On Sep 14, 2010, at 11:57 AM, Dave Sparro wrote: > On 9/14/2010 1:08 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> On Sep 14, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Dave Sparro wrote: >> >>> On 9/13/2010 12:05 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> 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? >>> >> 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. >> > > 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? > 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. >>> >> 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. >> > I would think that the content provider's bag of cash is what would provide > the incentive to add to capacity where needed. > 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. >>> >> >> 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. >> > > 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." > > 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
