Comments on: Broadband giants say Net neutrality fears are misguided

Verizon, AT&T offer companies special pipes. They want to extend that concept to content delivery.
Photo: Ciccone, Tauke talk

[Terry Murphy]

Another Baloney Sandwich

"Cicconi said that trying to achieve the same level of quality for
video over the public Internet would be too expensive, because
it requires extra equipment and network resources."

BS. Well he is generally right in that the issue here is about
media, but not about qos issues for delivering media content.
The intent here is pretty clear. ISP's, which are mostly telco and
cable operators, would prefer that consumers get media content
directly from them, particularly in the case of cable companies
who already provide it by means of a cable hook-up to your TV.
But media content delivery is rapidly switching over to the web
as the delivery medium of choice. Apple, obviously, has already
been very successful in establishing iTunes on the web for all of
your musical needs (and now some video as well). What do the
telcos and cable companies see of Apple profits as this content
rushes down the internet and into their subscriber's homes?
Nothing. Not that they are the least bit entitled to a penny of
someone else's hard work, but somewhere in America, there is a
telco/cable exec typing "grrrr" in a memo right now. lol

Now Amazon is rumored to be readying a movie service. iTunes
is moving full steam ahead in that direction. Google established
a video download service earlier this year. If one or all of these
really take off, what happens to cable? What happens to the
telcos, the cable wannabes?

The answer is, no matter where you get your media content, the
telcos and cable companies are going to make sure they are in
for some of the profit, regardless of whom or where on the
internet you get it from. Charging for "packet priority" is just
setting up a toll booth on the media (formally information)
superhighway.

And the fact is, the internet will serve just fine for media content
delivery without the need for ISPs to intervene with preferred
packet switching schemes. P2P, Bittorrent and binary tree
networking nodes can handle HQ media content delivery using
the internet as it exists today, without any need for "preferred
packet switching" And in the final analysis, the telco/cable
companies STILL win with the addition of new subscribers
wanting a piece of the new media content action on the internet.

The "tiered internet" concept is simply greed by any other name

[Terry Murphy]

Another Baloney Sandwich

"Cicconi said that trying to achieve the same level of quality for
video over the public Internet would be too expensive, because
it requires extra equipment and network resources."

BS. Well he is generally right in that the issue here is about
media, but not about qos issues for delivering media content.
The intent here is pretty clear. ISP's, which are mostly telco and
cable operators, would prefer that consumers get media content
directly from them, particularly in the case of cable companies
who already provide it by means of a cable hook-up to your TV.
But media content delivery is rapidly switching over to the web
as the delivery medium of choice. Apple, obviously, has already
been very successful in establishing iTunes on the web for all of
your musical needs (and now some video as well). What do the
telcos and cable companies see of Apple profits as this content
rushes down the internet and into their subscriber's homes?
Nothing. Not that they are the least bit entitled to a penny of
someone else's hard work, but somewhere in America, there is a
telco/cable exec typing "grrrr" in a memo right now. lol

Now Amazon is rumored to be readying a movie service. iTunes
is moving full steam ahead in that direction. Google established
a video download service earlier this year. If one or all of these
really take off, what happens to cable? What happens to the
telcos, the cable wannabes?

The answer is, no matter where you get your media content, the
telcos and cable companies are going to make sure they are in
for some of the profit, regardless of whom or where on the
internet you get it from. Charging for "packet priority" is just
setting up a toll booth on the media (formally information)
superhighway.

And the fact is, the internet will serve just fine for media content
delivery without the need for ISPs to intervene with preferred
packet switching schemes. P2P, Bittorrent and binary tree
networking nodes can handle HQ media content delivery using
the internet as it exists today, without any need for "preferred
packet switching" And in the final analysis, the telco/cable
companies STILL win with the addition of new subscribers
wanting a piece of the new media content action on the internet.

The "tiered internet" concept is simply greed by any other name

[mwa423]

I could see this as reasonable if.....

telco's/cable providers sold a certain amount of bandwidth, lets say for discussion purposes 5 mbit, and we all know that cable lines can run faster then that, because we have seen commercial companies run 10-15 mbit with little trouble. If they sold 5 mbit as general internet surfing (hey, if you want to watch online movies at 5 mbit, they won't stop you) but if you ordered their video package, they would give you another 10 mbit that would be a dedicated line to their video service (so you would have a total of 15 mbit).

The question is, will they filter other companies on purpose?

[Tomcat Adam]

RE:

Thing is, they would eventually gouge the customers with a "Oh, but this is the good tier, you pay 400% more" circumstance.

I'd bet that they would only limit data competitors that ticked them off, but nobody really noticable. Just the little thorns in their side.

