| reply to GroovyPhoenx
Re: Whitacre was on to something said by GroovyPhoenx:So is it the 1 or the 0 that's worth more? In the end, it all winds up being 1 or 0, nothing more, nothing less. each byte of data wheter it be an email or a media stream ends up as a 1 or a 0, so which is worth more?
So what about music CDs?
You're paying for 1s and 0s, yet a william hung greatest hits CD isn't going to cost as much as a beatles box set.
because it's just all 1s and 0s. |
|
|
|
| Because Beyonce wants mega millions for her album, and William Hung is happy to be performing with his Hung Jury band on a fictional people's court show.
I suppose the difference is, Google doesn't want additional revenue (or any at all, really!) from the end users' ISP for people watching videos on YouTube. |
|
| reply to elray
Well, since, according to you, "we" (the customers) are only responsible for our outbound traffic--the sites we visit being responsible for our inbound traffic (thanks for that, by the way... we'll be sure to let our ISPs know so that they can remove that metric from their ever-so-user-friendly caps), why is it you're laying any blame on your neighbors? Shouldn't you be blaming those nasty, riding-free-on-the-ISP's-dime, bandwidth-hogging sites who are sending all of that [clearly unbidden] traffic to your neighbors? [Careful... your double-standard is showing.]
--
"Sorry for not responding to your post, but either I haven't seen it yet, or what you said was so devoid of substance that I found it utterly uninteresting." |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to Rekrul
Your example is by strict quantity, not throughput. Until recently, ISP connections have been sold by throughput, not quantity. Lately consumer plans have moved in the direction of tiered throughput with a max quantity per interval. For some, the latter is soft and for others its monetized by repeatedly and automatically raising the max quantity per interval for additional fees.
While I understand what you are saying, I believe the example could be better. It also doesn't mention the fact that in this case, the water company isn't seeking any consolation from the consumer. From their perspective, there is a water shortage because a new, euphoria-inducing bubble bath formula is causing everyone to take more baths. The Bubble Bath Company's (BBC) sales are through the roof and profits have never been better. Although folks are buying more water, the local reservoir is stressed and the water company doesn't want to fund expansion from their current operating margin. While this is all true and the company could raise rates to protect margin and fund expansion, they decide a different approach is warranted. Since the water company is already heavily criticized for high rates and poor service, raising rates could anger customers who then might create their own water source or seek to regulate the water industry. The water company decides to shift the burden to the BBC by adding a guard at the hydrant who prevents folks from buying water for baths. When folks complain, the guard tells them that this is temporary and necessary until BBC helps fund expansion. At the same time they've been busy greasing politician hands and buying water rights. This makes it difficult and extremely unlikely for folks to acquire their service from alternative sources. If they can get BBC to fund expansion, BBC will raise its prices and "take the heat" rather than them.
In a LOB with even minimal competition, crazy strategies like this would lead to bankruptcy. |
|
| There's a reason why analogies which compare limited resources (like clean water) to unlimited resources (like bandwidth) never work well... bandwidth renews itself every second of every minute of every hour [etc. etc.] for no additional cost, while clean water requires more and more money for every ounce of every gallon [etc. etc] that gets "created". (Point: ISPs have no financial justification for UBB... they merely want to create a 'false scarcity' in the minds of their customers [translation: they lie].)
--
"Sorry for not responding to your post, but either I haven't seen it yet, or what you said was so devoid of substance that I found it utterly uninteresting." |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Bandwidth is not unlimited. It is limited by the infrastructure available and the costs of that infrastructure. The routers, wiring, fiber, switches, buildings, electric power, rights of way, etc all put limits on bandwidth available. |
|
| Using the analogy (since you weren't paying attention), you're confusing the amount of water per second that can flow through the spigot with the total amount of water in the well. The "well" of bandwidth is absolutely unlimited. The costs involved with establishing the infrastructure are fairly fixed (and the infrastructure has already been paid for--ignoring CAPEX for the moment). The costs of operating the infrastructure are covered many times over by the money that customers already pay each month.
