[ NNSquad ] Re: NYTimes: Metering the Internet

[Barry Gold <bgold@matrix-consultants.com>]

Lauren Weinstein wrote:
>     Also, assuming accurate numbers, that's 95% *today*.  It's
>     particularly telling that the various ISP estimates of "bandwidth
>     used by video" under their caps are virtually always stated in
>     terms of SD (standard definition) videos.  You virtually never
>     see them list how many HD movies would fit in their caps --
>     since the number would be so low.  Yet within the context of
>     their own video offerings (not affected by any caps) their big
>     push now is all HD, with an explicit "SD is just so yesterday!"
>     sales pitch.

It may be true that "all you can eat" is no longer a viable business 
model, at least when it means "all the big stuff you can up- and 
download".  We on the outside have now way of knowing if they are 
telling the truth, or if they just want to drive people to their own HD 
service.

But given the historical growth and the inevitability of Moore's law, I 
can guarantee one thing: They had better find a model that _does_ work, 
and fast.

Comcast's propsal to "fire" about 5% of their customers is another 
example of corporate insanity.  Yes, every business has the right to 
"fire" customers if they are too much trouble or just too expensive to 
serve.  "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."  That works 
if you sto serving one customer in 50,000.  "Fire" 5% of your customers, 
and you'll stop growing.  And that 5% will become 10%, then 20%, then 
50%, if you don't grow your network to match the demand for more and 
bigger files.

What's the answer?  I don't know.  Maybe they can just reallocate 
resources and increase prices a little.  Maybe they need to go to "plan 
A: 3MB/sec, 100GB/month," "Plan B: 4.5 MB/sec, 200 GB/month", etc.  If 
you exceed your limit, they either slow you way down or cut off your 
access to everything except email (through their server) and http to 
their own websites, where you can ask why you can't reach the rest of 
the world and be told why.

Or maybe the $X for each n GB above the limit, provided it doesn't 
result in completely insane bills.  A $1000 cable bill is going to mean 
a lost customer (and you may not get paid anyway).  What we've seen 
recently is that people don't like surprises -- but they continue to 
tolerate them in their phone bills, if they have the basic POTS service. 
 But there's a big difference between seeing a $80 phone bill because 
you spent an hour yakking with Aunt Edna (and were presumably aware this 
was happening) and a $200 cable bill because Microsoft decided to 
download a new version of Office 2020 to your desktop, without you even 
knowing it was going to happen.

  [ Or ... what about fun-loving folks who decide to amuse
    themselves by just pouring masses of "invisible" data 24/7 at
    selected addresses -- for the purpose of running those addresses'
    bandwidth usage into the stratosphere?  Do it "right" and most
    consumers might not detect it at all (until they got their bill).
    Even personal firewalls and such would be largely useless against
    such "cap attacks" since the data would be tallied at the ISP before
    reaching the users' systems at all.

      -- Lauren Weinstein
         NNSquad Moderator ]