[mwa423]

I could see this as reasonable if.....

telco's/cable providers sold a certain amount of bandwidth, lets say for discussion purposes 5 mbit, and we all know that cable lines can run faster then that, because we have seen commercial companies run 10-15 mbit with little trouble. If they sold 5 mbit as general internet surfing (hey, if you want to watch online movies at 5 mbit, they won't stop you) but if you ordered their video package, they would give you another 10 mbit that would be a dedicated line to their video service (so you would have a total of 15 mbit).

The question is, will they filter other companies on purpose?

[Tomcat Adam]

RE:

Thing is, they would eventually gouge the customers with a "Oh, but this is the good tier, you pay 400% more" circumstance.

I'd bet that they would only limit data competitors that ticked them off, but nobody really noticable. Just the little thorns in their side.

[dknews]

Make it like a carpool lane

Carpool lanes on freeways filter according to number of passengers (2 or more), but not according to Porche vs. Yugo, or rich vs. poor neighborhood residences.

If pipe operators want to differentiate real-time data (streaming) as opposed to messaging (email web downloads) fine, as long as all video bytes get the same priority and all email bytes get the same priority. (Actually, I think they do that already, and nobody is complainng about that.)

There is *already* a customer-driven market to differentiate bandwidth accoridng to willingness to pay.

Telcos want to add something extra which is simply unnecessary: the power of the *transport supplier* to differentiate bytes -- but the market already works fine. If there is more demand for bandwidth overall, prices will suport the investment.

The trouble for Wall Street is that this becomes a commodity (i.e., very competitive) market, and high competition means limited ROI (though usually very *reliable ROI* -- stable but moderate). Frankly, there will always be investors for reliable investments even at less than gargatuan rates of return.

The pipes should be a common carrier like telephone service (especiallly since teleh[phone service wil go over these pipes increasingly over time). They have been operated as such from the get-go, and that's why innovation at the end nodes has been so tremendous.

Keep the pipes dumb and the ends nodes smart, that's the key to sustaining competition and innovation.

Don't break the Internet. That's exactly what Whitacre and his cronies have proposed, and if they really want to do this then we need to make it explicitly illegal.

They want to reduce competition. That's just wrong.

[dknews]

Make it like a carpool lane

Carpool lanes on freeways filter according to number of passengers (2 or more), but not according to Porche vs. Yugo, or rich vs. poor neighborhood residences.

If pipe operators want to differentiate real-time data (streaming) as opposed to messaging (email web downloads) fine, as long as all video bytes get the same priority and all email bytes get the same priority. (Actually, I think they do that already, and nobody is complainng about that.)

There is *already* a customer-driven market to differentiate bandwidth accoridng to willingness to pay.

Telcos want to add something extra which is simply unnecessary: the power of the *transport supplier* to differentiate bytes -- but the market already works fine. If there is more demand for bandwidth overall, prices will suport the investment.

The trouble for Wall Street is that this becomes a commodity (i.e., very competitive) market, and high competition means limited ROI (though usually very *reliable ROI* -- stable but moderate). Frankly, there will always be investors for reliable investments even at less than gargatuan rates of return.

The pipes should be a common carrier like telephone service (especiallly since teleh[phone service wil go over these pipes increasingly over time). They have been operated as such from the get-go, and that's why innovation at the end nodes has been so tremendous.

Keep the pipes dumb and the ends nodes smart, that's the key to sustaining competition and innovation.

Don't break the Internet. That's exactly what Whitacre and his cronies have proposed, and if they really want to do this then we need to make it explicitly illegal.

They want to reduce competition. That's just wrong.

[Chung Leong]

Telcos at a crossroad

I wish people would think a little instead of just slamming the telcos out of instinctive dislike. Really, take a moment and consider their situations. The long-distance business is fast dying. The fixed-line business is a dead end too. The future is the Internet, but while they're in the game, they're at a competitive disadvantage against cable companies, who have better pipes and the ability to bundle TV service. The telcos are therefore looking desperately to add video to their offerings.

One way to do it is to provide TV service over their private downstream pipes. It's not a terribly attractive option, since being a content distributor is not their core competency. And they'd basically be playing by the cablecos' rules--not a good way to beat a well established incumbent. As IPTV doesn't really offer much over standard cable, to only to compete is through lower price. Consider the size of the initial investment, that's an unhappy prospect.

The other way to provide video is to let other companies do it and charge them tolls for using fast lanes in the network. This is a more attractive option as it's closer to the telcos' traditional line of business (not unlike charging for long-distance calls).

The bottom-line is that telcos are out to make a profit one way or another. My reckoning is that they'd rather tax video traffic than to start a brand new line of business. By mandating net neutrality, we'd be pushing them towards a closed system. And once thee have gone down the IPTV route, you know Internet video delivery would be dead for the foreseeable future--no company would so stupid as to invest in technology that cannibalizes its own business.

