JasonD
@comcast.net
 from:
TKJunkMail 
| The problem is multi-media content...
and the illegal trade that bittorrent and p2p allow. The internet wasn't designed for it, and no ISP got into the business imagining at some point that they would be forced to provide these incredible bandwidth loads. Things are becoming progressively worse as youtube, netflix, xbox marketplace, itunes movie rentals, et al, are increasingly enticing users.
Ultimately one of three things must happen. Subscribers will have to pay more so ISP's can keep up, content providers will have to pay ISP's so they can keep up, or ISP's will be allowed to control their network. You know, the one that they paid for. |
|
Captain Obvious
@tds.net
| said by JasonD :
Ultimately one of three things must happen. Subscribers will have to pay more so ISP's can keep up, content providers will have to pay ISP's so they can keep up, or ISP's will be allowed to control their network. You know, the one that they paid for.
You mean the one that the users paid for, right? |
|
Brian Roberts
@comcast.net
| reply to JasonD
said by JasonD :
You know, the one that they paid for.
I'm sure they paid for every penny, and the right of way to use the countless miles of public infrastructure. Those gov't tax breaks, subsidies, etc... those were all just what they deserved to begin with. Those poor, poor telecoms. How dare the big scary gov't take an interest in public infrastructure not dominated by a local monopoly. tisk tisk |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
1 edit | reply to JasonD
said by JasonD :
The internet wasn't designed for it, and no ISP got into the business imagining at some point that they would be forced to provide these incredible bandwidth loads. Then these same ISPs shouldn't be promising "crazy fast speeds" for "faster surfing", "faster video" and "faster music".
The problem are a few ISPs promising what THEIR networks can't deliver.
There is good reason Verizon is spending over $20 billion on fiber deloyment.
There is a mint to be made on these bandwidth intensive goodies.
Without Netflix, Google, Apple and the others, no customers would need broadband. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to JasonD
said by JasonD :
and the illegal trade that bittorrent and p2p allow. The internet wasn't designed for it, and no ISP got into the business imagining at some point that they would be forced to provide these incredible bandwidth loads. Things are becoming progressively worse as youtube, netflix, xbox marketplace, itunes movie rentals, et al, are increasingly enticing users.
Ultimately one of three things must happen. Subscribers will have to pay more so ISP's can keep up, content providers will have to pay ISP's so they can keep up, or ISP's will be allowed to control their network. You know, the one that they paid for.
Yours is the most logical conclusion. Therefore most here will disagree with it. They want all this extra bandwidth without paying for it.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | To the contrary;
ISPs want to promise all this extra bandwidth without planning for it. |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
1 edit | reply to JasonD
said by JasonD :
The internet wasn't designed for it The internet wasn't designed to transfer files, no sir! 
said by JasonD :
Subscribers will have to pay more so ISP's can keep up, content providers will have to pay ISP's so they can keep up, or ISP's will be allowed to control their network. You know, the one that they paid for.
Ya know, consumers are already chipping in a fair amount of cash to their ISP to keep the network running smoothly & updated - it isn't all access fees (or at least it'd be extremely short-sighted for an ISP to not do so!). I mean, what next, ISPs forging fake packets to high-bandwidth sites like YouTube or iTunes because of "excessive use"? |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to JasonD
said by JasonD :
and the illegal trade that bittorrent and p2p allow. The internet wasn't designed for it, and no ISP got into the business imagining at some point that they would be forced to provide these incredible bandwidth loads. Things are becoming progressively worse as youtube, netflix, xbox marketplace, itunes movie rentals, et al, are increasingly enticing users.