--
"Sorry for not responding to your post, but either I haven't seen it yet, or what you said was so devoid of substance that I found it utterly uninteresting." |
|
| reply to fifty nine
That's NOT the ISPs business. They make the CD, not the content on the CD. |
|
| reply to elray
said by elray:In an era where network demand grows incessantly, fed by devices like "Smart TVs" and companies like Netflix, ISPs can not, and should not, be expected to accommodate the traffic volumes without compensation.
I would much rather subscribe to an ISP that licenses traffic priority (QoS) for a fee, than one that offers "all you can eat" and makes us suffer as my neighbors saturate the common pipe elements, "because they can", to paraphrase Bubba.
There is nothing "absurd" with assigning a value to volume or class of data.
What's absurd is your propensity to lie and deceive the audience of readers.
Network traffic is not growing "incessantly". It's grown at a very consistent 30% annually, while new technology has decreased the cost of providing that bandwidth at an even faster rate. Thus 10 gigE links are being replaced by 100 gbps links.
The reality is ISPs have spent less and less money every year upgrading their networks as their costs have dropped significantly.
This Korean ISP has its own IP TV service, called "Ollie", that they want to succeed. They're using their monopoly over the pipes to push out competition. |
|
| reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:said by elray:In an era where network demand grows incessantly, fed by devices like "Smart TVs" and companies like Netflix, ISPs can not, and should not, be expected to accommodate the traffic volumes without compensation.
I would much rather subscribe to an ISP that licenses traffic priority (QoS) for a fee, than one that offers "all you can eat" and makes us suffer as my neighbors saturate the common pipe elements, "because they can", to paraphrase Bubba.
There is nothing "absurd" with assigning a value to volume or class of data.
And all net neutrality issues can be resolved by billing-by-byte billing plans. Who cares how much or from where the content comes as long as the ISP gets to charge the heaviest users the heaviest fees. Billing by byte does not reflect the realities of broadband provision costs. This has been explained to you an absurd number of times, and yet you still deign to propose unhelpful solutions.
There is ignorance, and then there is willful ignorance. Yours is the latter, and it's far more destructive to progress in a modern society.
The reality is this Korean ISP wants to make its own IPTV service, "Ollie", succeed while pushing out the competition using its monopoly. |
|
| reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:Bandwidth is not unlimited. It is limited by the infrastructure available and the costs of that infrastructure. The routers, wiring, fiber, switches, buildings, electric power, rights of way, etc all put limits on bandwidth available.
Those things you mentioned are fixed costs that have nothing to do with provisioning higher bandwidth. Providing higher speeds requires only replacing old equipment at the ends of the lines, and is relatively very cheap. If it weren't, this Korean ISP wouldn't be creating its own personal IPTV service.
In case you were wondering, this is a blatant violation of Net Neutrality. |
|
| reply to elray
said by elray:No, there is nothing to misunderstand.
The status quo means performance suffers, so that everyone can enjoy a flat-rate billing, regardless of their use. I'd rather we place a value on delivery, so streaming works consistently, because the parties involved have an incentive to make it so. I don't mind paying for what I use, unlike the populists who argue that I should subsidize my neighbors' habits.
You're being utterly ridiculous. Bandwidth use has grown at an extremely predictable 30% every year for 10 years, and is complemented and even dwarfed by steadily advancing technology that brings the price of provisioning said bandwidth down every year.
Stop. Lying. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to mod_wastrel
Look past the merit of whether or not UBB can be justified and the use case fitness of a particular analogy. With my comment, I wanted to draw attention to the fact that only entities faced with little or no competition can act this way. My hope is to point out how ridiculous it is for a successful Bubble Bath company to fund the expansion of the water company. By blocking the activity, the water company is exhibiting influence that only a coercive monopoly can wield. This is exactly the type of situation that the US anti-trust laws control.
