So, we seem to circle the same points:
1. Who pays for the infrastructure to support the increased bandwidth
requirements?
Comcast and most ISPs want the content provider to do so, since they
are collecting fees for the service and they are not, but still have to pay for
the bandwidth (maintenance and upgrades).
The customer is being billed twice: First to get access to the Internet
to reach services, and then for the service offered by the content provider.
The concern is that all customers, regardless of the services they select, will
end up paying for the upgrades if the ISP has to/does raise rates. This makes
the customer using the bandwidth-intensive application happy, and the other
customers not using it unhappy.
The content provider pays for Internet access, and in some cases puts
in proxies to cache closer to the source. They do not pay the end customer ISP
for service (assuming different providers in play). The content provider
receives revenue for its services.
The problem is still that someone has to support and build infrastructure. Some
believe that Internet streaming video is the direction we are headed in, and
that does appear to be true. But there are still a lot of customers that are
not using this service, effectively subsidizing the customers using this
service. This can be irksome, because most customers are unwilling to go back
to a "pay for what you use plan" after having unlimited access. I think that
would really put the pressure on both customers and content providers alike to
be more efficient.
I understand that the goal is for the customer to get what they want on demand,
but that will never be a reality, for anyone, anywhere. I'd love to see content
providers continue the push towards more efficient technologies and
architecture, but there is no impetus for them to do so unless they have a
financial reason. The same is true for the ISP and the customer.
Bottom line:
Customers need to think about the purchase of content (considering each one as
a transaction that has value) more. Not as a worrisome, "bill will be enormous"
way, but assigning value to it nonetheless.
Content Providers need to continue upgrading methodologies, compression, and
technologies in order to make their service a smooth, efficient "essential
object." This will help keep any one service from overwhelming the rest, which
is the bane of every service provider/transit provider.
Service/Transit Providers need to re-evaluate their bandwidth offerings to
customers, their relationships with content providers, and with each other. The
model is very inefficient and political. The only way to be competitive seems
to be, as someone said, to provide a solid Layer 1-3 platform that will drive
innovation at layers 4-7.
At least, that's my perspective on it.
Sincerely,
Brian A . Rettke
RHCT, CCDP, CCNP, CCIP
Network Engineer, CableONE Internet Services
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Bresley [mailto:b...@brezworks.com]
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 12:52 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
On 12/20/2010 1:30 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>> And yet, I don't know of any location in the US with two cable
>> operators. You see, these rules weren't changed to provide for a
>> second cable TV plant to be put in the ground, even in the FCC knew
>> that cost too much. Rather, if you read carefully the problem was
>> that Verizon, AT&T, and Bell South (all mentioned by name in the
>> article) wanted to deliver video over FIOS/DSL. Most areas had
>> coverage rules, to be a cable provider you had to pass 95%+ of the
>> houses or such, and these folks didn't meet many of the local rules
>> and went to the government for help.
>>
> I think that I recall encountering one or two such places in the past,
> but, I cannot recall them to make a specific citation. Certainly it is the
> exception and not the rule.
>
> Owen
>
Cedar Rapids, IA is served by both Mediacom (incumbent/original cable
company) and Imon (spinoff from McLeodUSA where they used to be called
McLeodUSA ATS). As well as having Qwest for telco service.
ATS started as an overbuild to compete at the local level in MCLD's
hometown. They were started circa 1997, and are still in business
today, so they survived the last 2 bubbles. And they caused Mediacom to
keep prices down, and compete to offer additional services in Cedar
Rapids long before they were available in other cities in their footprint.
So examples of competitive overbuilds being successful do exist. Maybe
Google's fiber build will inspire some other companies to try to compete
in this fashion.
Full disclosure: I worked for MCLD from 98-05, and in the ATS division
from 00-05.
Jeremy
