going to find many "dumb pipes" around the Internet these days, but that doesn't mean that you can't make it a dumb pipe as much as possible and do your own thing. That's one of the things that makes the Internet so great ;)
reply
anon @ 13th Apr 10:38PM:
Re: All the major US ISP are a side business anyway
said by touchtone561 :
Comcast, Cox, Verizon, AT&T, whatever.
In all these cases these guys are just running a side business. "Oh you need high speed, we got that, and by the way..." I'm not knocking it, it is good for America, just be real about it and stop trying to crunch numbers and nodes for them.
This is a good point. I worry that the whole argument is not really about the cost of bandwidth, but about the dumb pipes replacing the TV-channel delivery business which is very lucrative.
Around 1999, during the dot-com "era" investors were pouring money into laying fiber and inventing laser transceivers. A lot of work was done, and the capacity was built. The telcos were hoping to deliver 'triple-play' services (why don't we hear that term anymore?) Trouble is, in the meanwhile, p2p and web 2.0 came about, and together they threaten to replace the good-ole TV channels.
said by touchtone561 :
About 8 years ago some folks used to pay $45 a month for AOL dial-up and a second line at data rate of 56 Kbps. Now you can get 6-8 Mbps for $42.95 with Comcast, stop trying to your geometric progressions to calculate your "Provider's" side business.
Face it - in another 8 years we will be laughing at 50Mbps downstream.
The internet is very young. In the past 10 years, the rate of growth of traffic has been relatively constant, doubling every 11 months. So far, only 20% of the world is connected (>70% in north America).
In the same 10 year span, hard drive capacity has also doubled every year.
Whether it be bigger OS's, service packs, games, movies, digital pictures, etc, all that content needs to at one point be transfered and shared with others. If you were to compare the rate of growth of capacity with the rate of growth of internet traffic, you'd find they are roughly parallel.
10 years ago, transfering a movie over the internet was un-thought of. Today, streaming a big screen movie to your own home theatre on release date is also unthought of (a legal, possibly paid streaming service).
I don't have good stats on the decline of bandwidth wholesale, but today in NA wholesale bandwidth costs about $0.07-0.30/GB.
So, I hope you too expect that in the next 10 years our internet connections will be 100x to 1000x faster than today, and able to support the applications that will emerge in the meanwhile.
And at $.07/GB and falling, why are people having reservations about paying for actual bandwidth used? Per-byte billing would take a big uncertainty out the ISP's business plan, and perhaps they wouldn't have to sign advertising deals to inject ads into your browser just to be able to sell 'unlimited' access for a fixed price.
But the companies we rely on for our connections need to plan for this rate of growth.
In 10years, the Internet should be as much a utility as water. Why can water engineer provision their piping for peak demand, as well as plan for growth, maintenance, etc, but network engineers can't do the same with their pipes?
reply
Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC