Re: Fair Use Policy

2012-08-22 Thread Benjamin Krueger
Yeah, totally can't be done. It especially can't be done profitably.

http://fiber.google.com/
http://gigaom.com/2012/07/26/the-economics-of-google-fiber-and-what-it-means-for-u-s-broadband/

On Aug 22, 2012, at 5:41 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:

 On 8/22/12, Bacon Zombie baconzom...@gmail.com wrote:
 I how you are talking about 3G or there is a typo.
 An ISP with a 5GB cap that is charging the end user more then 5$ total
 {including line rental} a month should not be allow to operate.
 
 I don't believe $5 even covers an ISP's typical cost of having a line,
 let alone getting data through it, maintaining, supporting it, and
 providing upstream networking.  Last I checked you can't even buy
 dial-up services from national ISPs for that low a price,  before the
 per-Hour usage charges,  and those require simpler less-costly
 infrastructure to maintain for the ISP.
 
 With residential broadband, if there is not a heavy degree of
 oversubscription,  the ISP will either go broke, or the cost of
 residential service will be so high that the average person would not
 buy it.   I want my line speed 24x7  is a technical argument,  it is
 a numbers game, and  the average subscriber does not make that
 argument,  or at least,  rather, the
 average res. subscriber is not willing to bear the actual cost
 required to actually pay
 what it would cost their ISP to satisfy that  for every user trying to
 utilize so much.
 
 Why should the end users who transfer less than 1GB a month, with only
 basic web surfing, have to suffer periods of less-than-excellent
 network performance  or pay increasing costs to subsidize the purchase
 of additional capacity for users at the same service level expecting
 to use 100GB a month?
 
 There is a certain degree of fairness there.
 
 Even if   the metric is wrong --  the idea of metering bytes
 transferred is broken,
 because it does not positively reinforce the good behavior.
 
 It's like trying to reduce congestion during rush hour on the freeway
 by imposing a  40 miles of travel per day  limit  on each vehicle
 owner.
 
 That gives no benefit for those effected by the limit to adjust what
 time of day they travel those 40 miles,  however.
 
 A  X=10 gigabyte per  4 hours   rolling average  limit  would make more 
 sense.
 
 
 Where X  is varied,  based on the actual congestion of the network between
 other users of the same service level.
 
 And if your infrastructure and handle 25% at a minimum maxing out their
 connect them don't advertise  unlimited  since you can't provide it and
 it is false advertising.
 
 There's no such thing as unlimited, period.Even if the provider wanted to,
 there will be some physical limits.
 
 I agree the use of the word is confusing... when they say unlimited
 what they are
 often indicating is  You are not  limited  by the provider in the
 number of hours a day you can be connected to the service.
 
 The world would be a better place if ISPs that either throttled, cut off or
 added on extra charges to the end users bill were fined to hell for false
 advertising and repeat offenders were named and shamed on a public website.
 [snip]
 
 There might be no residential ISPs left
 
 --
 -JH
 




Re: Fair Use Policy

2012-08-22 Thread Benjamin Krueger
A unique position? Unlike those poor residential ISPs who only have literally 
millions of subscribers to use as leverage in peering negotiations. Perhaps 
more accurately, rather than saying Google can afford to start almost any 
project they want we should say Google doesn't suffer the temptation of 
wringing every last penny out of their aging infrastructure to ensure maximum 
profits from minimal investments.

I don't want to turn this into a long-drawn debate, so I'll simply say that I 
take Google at their word when they say this is profitable from Day 1 and I 
surely take their product offering at its word. I'm not sure who proposed we 
require anything, but I suppose we can let the market decide what ISPs are 
required to do. I can say that I don't know anyone who wouldn't drop any 
existing residential service for what Google is selling. Perhaps they will 
succumb to some unforeseen boogeyman as you allude to, but to be honest that 
sounds a whole lot like the wishful thinking of an industry that has been 
deftly out-manueverd at its own game and now finds itself dramatically behind 
the curve. Frankly, if I were in the ISP business I would be shitting my pants.

On Aug 22, 2012, at 6:05 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:

 On 8/22/12, Benjamin Krueger benja...@seattlefenix.net wrote:
 Yeah, totally can't be done. It especially can't be done profitably.
 
 Google can afford to start almost any project they want,  and they are
 in a unique position to negotiate peering and access to a ton of
 bandwidth, with their Youtube, Google Search et al. As to whether  it
 will be profitable, well, obviously, that is their claim. It's yet to
 be demonstrated.
 
 I gotta reject the idea that broadband providers should be required to
 follow in Google's footsteps though.
 
 For now, Google fiber is another risky experiment,  that could have a
 great payout if successful, or could be shuttered within a year or so,
 or fees/rate incs tacked on,  when they figure out just what a mess
 they have gotten into.
 
 
 http://fiber.google.com/
 http://gigaom.com/2012/07/26/the-economics-of-google-fiber-and-what-it-means-for-u-s-broadband/
 
 --
 -JH