Who Pays for Rebuilding the Internet? 473
pcause writes "The Internet (physical as opposed to technical) was really not designed for applications that want to use maximum bandwidth all of the time, such as P2P and streaming video. Here in the US we've seen Comcast try to balance the demands of P2P traffic with other traffic and its backbone capacity. In the UK, a flame war has broken out between the BBC and ISPs about the same issue. So the question is who pays? Should the content owners who make the profits pay for the extra infrastructure, or should the consumer pay?"
Duh - we all do. (Score:4, Interesting)
Obviously this has tremendous implications in terms of the additional work that routers would need to do to account for traffic, and how the costs are communicated to the customer. However, I think the end result would be something quite incredible, because what would happen is it would drive the development of smarter P2P protocols that keep traffic nearby, and widespread deployment of caches for static content and such. Right now there is very little incentive to do these things.
The end result, once everything has had a chance to adapt, would be a phenomenally efficient internet, with reduced costs and better performance all around. ISPs wouldn't give a hoot about this new class of "smart" P2P because the bulk of the traffic would stay among their local subscribers, the bandwidth to whom is free. Massive loads would be disappear from peering centers and long distance links. The cost of bandwidth would plummet.
I think all of this is feasible, and it's worth doing.
Re:Duh - we all do. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just think how people's lives would be different if international or long distance phone charges didn't exist. How many times have you heard of someone waiting until a certain time of day to make a really long distance call? Or using Skype or some other Internet-based replacement for phone calls to get around the fees?
What you're proposing is basically to bring that sort of thing to the Internet itself, and I can't say that I want to wait until 2AM to save on my bandwidth bill.
But that does not pay the bills (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider all those folk choking up the internet with video downloads, P2P etc "because it's free" and they've got nothing better to do with their time. They're all choking up the pipes for everyone.
Pay-per-use is one way to get a free market into this and allow people to buy the QoS they want and the market decides the price points. It would also motiva
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If the people downloading tons of stuff on youtube (or posting it, thats an even better one, generation of content) are charged even $1 to transfer a video, how many are still going to do it? I don't think nearly as many, so suddenly, not only do you have bandwidth to spare, but there isn't the demand to utilize it (thus no infrastructure improvements), nor is there the diversity of co
Re:But that does not pay the bills (Score:5, Insightful)
What is your basis for claiming that the internet is clogged and choked up? With few exceptions, the internet is working just fine, thank you very much. Moving to a consumption-based billing model is nothing more than an excuse for the telecommunications providers to extract more money and perform fewer upgrades. The notion that ISPs are buckling under the weight of P2P and YouTube is even more retarded when you consider that P2P protocols by their nature prefer to use fast, local peers and companies like Google use backhaul networks to deliver content to local peering points.
The current model is elegant in that the exchanges between ISPs are essentially free. If Comcast/AT&T/Time Warner/etc are suddenly able to charge me in KB/s or have a tariff for each Email/IM sent like the wireless carriers do, someday they'll wake up and say "Hey, let's charge Verizon for accessing our customers!" Then the whole system breaks down, and you time travel back to 1989 when you had Prodigy (the IBM/Sears version), Compuserve and GEnie.
I work in an organization that maintains a carrier-grade private network that connects about 25,000 locations. But since even carrier-grade equipment has a relatively short lifespan, routine infrastructure refreshes give us next-generation technology, automatically, whether we need it or not. In 2004, it would have cost millions for ISPs to implement metro Gigabit networks to connect customer nodes... but today, equipment swap-outs will essentially give them that capability for next to nothing. In 2012/2013 when today's new equipment is obsolete, 10G ethernet will be the norm.
When your local transportation department discovers that traffic patterns have changed, they don't start billing you for your time on the highways. They figure out what the problem is, re-engineer traffic signaling or change maintenance schedules to widen/pave/etc roads. ISPs need to do the same.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not the urban services that are choking on P2P and YouTube, it's the driveways in private estates.
If your private estate's driveway can't handle the flotilla of heavy vehicles bringing HD video to your home, is it the responsibility of the HD video provider, the trucking company, or the private estate to upgrade the driveways to handle the traffic? Remember, the road leading to the estate was big enough already - the choke point is the private estate's single lane driveways.
However, all of my goods
Re:But that does not pay the bills (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your right, it's not free -- but it's a planned expense that is accounted for in the rates already. If the network operator has a clue, it becomes quickly apparent that maintaining legacy equipment is often more expensive than replacing it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you begin to charge the content creators, then it will stop seeding start ups. Yahoo! is a good example of how the ability to host content inexpensively leads to growth.
Re:Duh - we all do. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Duh - we all do. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Duh - we all do. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Duh - we all do. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Duh - we all do. (Score:5, Funny)
+5: Implication that Ubuntu is crappy software
Re:Duh - we all do. (Score:4, Insightful)
The key problems are that:
1) The ISP should have to tell you what they say you are getting. If you connection is not unlimited at the max bandwidth they had better properly explain it before you buy the service. Many ISPs do not do this and it is a big problem. The free market won't work if you can't tell what you are buying.
2) ISPs oversell. They should be given a serious penalty when they fail to give the bandwidth they promised someone. This is not happening so they get away with not giving the service that they sold.
Pay per use. (Score:3, Informative)
And personally, I think that for most accounts the system should be biased towards paying more for "upstream" usage than downstrea
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Duh - we all do-complain. (Score:4, Informative)
For the obligatory car analogy... If you bought a car using a 48 month loan (I've never financed a car, but I assume that may be a typical duration nowadays), by the time the loan is paid off, the value of the car is substantially reduced (perhaps down to your down payment depending on how many miles it was driven) and you paid both the principle and the interest over the primary useful life of the car.
Of course, ongoing maintenance (labor of repair and administration as well as cost of replacement parts) and operational costs such as power, cooling, insurance, also must be recovered. For example, it really does cost more to run 2N routers than to run N routers.
Re:Duh - we all do-complain. (Score:4, Informative)
Knowing the costs involved the local Road Runner division, coupled with the number of accounts they hold, the proper analogy would be something like this:
Tell the customer it will take 48 months to recoupe the cost of this upgrade, regardless of the fact that it'll be paid off by half our subscribers next month, leaving the other half for pure profit.
2N routers does cost more than N routers, this is true. The problem is that they could manage 100N routers and fill them up with bandwidth and STILL make a fair profit.
You're completely ignorant if you think the cable/dsl providers aren't making a fortune. Even putting new fibre in the ground gets paid off when the first year in most cases, and once its there its just a matter of lighting it with the right bandwidth, think about the half million dollar router that gets implemented. If its only spread across 50k customers, thats $10/customer to pay it off. Thats less than 25% of a monthly bill in most areas. The UBR routers don't serve that many people of course, but they also don't cost half a million.
We ARE (the cable/dsl customers) already paying for the upgrades! We've been paying far more for service than we should have been for years. We've paid for the upgrades. The BBC pays for the bandwidth that is required to keep from filling up their own pipes. Our ISPs are not paying for the bandwidth required to serve their network, hence their pipes are full.
This is the way the Internet works. I pay for my pipe to the cloud. BBC, Yahoo, Google/YouTube, Microsoft, Apple, all of them, pay for their pipe to the cloud. I get my fair share of their pipe. If they want me to have more speed, they pay to make their pipe bigger, and assuming mine isn't overloaded, I get more. The Internet has always been a 'pay for your own pipe' type of network, the service providers would rather it be 'the other guy pays for the privledge of using the pipes I'm already charging my customers for' which is ridiculous to say the least. If the various countries of the world don't step up and enact network neutrality laws, I fear the Internet we know and love will not exist in the long term.
