If qualifying traffic by throttling certain types of traffic is
unacceptable - then shouldn't a strategy that quantifies cumulative
traffic be unacceptable too? I mean, ISP's already charge differently
for access speeds (tiers of down/upload speed), how can another layer
of costs be put on top of that without creating mass confusion, not to
mention anger on the part of the end user/consumer?
Content providers already pay for bandwidth charges to web hosting
firms who pay handsomely for their own connectivity. Why should end
users also be charged simply for downloading an excess of the same
content that the content provider has already paid to deliver. This
would be like the post office charging receivers of mail a fee if the
quantity of mail exceeded a certain arbitrary level (I know - not the
best analogy).
Also - will Time Warner charge people who exceed the cap when they are
downloading content exclusively from Time Warner sites? Or will TW
privilege their own offerings - thus discouraging users from seeking
content from outside providers (for whom TW receives no advertising
revenue).
It all raises more questions than answers . . . none of them good.
Michael
Fred Reimer wrote:
This need not be a case of wealth
transfers only - there can be value creation as well. In one simple
world with a zero-sum-game, for every penny charged for over-usage, the
average bill for others should go down commensurately.
A first Q to me is to what extent is or isn't this a zero-sum game?
In the US companies have a fiduciary responsibility to make as much money as
they can for their stockholders. If you think Time Warner, or any ISP, will
reduce the price for Internet access for the "average Joe" who uses minimal
bandwidth to something that is comparable to India (even with exchange rates
and cost of living calculations included) you are mistaken. The ONLY reason
why Time Warner is doing this is because it is a chance for them to make
more money.
You can have your opinion of what SHOULD and should not happen, but
realistically this is not how business in the US works. Especially not in
the telephone / cable / DSL markets. I have no special knowledge of this,
it is common knowledge.
Fred Reimer, CISSP, CCNP, CQS-VPN, CQS-ISS
Senior Network Engineer
Coleman Technologies, Inc.
954-298-1697
-----Original Message-----
From: nnsquad-bounces+freimer=ctiusa.com@nnsquad.org [mailto:nnsquad-
bounces+freimer=ctiusa.com@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of Rahul Tongia
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 12:59 PM
To: Barry Gold
Cc: Lauren Weinstein; nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: NYT: Differing views on Time Warner'sBandwidth
Cap Experiment
As someone who's spent lots of time internationally, there are many
tiered pricing plans for DSL. All you can use are often MUCH more
expensive. BUT, the entry plans are dramatically cheaper, e.g.,
$2-6/month in India.
So, if only a few percent of people are using up "too much" bandwidth
perhaps a solution would involve congestion pricing and/or graceful
degradation only for those who go above reasonable fair use caps. Is
there too much complexity in this? If I want to download something huge,
there should be ways for the system/network to signal "off-peak"
pricing. I think we need some new protocols/tweaks/out-of-channel
signalling for that. Given these are all happening on the last mile, it
shouldn't be hard to program that in (in a layered, scalable, manner).
There are parallels in the power industry, where I use kWh any time of
day (as a retail consumer) for the same price. If I knew, with minimal
effort or better, automatically, when things were not only peak but
expected to peak, I and my appliances could behave a little better (to
the extent there's a win-win). Everyone can benefit if there is less
peak capacity required. Of course, I need to see the numbers more (and
we don't have transparency on this). This need not be a case of wealth
transfers only - there can be value creation as well. In one simple
world with a zero-sum-game, for every penny charged for over-usage, the
average bill for others should go down commensurately.
A first Q to me is to what extent is or isn't this a zero-sum game?
Rahul
************************************************************************
Rahul Tongia, Ph.D.
Senior Systems Scientist
Program in Computation, Organizations, and Society (COS)
School of Computer Science (ISR) /
Dept. of Engineering & Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
tel: 412-268-5619
fax: 412-268-2338
email: tongia@cmu.edu
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rtongia
Barry Gold wrote:
Lauren Weinstein wrote:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/time-warner-download-too-much-
and-you-might-pay-30-a-movie/?ref=technology
This is beyond stupid, and I hope TW gets smacked down by its customers
if and when they try this. See my earlier post on what customers want.
Item 1: No surprises. A $30 surcharge on their bill is going to result
in a very unhappy user. I know what Time Warner is thinking: when the
user sees a $30 surcharge on his cable bill, he'll buy a higher service
tier and we make more money. Well, it's a lot more likely that the user
will
a) Switch to satellite, DSL, or any other competitor he can find,
b) Write his city councilman about turning the city into a hotspot
(some small cities already are)
c) write his congressman about regulating cable prices.
So the *best* likely scenario is that TW loses a customer. Other
possibilities include losing a whole city of customers, or being turned
into a regulated utility like phone and electric service used to be (and
natural gas still is). That's a nice niche, you always make a
guaranteed profit -- but your profits are pretty strictly limited.
I hope TW and Comcast wise up, because frankly I *like* the current
(nearly) unregulated market. But if they keep trying stunts like this,
they will feel like Wile E. Coyote when the anvil falls on him.
I can hear Brett and others asking, so what _should_ we do when we have
one customer who uses 100 times as much as our average. Answer:
graceful degradation. Slow him down. This can be done manually -- you
notice that user X is using more than most, so you re-program his cable
modem to a lower bit rate, and/or drop some of the packets destined for
him. Or you can just make it automatic - the system notices when a
customer is using a large amount of bandwidth over a period of time, and
takes steps.
And as I said elsewhere, I would favor allowing ISPs to modify the TCP
headers to reduce the window, even though strictly speaking it's a
violation of the protocol -- that header is supposed to be for
communication between the end-points. But until we get protocol stacks
that actually _pay attention_ to Source Quench, I think this would be a
good way to limit bandwidth consumption.
|