<inline>
Tom DeReggi wrote:
The truth is services like VOIP and IPTV are going to challenge end
user's connections, and they are going to learn what over
subscription. And end users are going to kick and scream about how
their service provider is ripping them off, and service is poor
because the video is choppy, while they are using their 3 mbps link
that they are paying $30 a month to.
The bottom line is no Internet provider on the planet is selling speed
pre-allocated for sustained throughput of speed sold. The networks out
there, not designed for delivering the capacity required for High
capacity QOS and throughput can't handle the usage, based on the sale
price.
That is the ISP's problem to solve. Raise prices to compensate.
There is an end user misperception that if someone buys 3 mb they
are getting 3mb reserved for them.
Most ISP's have a AUP that says it is NOT dedicated (for residential
use). That is where MIR/CIR and a contract is for.
What ironic to me is that its not only the end users that have this
misconception but its also law makers and media personel.
Law makers are idiots and media personnel are decomposed slug slime.
I support SBC's position.
SBC's idea here is evil and wrong. SBC is TOTALY in the wrong. If they
have a FAILING business model thats to damn bad!!
Charge more, install more backbone connections. You do NOT charge the
other end for the pipe! The customer is paying
for the pipe at there end, the content provider is paying for their end.
SBC has NO RIGHT to decide that say a XO pipe
has to pay for access to the SBC end user just cause the SBC end user
use's a service on the XO network.
I do NOT believe in blocking.
But I do believe in acceptable use policies, and kicking off users
that use capacity beyond what is allocated for the intented purpose it
was sold to them for, and allowing customer's perform suffer when they
try and get something for nothing.
Thats what a AUP with MIR/CIR is for.
If we turn it around, VOIP companies like Vonage are no different.
One time I setup a Fax server on a pool of 4 or 5 of their VOIP
lines. It was all of about 24 hours before Vonage disconnected us,
for violating their acceptable use policy. Their pricing plan just
was not adequate to accommodate the high volume calling. Its not
going to be any different with other VOIP providers. $19 a month
unlimitted local and long distance plans, clearly are counting on
average statistic being met, which mean low volume calling. The
second they get costs that exceed their profit, by end users, I'm sure
they won't continue to keep those high volume callers on board.
Switched voice is WAY cheaper to transport then data of any type.
This is a time bomb waiting to happen. Worst of all it sets the stage
for market pressures to force ISPs to sell under cost, because
marketing has to over state the capabilities of the network.
Considering best case scenarios instead of worst case scenarios. Its
the formula for bankruptcies and consumers that will suffer from poor
quality services.
I do not think that is true. If a ISP sells under cost that is up to
them. If they can not compete well that is the way it is. Its called
business.
Laws will have to be put in place to compensate those that incur the
costs, or the quality goes to crap.
Again, I think that is EVIL. The law is already in place for this. The
ISP has to be honest in its advertising and its contracts. The end
user should READ the AUP. MIR/CIR of say 3mbit/56k. Well tough shit when
that movie doest work, your paying for a CIR of 56k
not 3mbit. Drop the bling bling for a 3mbit CIR or STFU.
I'd hate it if broadband stuped to the low level of PC hardware and
electronics.
What do you think cable is?
I remember I used to be able to buy an original IBM PC, and that bad
boy would last 10 years without a hickup.
T1, T3, DS3, OCx
Now I'm lucky to have PC hardware outlast the first year.
Linksys, DLink, Netgear, et al
Consumer electronics typically come with only 90 day warrantees, its
rare that they last over the first year either. BUtits a commodity
market, forcing lowest price and features, with reliabilty nd
durability forced right out of the equation.
There are high end units out there still, Cisco comes to mind.
Its not just SBC that needs compensation, its independant ISPs.
NNNOOO!!!!! I can not say this enough! We do not need compensated for
our users using our pipes beyond what we bill monthly!
If it is not enough, raise the price!
What going to happen when a huge marketing engine like an AOL or
Google, or a Comcast, or SBC starts selling their IPTV and VOIP over
every ISP's network for free?
Its already out there. Its not that it is being SOLD, its that enough of
our users are USING it. Well you just your ass handed to you with a lesson
on over subscription, mir/cir and aup's.
One view is that it will force consumers to buy more bandwidth from ISPs.
And help force the price of bandwidth down with ISP's buying more and more
Another is it will just cause lots of bad will between ISPs and there
customers, when they learn they are going to get charged more.
This <should already be covered in the AUP!> Any ISP that doesnt have
this covered in the AUP with there MIR/CIR rates is ASKING
to get a beat down from there user base.
Its deceptive the the end user.