The problem is the cable and DSL providers have over sold their crappy bandwidth and don't want to pay for more. It has nothing to do with not having the money to pay for more, they are making an absolute fortune every month. If someone else wants to start another broadband provider in the area other than the massive initial investment that someone has to lay out, which wouldn't be a problem if the new provider could charge the same price as the monopilistic provider already in the area, the local monopoly can just drop their price. Go from $40 to $10, still turn a profit, although much smaller, and you've just made it a lot more difficult for the new guy to get funding. To the point that the funding won't want to risk it. Monopoly upheld, customers still get screwed.
The worst part is that my tax dollars funded half this crappy network which doesn't meet any of the things they said the funding would get me when begged congress gave them the money in the first place. Very frustrating
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes people would come in and complain that there was no salad to go with their $20 pizza. We'd tell them to complain to the manager. He'd complai
Re:Duh - we all do. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There would not be a drop in price, theres no way providers would drop potential revenue.
Re:Duh - we all do. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Duh - we all do. (Score:5, Insightful)
It will never be. Companies do not lower price points on services still in high demand, even if it is cheaper to produce.
Re:Duh - we all do. (Score:5, Insightful)
If we had a real market, I would agree with you about competitiveness in pricing and all. Unfortunately, we don't have one. Even when there is an appearance of an open market in the Internet service business, it all becomes fixated on leased lines and certain other dependencies on a few providers who have built their infrastructure by neccesity of other services they have a monopoly on.
If ATT/SBC or time warner or cox would be forced to spin off their infrastructure and offer flat rate charges to competitors for the same prices as themselves, it might be a free market. But we have to remember that they got their lines and infrastructure as an ancillary to their long time protected monopoly and government help in getting right of ways and so on. They are basically benefiting by their roles in other areas as to this point which makes or gives them an unfair advantage and closes the idea of a free market.
We have attempted to negate this advantage by requiring them to lease the lines and infrastructure to other companies at costs but we all know how costs can be manipulated. This doesn't even cover all avenues of infrastructure either, take time warner for example, they are under no obligation to lease their lines for Internet usage except for their conditions to purchasing AOL back in the 90's. Aol has since been spun off and they are free to mark up their "cost" significantly to their advantage. Cox and Covad networks are relatively the same with cable Internet. DSL on the other hand is heavily regulated as far as the infrastructure goes with a caveat of requiring a certain amount of investment capabilities which makes it easier to gain access if you are a large organization. But if your attempting to work with Cable access, your not really going to get anything unless your a very large organization like Earthlink or are partnering with the cable company to supply re-branded service at a dictated cost. You don't really get big over night and hence the problem of not being able to provide the service needed to get big enough to provide the service.
In short, there are too many limitations and non-natural barriers to the market to even consider the internet infrastructure a free market that could allow a perfect competition. Look at Verizon with their FIOS, they are using their utility right of way and telco business to run fiber and replace their out dated copper infrastructure with the fiber needed to provide the FIOS which we have read about plenty of times. Almost all other last mile deployments without this utility protection have failed for several reasons but mainly because of all the hurdles that non utility companies face.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
- The former monopolist was forced to rent the last mile of copper to the home for 10 Euro's per month to other company's. The 10 Euro is only required when the user does not use the phone service of the former monopolist, if you do use the phone service the rental is free for DSL connectivity;
- We have company's that deliver the infrastructure from the telco stations to the internet provider;
- The internet provider delivers
And as a further optimization... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And as a further optimization... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know where you get this from. As an engineer for an ISP, our low point is only from approx 2-4 am. Bittorrent and other P2P clients left running all night still consume constant traffic in both directions.
Re:And as a further optimization... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While this sounds smart, that's exactly the model for water and right now there is a bit of a crisis for the home owners conserving their water around the Toronto area where I live... all of a sudden they are not taking in enough money to maintain infrastructure because it's ba
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In either case, everyone is suppose to pay. Which is why when I transfer large payloads b2b where companies have paid fo
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Duh - we all do. (Score:4, Insightful)
Think of your cell phone service, you pay for the company to maintain antennas to talk to YOUR phone. Your friends 2 states away pay for their company to maintain antennas in their towns. The cost is in maintaining the equipment for a given level of usage, not the per call cost. The particulars of how your call gets from your phone to your friends phone at a different phone company really aren't important and the companies should work that out.