Ultimately one of three things must happen. Subscribers will have to pay more so ISP's can keep up, content providers will have to pay ISP's so they can keep up, or ISP's will be allowed to control their network. You know, the one that they paid for.
you have drunk too deeply of the "bandwidth crunch" Koolaid, my son. I suggest you abstain from reading industry press releases for at least two months while your brain clears. |
|
Rickez
Goinginsane
join:2000-09-02
Three Rivers, MA | reply to TKJunkMail
But we do pay for it. |
|
factchecker
@cox.net
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :Yours is the most logical conclusion. Therefore most here will disagree with it. You only believe it to be logical because you agree with it, despite the fact that the statement is based on incorrect information. |
|
factchecker
@cox.net
1 edit
thumbs down from:
TKJunkMail
| reply to JasonD
said by JasonD :
and the illegal trade that bittorrent and p2p allow. The internet wasn't designed for it, Contrary to your uninformed statement the internet was not designed with a large portion of the protocols in use on it today, however, that does not mean it can't handle it. Someone with a clue would say that the last mile can't handle it, but that is only due to poor planning on the part of the last mile providers. The internet can more than handle HD Video, streaming audio, gaming and P2P. |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | reply to JasonD
The problem is false advertising and poor network management.
The way I view ISPs is a large scale version of a home or small office network. They have large connection to other ISPs via the backbone. The backbone is their internet. They have fast connection to all their subscribers. Subscribers are the "LAN users". The ISP has routers like we do at home, just bigger and better.
A problem they are facing is that their internet connections are maxed, or at least the budget they set for paying for that traffic. If you've been a college student living with other college students in the last 10 years, you know the first thing to think of is tell everyone to stop downloading so much... or to stop uploading so much. But the 100mbit ethernet doesn't regulate itself. The solution is get a better router, that prevents the upload from being maxed, by evenly allocating bandwidth... people go slower but not much slower. And the performance is better than letting things go at max speed and crashing into each other.
So... what they should be doing is going with these fair routing algorithms that delay/drop packets. People's packet loss goes up, and speed goes down, but TCP/IP is designed to handle this. More retransmits on the LAN, but the router only sends out as much traffic as it wants. Networking is smart enough now that they could even put the heaviest users on their own crowded link with half the bandwidth, and the low users on the other half... the majority of users don't have problems, and the heavy users do but its their own fault, and their programs handle it because its following the standard.
I'm not sure the logic of using poor network management practices when the same benefit can be had from fair network management. I think its just them being taken in by equipment vendors and consultants trying to make some money reinventing the wheel.
To clarify: poor network management tries to save bandwidth by selectively closing or blocking prejudiced traffic, hoping that it will go away. Good network management slows traffic down and drops packets indiscriminately, according to the TCP/IP spec |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to factchecker
I would take your argument a little further and say yes the internet was designed for every protocol that can ever be invented to work over and IP network. That was the beauty of the design.
The internet however was NOT designed to be a commercial whore for the mega corps of the US. It is great that it has gone commercial, but just like anything else those that have power want more power and more importantly more money. They get that power through control which allows them to make even more money. |
|
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| reply to JasonD
So what about the multi-media content and perfectly legal trade that bit torrent and p2p allow? Not everything that crosses these applications is pirated, you know. But some people like you have to scream the sky is falling in a feeble attempt to assert their point.
Ultimately, one of two things must happen. Either the ISP's need to grow with the internet, or they need to get out and let someone else, aka muni bb, grow with it instead.
Oh, and newsflash for you, subscribers pay already. Content providers pay already. Which leaves them to control their network. Adding bandwidth is a method of controlling your network too. Why can't they do that? |
|
nunya biz
@keybank.com
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather :said by JasonD :
The internet wasn't designed for it, and no ISP got into the business imagining at some point that they would be forced to provide these incredible bandwidth loads. Then these same ISPs shouldn't be promising "crazy fast speeds" for "faster surfing", "faster video" and "faster music". The problem are a few ISPs promising what THEIR networks can't deliver. There is good reason Verizon is spending over $20 billion on fiber deloyment. There is a mint to be made on these bandwidth intensive goodies. Without Netflix, Google, Apple and the others, no customers would need broadband. I agree with everything you said and would like to add that there is a conflict of interest involved. I believe the same people that own the backbone in the area are also ISPs. |
|