[jdbwar07]

We need faster speeds, not telco BS

The telcos were supposed to rewire America with high-speed fiber optic connections (45 mbps both ways then). This was in the 90s and they were given $200 billion from us, the US taxpayers. For information on this scandal, please visit:
www.newnetworks.com

The US is now far behind other countries in broadband quality and speed. For example, in South Korea you can get gigabit internet (1000 mbps). This is what we need in America for video and other applications, faster speeds, in general and not for websites that can shell out money to the telcos. If they would do what they're supposed to do and install fiber optics they wouldn't try to do this.

This is part of the reason why we need net neutrality. Without it the phone companies will just pull stuff like this to make it look like they're improving their networks, when they really are just out to increase their profits. This is why net neutrality should be supported.

[Chung Leong]

Telcos at a crossroad

I wish people would think a little instead of just slamming the telcos out of instinctive dislike. Really, take a moment and consider their situations. The long-distance business is fast dying. The fixed-line business is a dead end too. The future is the Internet, but while they're in the game, they're at a competitive disadvantage against cable companies, who have better pipes and the ability to bundle TV service. The telcos are therefore looking desperately to add video to their offerings.

One way to do it is to provide TV service over their private downstream pipes. It's not a terribly attractive option, since being a content distributor is not their core competency. And they'd basically be playing by the cablecos' rules--not a good way to beat a well established incumbent. As IPTV doesn't really offer much over standard cable, to only to compete is through lower price. Consider the size of the initial investment, that's an unhappy prospect.

The other way to provide video is to let other companies do it and charge them tolls for using fast lanes in the network. This is a more attractive option as it's closer to the telcos' traditional line of business (not unlike charging for long-distance calls).

The bottom-line is that telcos are out to make a profit one way or another. My reckoning is that they'd rather tax video traffic than to start a brand new line of business. By mandating net neutrality, we'd be pushing them towards a closed system. And once thee have gone down the IPTV route, you know Internet video delivery would be dead for the foreseeable future--no company would so stupid as to invest in technology that cannibalizes its own business.

[jdbwar07]

We need faster speeds, not telco BS

The telcos were supposed to rewire America with high-speed fiber optic connections (45 mbps both ways then). This was in the 90s and they were given $200 billion from us, the US taxpayers. For information on this scandal, please visit:
www.newnetworks.com

The US is now far behind other countries in broadband quality and speed. For example, in South Korea you can get gigabit internet (1000 mbps). This is what we need in America for video and other applications, faster speeds, in general and not for websites that can shell out money to the telcos. If they would do what they're supposed to do and install fiber optics they wouldn't try to do this.

This is part of the reason why we need net neutrality. Without it the phone companies will just pull stuff like this to make it look like they're improving their networks, when they really are just out to increase their profits. This is why net neutrality should be supported.

[vampares]

Am I the only one who read the sec report?

Things are Comcastic for VoD services. The issue is that at the start verizon had 2 billion for fios and now has less than $700 and something like 9% dare I say penatration. The cost outlook has so many zeros -- wanna see my O face? This is why they can't do both backbone and frontbone (sp?) of the internet. (highspeed on the oneside needs high speed on the other, forgetaboutit...). If they had VoD then things would be good because they would make money. They won't make any on the phone service because so many people will immediately switch to Vonage or whatever. And they don't make much money on the internet because they're trying to woo cable customers w/ low rates. Here's the MF'er though. The whole thing is being hobbling on pots, whose rates have been inflated for the purpose of life support (that includes any other seller of the line). Now they realise that pots are really a market not tapped to it's fullest potential and seek to unleash the inner beast.

[vampares]

and pictures

A large portion of their revenue comes from selling little pictures to mobile subscribers.
This is their bussiness model.

[vampares]

Am I the only one who read the sec report?

Things are Comcastic for VoD services. The issue is that at the start verizon had 2 billion for fios and now has less than $700 and something like 9% dare I say penatration. The cost outlook has so many zeros -- wanna see my O face? This is why they can't do both backbone and frontbone (sp?) of the internet. (highspeed on the oneside needs high speed on the other, forgetaboutit...). If they had VoD then things would be good because they would make money. They won't make any on the phone service because so many people will immediately switch to Vonage or whatever. And they don't make much money on the internet because they're trying to woo cable customers w/ low rates. Here's the MF'er though. The whole thing is being hobbling on pots, whose rates have been inflated for the purpose of life support (that includes any other seller of the line). Now they realise that pots are really a market not tapped to it's fullest potential and seek to unleash the inner beast.

[vampares]

and pictures

A large portion of their revenue comes from selling little pictures to mobile subscribers.
This is their bussiness model.