That's how the internet was started from the beginning. The current high-bandwidth places like Google pay so much for bandwidth they by stock in Fiber. They are paying, considerably more than customers for all the packet they send out to their provider. And consumers are "legally" paying for the packet they accept...Which if you think about phone service or any other situation like mail is totally silly that IPS want to charge for "incoming call" packets.
The real problem is that ISPs traditionally discouraged being part of the real internet and were established as pure consumer leachers. They grew up their structures based on how fast they could "broadcast" web pages while severely limiting any kind of hosting between hosts or to the general internet. In a peer-sharing network, they have nothing to actually share. The structure forced means that all of the traffic for all of AT&T's customers in a given state go thru just a few actual internet connections, and no routes go thru. It's like car traffic thru all the "closed" subdivisions that all dump into one main road instead of providing alternate routes thru the countryside for the increased traffic.
I agree that P2P and caching would be good, but the telcos want big bucks for that... they are still thinking client-server. They want Viewers, not Customers... trying to monetize those under-priced DSL customers by selling expensive services found elsewhere on the internet.
Better question (Score:5, Interesting)
The consumer always pays (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously, this isn't going to happen.
If the content providers pay, and can still squeeze a profit out of the deal, they will *still* pass the cost along to consumers, for two obvious reasons: 1) they want to maximize their own profit margins, 2) they will get sued by their own shareholders if they don't try.
The cost will be passed on to consumers one way or another...perhaps in the form of a direct infrastructure tax, perhaps in the form of tax incentives/subsidies specifically for ISPs, perhaps in the form of higher cost service to the consumers, most likely as a combination of all three (and maybe other common means of paying that I haven't thought of).
Remember...the workers generate wealth while the organizers skim off the top. There is no more universal principle.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm ready to take up cutlass and musket against those who are against Net Neutrality - I think it's that important.
But there is, indeed, a more nuanced side. The trick is that the big content companies and the ISPs have to, uh, to quote McCain, "cut the bullshit". Miro, Bittorrent and P2P in general have to be accepted. Because it saves them (and everyone) shitloads of money. If the broadband providers - worldwide, this is
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Those workers who were all doing other things would have just spontaneously found this empty building to all put their stuff in, organize themselves into semi-functional work teams, and accomplish the generation of wealth? Hrm...
Re:Better question (Score:5, Interesting)
The solution is fiber to every building as public infrastructure.
Then we can have a proper free market for Internet services over that fiber.
Cui bono? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who gets the maintenance contracts? How much do we pay for the maintenance contracts? How much maintenance should be spent on all fiber or should only dense populations get it? How dense do the populations have to be? How do we pay for it, do we inflate the currency through debt or do we increase tax?
Who gets to use the fiber? How much do we charge companies to use this fiber? How do we ensure its being used for the right purposes and companies aren't bidding for contacts and locking in those customers? Who is responsible for faults in the network? How are costs allocated?
The market is fine, the solution is to deregulate so companies are forced to compete, as opposed to the more segregated systems that we are used to now a days.
I don't recall anyone ever saying "To have a free market, it must be provided by public Government services", a free market can never have any Government regulation or intervention, else it is not a free market.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The most obvious analogy is the roads, and the majority of roads are paid for by the government (i.e. taxpayers). The roads provide the infrastructure needed to enable a lot of competition, for example taxis and courier services can all use these roads and compete on something other than "we own more roads than the other guys!".
This system works pretty well, and you always have the option to pay for your own private amazing road if you really want to, or if you need a road where nobody else needs one. All
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Having a monopoly on the infrastructure won't solve the problem. In fact, that's pretty much the very definition of the problem. What incentive would this private company have to sell access to the fibre to other ISPs at a reasonable price?
