quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker You pay your ISP for access to the network - that's it. When you send data from point A to point B it traverses many, many networks (most of which are not your ISPs). Yes, the ISP also pays for access to the network - but belive me, data flows across many, many networks with little or no money changing hands. What I believe they are trying to do with a data-levy to "guarantee quality and speed" is recoup the cost of network investment and ensure they have capital to invest in future networks. I do not suspect that this levy will have consumers directly charged. However as the internet migrates more and more to a data-intensive network, with commercial entities using most of this data (the original internet was military, educational - non-revenue based) - it is fair to levy these data-dependent commercial entities for use of networks (networks that currently aren't taking part in the transaction from an economic perspective). Again: I'm not certain if this is good or bad - it will very much depend on how it's rolled out (the devil is -always- in the details).

As you already said (and as loconet pointed out), our ISPs pay to get connected to the Internet backbones, so there is your innitiative to maintain and expand networks, MONEY... As I understands it, most of the traffic that is in a certain ISP's network is also going to that ISP's network; Almost all inter-ISP traffic nowadays goes through backbones (contrary to the principles of the Internet, which is a big concern to terror attacks and such but anyway...).

Besides, (I think?) a system where every node on the internet got paid for every single byte you download would be close to impossible to implement. And it would be ineffective as shit and it's nothing we should strive for at all imo.

The federal industry agency will award new spectrum wavelengths to the mobile industry... and wants new players because our market looks more and more like an oligarchy with its 3 players.

They might also change the rules to let players, have local networks, instead of forcing them to start national. Also sharing of existing infrastructure is on the table.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by malek The federal industry agency will award new spectrum wavelengths to the mobile industry... and wants new players because our market looks more and more like an oligarchy with its 3 players. They might also change the rules to let players, have local networks, instead of forcing them to start national. Also sharing of existing infrastructure is on the table.

Thats great news! Hopefully they will allow foreign compeition soon too

RJ, ISPs already charge for a limited amount of Bandwidth (mbps) and usage (Gigabytes).

Even if its says unlimited, these guys have some internal numbers and anything above that and they kick you for "abusive usage".

This Bellsouth stuff just sounds like bullshit.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Thats great news! Hopefully they will allow foreign compeition soon too

thats on the table... but to encourage foreigner, some changes must be done to the current rules, which locals companies arent too found of.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

Hello BellSouth, please charge me $1 for each 1 I send across somebody's network, and then $0 for each 0 I send.

This is a good idea!











I hate you, Bill Smith. Not only is your name generic as all hell, you're also an asshole.

quote:

Originally posted by loconet Unf'in believable!!! This will only end up screwing us, the customers, up the ass .. in multiple ways! source: Internet Daily This is not a business plan, It's blackmail! Is the Mafia running BellSouth now? If this thing goes through and is not stopped, it has the potential to throw the whole Internet economy out of wack. Greedy bastards.

i'm very doubtful that this is gonna fly ... juss the sheer thought of regulating it sounds mindnumbing enuff

___________________
Palm Trees > Pine Trees , Sand > Snow

Technologically its possible to enforce rules, on file types, origin, destination, size, protocols, etc etc etc...

But it'll be a hell managing all this bs.

Agreement for this site, for that site, heck, there's millions of sites, hundreds of ISPs.

Billions of agreements??

I don't think so.

Its a pandora box that will result in a loose-loose situation for both content vendors and ISPs.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker It's only a matter of time until networks provide service level tiers for the data that moves across their fiber. Paid data gets priority over free data. I'm not certain if this is good or bad - it will very much depend on how it's rolled out (the devil is -always- in the details). However this type of fee struture is required in the long term if network quality and network investment is going to continue. If data moving across a network is a zero revenue proposition - why should companies invest in building new networks, let alone maintaining current ones?

Businesses already pay for excess bandwidth over fiber (and copper). If you pay for a burstable T1 and they find you over the 95th percentile for your chosen pipe, you'll get charged plenty for it. Every service provider and datacenter calls this a "tier" as well.

I doubt they'd move to a "paid vs. free" structure - it's more complicated to configure and enforce and would probably result in a lower ROI. Just maintaining all the interacting priorities would be a nightmare and the implementation cost would be astronomical. What if you pay for priority with your service provider, but your traffic is getting routed through some other server which your provider does not have priority with? There are transitive bandwidth and transitive trust issues here that can't be ignored. Nobody will pay extra for "priority" data if they can't be guaranteed a priority to all of their stakeholders.

A scaled-down version with a few priority levels might work for residential consumers and their ISPs, since there's fairly low bandwidth demand and only one point of origin, but since you're talking about fiber I'm assuming you're focused on the commercial sector.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

I can see it happening as voip proliferates among other things... both consumer and commercial...

I'm too tired to get into this in detail, because who knows - this is pure speculation, but to keep it simple, the way I'd see this type of thing working is (and I could be wrong):

1) Consumers will never be directly charged a levy since their data transfer involves SPENDING money (not MAKING money). Corporations who MAKE money via a product or service that involves significant data tx will be charged the levy (i.e. iTunes, Vonage, Google Video, etc).

2) 1000s of agreements for "priority"/"guaranteed" data tx service level would not be necessary. Agreements will only need to be reached with the backbone (which in reality is a handful of major fiber owners). Since fragmentation of the fiber happens so close to consumer - the fragmentors (consumer ISPs) will be large (the few phone/cable companies) *or* small. The large fragmentors will have clout to demand levy, the small fragmentors will not. Backbones plus large fragmentors still probably does not number over 50 companies.

3) The levy will not be for USAGE, but for service level (guaranteed quality levels). The charge is NOT for access (which is a business model we already have and all use), the charge will be for GUARANTEED LEVEL of service (once already accessed) when data is traveling on provider's network (provider being a traversed network, not main connective network).

Scenario: Currently iTunes has no service level guarantee with the 2nd, 3rd, Nth-hop networks that iTunes's MP3's travel along to get to the consumer. If iTunes's direction connection is via UU, UU providers service level guarantees to iTunes - but once the data leaves UU, it's a blackbox.

If during a transaction (purchase of MP3) iTunes's data travels to the consumer via iTunes-->UU-->Verio-->ISP-->Consumer, Verio has the opportunity to say to iTunes "Listen, your business is dependent on smooth data flow. We'll prioritize/guarantee service level your data when it crosses our network for a fee.". iTunes then works with UU on routing to ensure that iTunes data stays on "prioritized" backbones as long as possible.

The above scenario is not all that complex from an execution or technology standpoint. Frankly I'm surprised that it's taken this long for the major fiber owners to figure this out. Time to recoup costs baby!

Opportunity: If someone was smart they’d go out right now and sign priority agreements (not access/usage agreements) with the major fiber owners – strike good deals before the model is totally figred out. Package/build an (relatively) out of the box data routing system and license it to companies with main revenue streams are dependent/relying on prioritized data rx/tx. Cut the fiber layers in on a % of the license; allow smaller companies to get similar QoS as the big guys. I’m certain that there is/will be a 2nd or 3rd tier (companies smaller than the iTunes, Vonage) market for this type of service.

So much for being tired, LOL! Feel free to punch holes in this. The more holes we can plug, the better the business plan will be...

___________________
- rabbit.joker [funny¿rabbit] | www.rabbitjoker.com |www.ddtt.org

Dark Dirty Tech Tribal. | Hands in air (trance) and feet on the floor (house).

Last edited by rabbitjoker on Jan-18-2006 at 03:39