What is deceptive? Are you telling lies to your users?
We need a "truth in lending " type rule for ISPs.
They exist already.
And an ISP should get compensated for the use of their network based
on their cost to operate their network, not the average cost that
others may pay.
Compensated by WHO? The ONLY people that should do this is the ISP's end
user, thats WHY they are a user and what they are for!
IF my backbone provder charges me more than they charge the high
volume player, I need compensation for what I get paid.
Say WHAT?
Could you imagine, if SBC was selling transit to ISPs at $200 a mbps
(which is not uncommon for T1 to DS3 pricing levels in rural areas),
and then flooded their ISP customers with traffic, by selling their
end users IPTV easilly at capacity far greater than 1 mbps. SBC would
actually make more money off the ISP's transit fees than they would
make off the end user buying the IPTV service. Clearly the ISP would
be getting taken advantage of. It would put them out of business
fast. These are real issues legislators need to consider. PRoviding
high QOS broadband is not cheap, and not equal for all providers,
based on size and location.
So what if SBC sells bandwidth and TVoIP? SBC sells each at a price.
They do not nor should they be able to charge or be charge the ISP cause
someone
uses this or other services.
And what makes it worse, is how do you tell whose network gets used
and how much? It can't be done. ISPs don't have the equivellent of a
SS7 system. The only protection an ISP will have is to slow down
/bandwidth manage consumers traffic. Its what we have to do. We sell
CIR and MIR traffic. The CIR becomes a factor of the over subscription
rate, and not disclosed to the end user.
It (the cir) should be!
It a value that matches the real cost to deliver data at sustained
rates. The MIR is the speed sold to the customer based on the targeted
oversubscription rate. A 5mbps MIR service may have a 128K CIR if to
a residential prospect. For $30 a month, the end user may get 128K of
sustained throughput, after that they pay more, or get limited. For a
business custoemr paying $200, it may be 512K CIR. Its all about the
math and reality of what a network costs to provide.
Yes it is. You seam to have reversed your self from the above about
supporting SBC and its idea.
I think what needs to be important is that companies are forced to
make policies that are not discriminatory. For example, its also to
charge of a $1 to take a packet from network 1 as long as you also
charge the same $1 to take a packet from network 2. In other words,
If you set a price for passing VOIP, VOIP is VOIP regardless of who
provides it, and the cost to the ISP is the same, and therefore should
be compensated the same. But not in a way that inforces that one
prvider will have a lower competitive advantage over the other.
No way. If we allow this then I have the right to charge what i want to
who i want. Its MY network. Maybe you do not have enough transit
to make talking to you worth the legal bills? Maybe I do not have enough
for you. Its plain WRONG to bill the end user for service AND bill
the content provider JUST because they provide to your network. Now if
SBC wants to sell a pipe to said provider and bill based on USE
from the get go, thats FINE. But not after the fact just cause they are
losing there ass with a bad business model.
Jeromie
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Muto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 8:25 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Should content providers pay for standard
accesstoconsumers?
Give me a break. Whitacre is acting like SBC customer's are not
supporting
the network, there is your ROI Ed. So what if all the ISP's did the same
thing? Yeah right, that'll work for about 2 minutes. This is getting
way out
of hand and I would hope Congress and the FCC et al, remember Madison
River
and knock Whitacre down a peg or two.
Ok, now let's see what happens if every ISP and content provider
blocks Ed's
customers? That should flood their support desks for a while.
Frank Muto
Co-founder - Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee
http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Weasler"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 5:57 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Should content providers pay for standard access
toconsumers?
--- MarketWatch Quote ---
"How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a
broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them," said Ed
Whitacre in a BusinessWeek Online interview. "What they would like to
do is use my pipes for free. I ain't going to let them do that."
He argued that because SBC and others have invested to build
high-speed networks, they are due a return. [1]
--/ MarketWatch Quote ---
It's a brave new world. I'm hoping that this is a clueless person
talking about a business he is in charge of but knows little about. I
fear that this is someone who has a feasible plan to accomplish what
he describes. I don't think that a telephone-model overlay on the
Internet will satisfy many consumers, but if they don't have an
alternative what are their options?
Hopefully, this will drive business to the WISPs, but I'm not sure
that the consumers are well enough educated to make an informed
decision and in many larger markets the LECs have driven us out of the
picture by providing service for less than their cost.
- Tony
[1]
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B5A606A5A%2D18D7%2D4FC9%2DA65C%2DC7317BC7E1CB%7D
Original interview from Business Week (registration required):
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_45/b3958092.htm
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date:
10/21/2005
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