We pretty much have this situation in Australia, as Telecom Australia (as a taxpayer funded government department) built and owns all the telephone exchanges around the country, backhaul capacity between them and the cities, and so forth. All the ISPs have to buy backha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Go somewhere else in the world. Anywhere at all.
The US interstate road system is the largest, and arguably the best in the world. Of course, it's funded pretty much entirely by gasoline sales, so we're having a bit of a struggle switching to other things.
Anyway...I've never seen a dangerous pothole on any road with a speed limit of
Re:Cui bono? (Score:5, Insightful)
A free market [wikipedia.org] is one in which participants are fully informed and free from force or fraud. While the goal is as little regulation as possible, it is not anarchy. Only what level of regulation is required to achieve the ideal free market is debatable, not whether there should be regulation at all. Many people confuse free market above with strict lassez-faire [wikipedia.org], which is what you are describing. This is an easy mistake to make.
In this example, there is a case for government provided last-mile as it consists of a natual monopoly [wikipedia.org]. There is also a case against it as well. Arguing about the questions you raised would be a wonderful use of government, rather than deciding whether we should boycott some gaming event (for example).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hogwash and wordplay. There is no free market without regulations and governments to impose them. An unregulated market is not free, it's a playground for the strongest party to create a monopoly.
If you don't recall anyone telling you this, maybe you should make it a point to educate yourself on th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Open Market != solution to all problems
Marxism != solution to all problems
idealism != solution to all problems
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Economic system resides within political system. Political system breaks, so does economics. I wish Adam Smith was around to tell us how we are fucking up and corrupting his ideas.
Thomas Jefferson warned of this.
Thomas Jefferson: [in-iran.com]
"I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of their country."
Falcon
This is akin to the question of pollution. (Score:2, Insightful)
Whoever pays, owns (Score:5, Interesting)
If the telecoms pay for the infrastructure, they get to say what happens to it. Within whatever terms they negotiate for the use of public land to build on. And if they continue the false advertising of their services, they can expect that at some point a class action lawsuit will be made and will break them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Whoever pays, owns (Score:4, Insightful)
We are rapidly getting to the point in the developed world that Internet access is as important as telephone access, it not more so. Reliable 'net access is more and more becoming like electricity and roads - a basic service.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that it's feasible to go without electricity or roads, but lots of people get along just fine without the Internet. (I would suffer withdrawl and shrivel up and die, like a vampire exposed to sunlight. Actually, I also do that when exposed to sunlight. But that's a separate issue. Point is, it's not a "bread and water" kind of necessity.
If private companies provide internet service, you have every right to say "No, no series of tubes for me. I have a big truck." and go about your daily life.
If
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Tag article: flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, it's simple: Google pays Google's bandwidth bill. I pay mine. Both of them go towards building the infrastructure. If it's not enough, raise taxes to pay for it, I don't care.
What you do not get to do is raise the bar for the next Google, and continue to let ISPs deceptively advertise "unlimited" Internet access. Yes, technically, the advertising is truthful, but it is intentionally misleading, and we are all paying the price for it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How is it any more misleading than your phone company telling you you can use your phone any day, any time of the day, despite the fact that if too many people try to use it at once, you start hitting limits on the number of simultaneous active circuits? One can even argue it's less misleading, because an
Re:Tag article: flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, (Score:5, Interesting)
Dumbest question evar! (Score:5, Insightful)
Should the content owners, who make the profits pay for the extra infrastructure or should the consumer pay?
The consumer will pay. PERIOD. Even if the content owners pay, the costs STILL get passed down to the consumer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The same logic says that the consumer passes his or her costs on to one's employer.
Any increased costs to the content owners must be passed on to the consumers, because charging the consumers is how the content owners cover their costs.
When my ISP bill goes up, on the other hand, my employer is not suddenly going to start paying me that much more per month.
This is why the GP is saying that the costs of the content owner are passed to the consumer, but not the consumer's employer.
