North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
At 09:50 AM 10/8/2007, Joe Greco wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Mark Newton wrote: > > Thought experiment: With $250 per megabit per month transit and $30 - > > $50 per month tail costs, what would _you_ do to create the perfect > > internet industry? > > I would fix the problem, ie get more competition into these two areas > where the prices are obvisouly way higher than in most parts of the > civilised world, much higher than is motivated by the placement there in > the middle of an ocean. > > Perhaps it's hard to get the transoceanic cost down to european levels, > but a 25 time difference, that's just too much.
"Address those problems" sounds quite a bit like an old Sam Kinnison routine, paraphrased as "move to where the broadband is! You live in a %*^&* expensive place." Sorry, but your statement comes across as arrogant, at least to me.
> And about the local tail, that's also 5-10 times higher than normal in the > western world, I don't see that being motivated by some fundamental > difference.
Bingo. So, how do you propose an ISP in Australia fix the political structure, and do it in a timescale that fits your expectations?
Here in the US, we wrestled with Mark's problems around a decade ago, when transit was about that expensive, and copper cost big bucks. There was a lot of fear and paranoia about selling DSL lines for a fraction of what the cost of the circuit if provided with committed bandwidth would cost.
I should note that this applies only where the ILEC (or cable company, for that matter) has bothered to deploy service. Unlike telephone service, there has been no "universal service" approach. There are large areas without service other than dialup.
Verizon, it's particularly sad, charges $19.95/month for dialup that'll also tie up a POTS line, where it'll offer the lowest DSL speeds at $14.95. And Verizon "cherry picks" the places where it offers DSL (and moreso for FiOS) so the affluent towns get high speed service, while the rural and poorer places only have available dialup (and that dialup is more expensive).
I would be curious if any of the places in the world with higher-cost high-speed service also have any sort of requirement of coverage?
Anyways, as displeased as I may be with the state of affairs here in the US, it is worth noting that the speeds continue to improve, and projects such as U-verse and FIOS are promising to deliver higher bandwidth to the user, and maintain pressure on the cable companies for them to do better as well.
Of course this only applies if you live in an inner city or wealthy suburb.
US providers do not seem to be doing significant amounts of DPI or other policy to manage bandwidth consumption. That doesn't mean that there's no overcommit crisis, but right now, limits on upload speeds appear to combine with a lack of killer centralized content distribution apps and as a result, the situation is stable.
Do you believe there is any reason for the "Internet of the Future" to be everywhere? You're concerned about video over IP delivery and other advanced applications, but do you expect to make a video call to your cousin who owns a farm outside of town? This question is largely ignored in discussions about cranking the 'net to ever faster speeds, at least in the US. I'd be interested to know how it's addressed elsewhere in the world.
I do believe that video-over-IP is a coming thing, and I see a very scary (for network operators) scenario of needing to sustain much greater levels of traffic, as podcast-like video delivery is something that would be a major impact. Right now, both the ILEC and the cable company appear to be betting that they'll continue to drive the content viewing of their customers through broadcast, and certainly that's the most efficient model we've found, but it only works for "popular" stuff. That still leaves a wildly large void for a new service model. The question of whether or not such a thing can actually be sustained by the Internet is fascinating, and whether or not it'll crush current network designs.