Since the ISP in Korea is allowed to wield this same power, they either don't have similar laws or their equivalent of the U.S. Attorney General/Department of Justice chooses to look the other way. Regardless, I find it particularly disgusting. For those that claim "welcome to capitalism", this isn't the form of capitalism encouraged here in the U.S. |
|
 Doctor OldsI Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.Premium,VIP
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30
kudos:18
1 edit | reply to elray
Re: Whitacre was on something said by elray:In an era where network demand grows incessantly, fed by devices like "Smart TVs" and companies like Netflix, ISPs can not, and should not, be expected to accommodate the traffic volumes without compensation.
I would much rather subscribe to an ISP that licenses traffic priority (QoS) for a fee, than one that offers "all you can eat" and makes us suffer as my neighbors saturate the common pipe elements, "because they can", to paraphrase Bubba.
There is nothing "absurd" with assigning a value to volume or class of data.
Whitacre was on something, that's obvious. The customer has already paid for access regardless if it is Google, You Tube, Hulu, Netflix, torrents, news groups, or Wall Street Live Stock feeds. Or should Wall Street pay their fair share since your neighbor might be a day trader and can easily saturate your undersized cable node. Making the destination that the subscriber chooses pay that subscriber's ISP anything is 100% absurd. It is pure Ridiculousness.
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time? |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to nasadude
Re: Whitacre was on to something Minus the storage costs and creation costs. In other words, it better be CHEAPER THEN DIRT, because obtaining dirt is way more expensive.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to elray
the ISP in Korea would not be doing this if they where just a data pipe. But they have their own IPTV product. This is no different than why Comcast has a Cap, its to shield their video product from a total cord cutter.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | reply to Doctor Olds
Re: Whitacre was on something said by Doctor Olds:Whitacre was on something, that's obvious. The customer has already paid for access regardless if it is Google, You Tube, Hulu, Netflix, torrents, news groups, or Wall Street Live Stock feeds. Or should Wall Street pay their fair share since your neighbor might be a day trader and can easily saturate your undersized cable node. Making the destination that the subscriber chooses pay that subscriber's ISP anything is 100% absurd. It is pure Ridiculousness.
Nope. You've paid for basic internet access, not assured delivery.
Your ISP has no obligation to host a fat pipe inbound from Netflix.
Good luck getting your HD streams.
I don't care what you use your access for.
But I don't want to be part of an "unlimited" shared tier, wherein some of you intentionally consume as much as possible, to the detriment of my occasional bandwidth demands.
I've seen this type of saturation in many realms for decades. "Unlimited" and/or "free" are always the factor that creates a tragedy of the commons.
Good luck getting your Netflix, Amazon, Vudu, Roku, et al, to stream consistently. |
|
Doctor OldsI Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.Premium,VIP
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30
kudos:18 | said by elray:Nope. You've paid for basic internet access, not assured delivery.
Your ISP has no obligation to host a fat pipe inbound from Netflix.
Good luck getting your HD streams. So their obligation is to just send my data one way and someone else (who they randomly choose versus every site large and small) is responsible to pay for me to get the data back that I request? I want what you and Ed are taking........That's some good stuff. That is not the product they sold people and they are wanting to change the rules after the fact. Not going to happen and it goes against yourself as a consumer buying their product. You'd be completely foolish to sign up for that.
said by elray:I don't care what you use your access for. What do you think this "basic internet access" is? One way only? LOL! That's delusional at best and insanity at best. I've paid to send and receive data (any type) and they are making a tidy profit. Trying for any money from only some high visibility destinations is just a money grab by greedy corporations and their greedy CEO's. Nothing more.
said by elray:But I don't want to be part of an "unlimited" shared tier, wherein some of you intentionally consume as much as possible, to the detriment of my occasional bandwidth demands.
I've seen this type of saturation in many realms for decades. "Unlimited" and/or "free" are always the factor that creates a tragedy of the commons.
Good luck getting your Netflix, Amazon, Vudu, Roku, et al, to stream consistently. Works fine here, in fact I streamed 2 Netflix Movies last night and they were perfect! Don't need luck, don't have any AT&T Internet half-products or cable with undersized nodes and oversubscribed nodes so I'm neither bandwidth capped or rate limited.
What you describe doesn't fit any reality. You must have bad lines or live in the boonies
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time? |
|