This may be a valid problem but (Score:2)
First of all, I question the assertion that the technology wasn't designed to operate at maximum capability, I would like to hear from the designers on that. That aside, using the BBC v. ISPs is a terrible example as the ISPs are just being whiny bastards. They are being paid for the the bandwidth THEY promised by both the BBC and the end users. This is like me buying a meal at a restaurant and then having the manager throw a fit when I say that I want the side item that supposed to come with the meal.
Als
FTP? (Score:4, Insightful)
The question has a false premise (Score:5, Insightful)
This is wrong. If the content owners are forced to pay, then the consumers will have to pay for the bandwidth when they pay for the content.
Here is the correct question: Should consumers pay for bandwidth when they pay for bandwidth? Or should consumers pay for bandwidth when they pay for content?
When phrased correctly, the answer becomes obvious. Consumers should pay for bandwidth when they pay for bandwidth. Any other answer has negative consequences, both to the economy and to the current nature of the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately, the consumer will pay, he always does (Score:2, Insightful)
He may pay directly.
He may pay indirectly, getting subsidized delivery in exchange for advertising.
Guess who pays for advertising: The people who consume the product being advertised.
TANSTAAFL.
Huh didn't we pay already? (Score:5, Insightful)
The last I checked most of these ISPs either had monopolies granted to them, and/or had existing infrastructure handed to them by Governments.
Some even had billions of _public_ money handed to them by Governments to build their _future_ networks.
So now they want us to pay again?
This is like the power and water companies asking us to pay extra just because they went "Oops, oh yeah forgot about this reinvesting into infrastructure for the future thing".
Compare how much ISPs charge and how much power and water companies charge, and what you get for it. While small ISPs have to pay per bit (like water and power companies which have to pay per unit of gas/coal/water), AFAIK large ISPs have cushier arrangements with each other, since the incremental costs of sending bits isn't high once the network capacity is paid for - if nobody uses the bandwidth, the ISP still has to pay about the same for the network.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What does that have to do with anything? I paid for a 6mbit connection, and now I have to pay again if I want to actually use my 6mbit connection for more than a few seconds at a time?
Only two choices as to who pays? (Score:2, Insightful)
Let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
And you're asking how you're going to pay for building out to be able to provide more?
(1) Raise your prices. Use the extra revenue to pay for buildout. Sell more service. Profit.
(2) Get investment. Use it for buildout. Sell more service. Return profit to investors.
I understand that the peering agreements make things more complicated, but the basic issue is that people on the ends of the network have demands for the services, and it really seems like there's fairly transparent economic solutions to that problem without trying to do anything particularly complicated like having ISPs shake down content providers who don't have points of origin on their networks.
In short: bill the people you provide service to. Don't try billing the people you don't provide service to.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Both! (Score:2)
First, no matter who actually signs the check, the providers would find a way of passing off the cost to the consumer anyway. (Which they do now... the point is that having to pay for their own bandwidth every month at least shows where the money is actually coming from and where it is going.)
Re: (Score:2)
I will. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank You for your support.
Municipalities should pay (Score:2)
I think it will be the advertizers (Score:2)
Oh Wait...
This is already reality.
You're missing something... (Score:2)
So yes, this means that the consumer pays - but businesses pay taxes too. Everyone pays - because everyone benefits - because everyone needs essential services (like roads).
Countries in which taxes are higher have better broadband coverage. It isn't by accident - the governments of
Re: (Score:2)
Missing Parties (Score:2)
(I'd add the government, but that ends up being the Consumer in the end)
Re: (Score:2)
So Nice We Posted It Twice (Score:2)
That's an interesting link from the BBC, but perhaps not that interesting.
Consumers pay ISPs (Score:4, Informative)
The idea of this approach seems to be that the money given to the ISP goes towards paying other higher-level providers for traffic, and upgrading the network where/when necessary. If the ISP doesn't think they have enough money to support traffic, they should either bump up consumer prices, or alter their accounting system. Both consumers and providers of products are already paying the ISP for the traffic and infrastructure maintenance.
