[129651] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Sep 14 17:58:52 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C8FC5AA.8090702@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:55:07 -0700
To: Dave Sparro <dsparro@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sep 14, 2010, at 11:57 AM, Dave Sparro wrote:
> On 9/14/2010 1:08 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>=20
>> On Sep 14, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Dave Sparro wrote:
>>=20
>>> On 9/13/2010 12:05 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> It's a question of double-billing. I've already paid you to send =
and
>>>> receive packets on my behalf. Detuning my packets because a second
>>>> party hasn't also paid you is cheating, maybe fraudulent.
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Would you object to an ISP model where a content provider could pay =
to get an ISP subscriber's package upgraded on a dynamic basis?
>>>=20
>> Yes... Because the reality is that it wouldn't be an upgrade. It =
would be a euphemism for downgrading the subscriber's experience with =
other content providers.
>>=20
>=20
> So it's not fair for an ISP to limit a consumer's circuit to the speed =
they paid for, if there's excess capacity in the network? ie. If the =
ISP has capacity to offer 15Mbps down, that's what they should provide =
to a customer that has paid for 10Mbps. Where's the cut-off?
>=20
If they only downgraded things to the capacity I paid for, sure. =
However, that isn't what happens.
>>> It would look something like my Road Runner PowerBoost(tm) service, =
only it never cuts off when the consumer is accessing a particular =
content provider's service.
>>>=20
>> Except that PowerBoost(tm) provides a burstable service where the =
capacity is already available and using it would not negatively impact =
other subscribers. This, on the other had, would create an SLA requiring =
your ISP to either build out quite a bit of additional capacity (not so =
likely) or to negatively impact their other subscribers in order to =
deliver content to the subscriber using this enhanced service.
>>=20
> I would think that the content provider's bag of cash is what would =
provide the incentive to add to capacity where needed.
>=20
It hasn't worked that way in similar situations I have observed in the =
past. In my experience, they
pocket the cash as a windfall and move on.
>>> That would allow Netflix/Hulu/OnLive/whoever to offer me a streaming =
service that requires a 15Mbps connection even though I'm not willing to =
upgrade my 10 up/1 down ISP connection to get it.
>>>=20
>>=20
>> There's little difference in my mind between this model and a model =
where service provider X is in bed with content provider Y (perhaps they =
share common ownership) and subscribers to provider X are given a =
dramatically better user experience to content Y than to other content =
of a similar nature.
>>=20
>=20
> I just don't see a way to get passed the current impasse.
> The consumers are saying "I want faster, as long as I don't have to =
pay more."
> Content providers are saying, "If consumers had faster, I'd be able to =
invent 'Killer App'. I sure wish the ISPs would upgrade their =
networks."
> ISPs are saying, "Why should we upgrade our networks, nobody is =
willing to pay us to do so."
>=20
>=20
I'm actually happy with the speed I currently have. For $99/month I get =
about 30mbps down and about 8mbps up. That's adequate for my household =
needs.
I haven't encountered a content provider that has content I want that =
requires more than that.
Where I have trouble is AT&T where I have paid them and they still =
haven't upgraded their
wireless network.
Owen
