[129770] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tony Varriale)
Sat Sep 18 14:52:05 2010
From: "Tony Varriale" <tvarriale@comcast.net>
To: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:51:44 -0500
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> Of course the high level of oversub is an issue....
We'll disagree then. Oversub makes access affordable.
>..with the scary boogeyman of evil illegal P2P filesharing
That just tips the money in the wrong direction. And it's a real threat
(amongst others)...not just that deadly clown hiding under your bed.
> Consider: the practical reality is that we're seeing more and more
> gizmos that do more and more network things. We're going to see
> DVR's downloading content over the Internet, you'll see your nav
> system downloading map updates over the Internet, these are all
> "new" devices that didn't exist ~10 years ago in their current form,
> and they're changing consumer usage patterns.
Yeah, I think we all know and see that stuff. But, unless some
technological model changes bit pricing, the premise of oversub still wins.
Going 1:1 today (or in the near future) makes no sense unless you layer
something on top (advertising, qos, buttercream icing?).
>There is no reason to
> expect that the "business model" will remain useful or that any
> component of it, such as massive oversubscription, must necessarily
> be correct and remain viable in its current form, just because it
> worked a decade ago.
Well, I'm talking 10 years ago up until present. How do you see the sub
model turning? 1:1? If so, how? And, still some profit?
tv