Smart guy says blame the ISP (Score:2, Interesting)
It should be the ISPs (Score:3, Insightful)
We did all this in Australia years ago; the most common form of Internet we get is on tiered monthly plans (3gb/month, 12gb/month, etc). Our international bandwidth is still (apparently) really expensive, so the volume of data ISPs feel comfortable giving us is relatively small to what I'd expect US ISPs to offer.
All yall other countries need to just play catchup on this issue and stop those douchebags from selling unlimited plans and then acting all surprised when people actually expect them to have no limits. People that use 200gb a month shouldn't be paying the same as people that use 5gb a month, and that should be reflected by ISP pricing.
It's the QoS question and here's my suggestion. (Score:3, Interesting)
Different services require different service characteristics. For instance:
- File transfers can take "best effort" service. They don't care if the transit time of packets varies (jitter) or is long (large latency). They don't care if occasional packets get lost or corrupted because they can have them resent. They don't care if the rate is fast or slow - and can self-adjust to go as fast as possible to use the available bandwidth.
- Streaming protocols care about all of the above: If they're 2-way interactive they care about latency. They always care about jitter. They don't want packets to drop - but if occasional packets DO drop it's better for them to NOT try to get them resent, which would create massive jitter and latency. They have a bandwidth requirement that is either constant or related to what they are carrying - and has no relation to the actual speed available to the connection under varying amounts of congestion.
To serve both of these types of traffic on the same packet-switching network you have to treat them differently. Otherwise the file transfers will speed up to try to hog all the available bandwidth, dividing it evenly among themselves, and stomping on the streaming protocols. Things will only work for the streams on a best-effort net when all the file transfers are limited by some OTHER bottleneck and there is enough bandwidth ON EVERY HOP for essentially all the stream packets to go right through.
But because the streams have some other inherent bandwidth limit you CAN treat them differently. You can give them Quality of Service rules that puts them at the head of the line, limiting jitter, minimizing latency, and causing other types of packets to drop while they go through. And you can reserve bandwidth for them, refusing to set up the flow (connection) if there isn't enough to service them and have some left over for other services. Then you can guarantee they get delivered, while the file transfers etc. expand to hog and divide only the UNreserved bandwidth. Also: If they're going to multiple destinations you can use multicast and reserve bandwidth for only one copy while serving many endpoints.
And IPv4 was designed to do much of that: It has a "type of service" field that lets you declare what kind of service would be good for each packet. It didn't do bandwidth reservation (by itself). But you could declare preferences about latency, jitter, and drop probability.
Unfortunately, this means that packets could ask to be treated better than their competition. And it was completely on an honor system. And before streaming was widely deployed Microsoft deployed an IP stack that "improved" their product's performance by lying about the type of service the packets really needed, demanding stream-type service for everything, including file transfers. This got widely deployed. So ISPs generally don't honor the Type of Service bits, and QoS isn't widely deployed on the backbone.
Nowdays, in addition to the fast-as-mercury, dumb-as-rocks backbone routers, there are reliable-as-telecom, smart-as-firewalls edge routers, full of arrays of processors so they have a bunch of instruction executions available to think about every packet. These boxes can do things like act as a reverse-firewall to protect the network against cheaters, certifying that, if a given customer has bought - or temporarily reserved - a certain amount of high-QoS bandwidth he doesn't exceed it, and if necessary rewriting the QoS/Type of Service tagging so the backbone can trust the packets again.
So with the brains available to watch over the packets and apply rules, so that streams can get the bandwidth they need and file transfers can use all the rest on a common network, the question is what rules to apply.
Streams put a higher demand for service on the net - but have limited bandwidth. File transfers want bandwidth but are happy to take what's left after the strea
How about we do this? (Score:5, Funny)
Also charge the spyware and adware companies fees for infecting a majority of the Internet and affecting bandwidth, and use those fees to pay for the new Internet.
My plan is to get the money from companies and people that abuse the Internet via taxes or fees and use that to build the new faster Internet.
