As someone who used to work for a university's residential network, this
doesn't surprise me at all.

Even as of March 2007, I was seeing 30%+ of our total bandwidth being used
for flash video sites during peak hours (~6pm to midnight for our users).
P2P was easy to control with a worst-effort delivery policy. There was no
similar solution for flash video.

Even with access to cheap bandwidth in Seattle, the cost to increase
available bandwidth tended to be cost-prohibitive. Many colleges and
universities don't even have the luxury of purchasing bandwidth cheaply from
major metro exchanges.

The economics of online video work out much differently for MSOs like
Comcast; content-delivery networks and settlement-free peering are easy and
cheap to them. It's the last mile which is the problem. For us, the problem
was the exact opposite.

I see Comcast's move to cap at 250GB as a sticking their toes in the water,
and perhaps trying to set a precident at the same time. I don't see a
techincal reason for the caps. They don't even differentiate between
outbound/inbound traffic. Considering their network architecture where
last-mile egress bandwidth is so scarce, that alone makes the whole move
seem like a farce.

I absolutely agree that whatever they're hedging against in the future is
sure to have some anticompetive tint to it.

-Nick

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Lauren Weinstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The implications of this story for bandwidth caps and their potential
> for anticompetitive results are obvious.
>
> I continue to be bemused by the mainstream press' seeming disconnect
> between stories that on one hand note the massive rise in Internet
> video and the launch of new Internet video services, and on the other
> hand stories that detail ISP plans to limit Internet usage -- in
> some cases drastically.
>
> These two essentially contradictory aspects are rarely considered in
> the same stories.
>
>
> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/online-video-and-our-attention-span-get-longer
>
> --Lauren--
> NNSquad Moderator
>

Reply via email to