Maybe it will cut down on spam, adware, spyware, and popup ads? Just a thought.
What a Stupid Fscking Question (Score:5, Insightful)
It has been obvious since dialup-to-BBS days that bandwidth demands were only going to go up, and go up fast. Every new, faster modem was snapped up immediately, until the bandwidth of voice lines was saturated. And those of you with longer memories may recall the RBOCs/ILECs bitching along the lines of, "Oh noes! Our trunks and switches, they are overloaded! We can haz data tax?" Proposals to surcharge data traffic were floated, which were all greeted with hearty, derisive laughter.
Fast-forward not-at-all-many-years to the broadband age, and the RBOCs/ILECs are saying, "Oh noes! Our switches and routers, they are overloaded. We can haz content tax?" The only real difference between then and now is that now the cable television providers are joining in the chorus. This, however, does not make the argument any more valid.
Now, whether or not heavy users of the network should be surcharged, and how much they should be surcharged -- while a subject worthy of some discussion -- is nevertheless completely swamped by the Actual Point. Here is the Actual Point:
YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUILDING OUT YOUR NETWORK IN THE FIRST DAMNED PLACE!
Really, after watching dialup explode in popularity, after watching broadband explode in popularity, after watching other nations build out their digital infrastructure to some amazing levels... There is no fscking excuse for any RBOC/ILEC to be whining about overloaded networks!
You had plenty of warning, you had more than plenty of money, you even got $200 billion in handouts from the Fed... I mean, what the fsck have you been up to the last fifteen years?
The floor of your monthly fee structure should be covering not only maintenance, but also aggressive buildout. If they aren't, then you've deliberately kept your head in the sand this whole time (and you suck at math).
Tweak everyone's base rates, build out the network to the required capacities like you should have been doing, and stop trying to propogate this self-serving pathetic meme that some network users are more equal than others.
Schwab
Re:What a Stupid Fscking Question (Score:4, Insightful)
It's ridiculous, This is like a hotel overbooking rooms because people don't turn up, then telling the people staying in the rooms they have to pay to have the rooms built so they can give them the service. No.
As A Consumer, Non-Content Provider (Score:3, Interesting)
Why? Because I want to be the person that controls the purse strings. I want to be the person deciding what level of service is appropriate. The last thing I want is for a few dozen major players to make that decision without my direct input.
The person closest to the purse strings makes the decisions. That means that if you want to make the decisions, you have to be the person closest to the purse strings. You want to be the person who is getting charged for QoS. That gives you the power to decide what QoS should be. The last thing I want (and the last thing I think any of us want) is for Internet service to work the way cell phones do.
Please, charge me. Give me the power of the purse. In an amoral capitalist economy, the power of the purse is the only power that matters. Unless we're figuring on going socialist, I want to be the decider.
North America Losing It's Edge (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing is, the ISPs are in the same situation that the North American auto companies are in. They twiddled their thumbs and failed to innovate and keep ahead of the trends, and now they're crying for handouts.
Boo hoo, Toyota got the jump on us, and we're losing market share. Boo hoo, we didn't pay attention when web content providers got creative and started offering heavier media.
When did North America lose it's drive to innovate? Push the boundries? The ISPs should have been upgrading the networks a decade ago.
Time to deregulate and let some foreign company with vision jump in and start laying fiber like it's... actually... in demand!
Re: (Score:2)
The "people"? Or the government? It would be an even bigger mess if the government took over! And really,do you really expect the government to run the Internet without also snooping on all of our activities even more than they do so no
Re:If anything should be tax money (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only do they charge users for their bandwidth, they also charge the providers for the bandwidth they use to send their content.
It's not like all the BBC gets to put all of their streaming videos on the net for free for fricks sake. If their (BBCs) isp is not happy with their cut for all the video uploads the beeb is doing then they need to negotiate better terms.
It's as simple as that.
They can all go suck goats balls as far as I'm concerned. Most telcos make more margin off the i