NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Canada goes crazy
As has already been pointed out, there is no convenient analog for
what we are purchasing when we buy internet access, so it's hard to
determine what a truly fair pricing model would be. I think the chief
difficulty is that although no resources are consumed when the network
is used, there is still scarcity in how much network capacity exists
at a given time.
In most cases, ordinary users don't experience bandwidth scarcity any
more than they experience scarcity in electricity or water, despite
the fact that all these systems have limited instantaneous capacity.
An ordinary homeowner can turn on every light and open every faucet in
their house, and they're not likely to see any substantial dimming of
bulbs or loss of water pressure. In order to maintain this illusion
of unlimited capacity, providers must continually forecast expected
loads, and where necessary, upgrade their network to raise the
congestion ceiling. Because these upgrades are driven by the behavior
of the heaviest users during times of peak congestion, it is fair to
expect those users to be the ones to pay the greatest share of the
upgrade cost.
One reasonable model for this type of scaled billing is that used by
the natural gas utility here in Atlanta. Each user's bill lists a
"Base Rate" fee, which includes a "Peaking Service" charge, which is
calculated annually based on how much gas a customer used during times
of peak demand. This allows the gas company to insure that enough
capacity is available at those peak demand times, and forces the users
most responsible for necessitating upgrades to pay for the costs of
those upgrades. A similar billing model for internet connectivity
would allow service providers to penalize users who cause the most
disruption to the network without imposing limits on how much data can
be transferred, or with whom, or in what way.
I'd appreciate hearing thoughts anyone might have about this approach.
Does this seem fair? Is it practical? Has it already been
implemented anywhere?
--
Peter Sahlstrom
peter@stormlash.net
http://peter.stormlash.net
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists
<lists@manageisp.com> wrote:
> I'd like to add to the reasons that billing for bits is NOT crazy.
>
> Anyone who has had to manage a network recognizes the need to balance the
> nearly unlimited demands of users with the scarcity of network resources.
> While many of the academics and lawyer types on this list would like to
> imagine a perfect virtual network that has unlimited capacity, the truth of
> the matter is that there are limits to a network's capacity and the network
> resources degrade considerably when users are not limited in how much they
> can consume.
>
> As the operator of a wireless broadband network, I get to deal with limited
> network capacity on a daily basis. After watching our per-user bandwidth
> consumption steadily increase, we have begun implementing bit-caps. A
> detailed description on what we did is available at www.wirelesscowboys.com.
>
> Bits may not be "consumed", but network resources certainly can be.
> Pretending that network resources are NOT scarce is the the real bad idea.
>
> Matt Larsen
> vistabeam.com
> wirelesscowboys.com
> wispdirectory.com
>
> [ Wireless and wired technologies have fundamental differences that
> can indeed make differing billing and regulatory approaches
> reasonable. What's really problematic is the way carriers have
> pushed flat-rate data plans in both spheres and now, after
> subscribers are "addicted," want to switch to measured models.
> One might almost suspect that this was the plan all along, hmm?
>
> -- Lauren Weinstein
> NNSquad Moderator ]
>
> On 5/7/2010 8:12 AM, Bob Frankston wrote:
>>
>> (Thanks to Aleks for this pointer)
>>
>>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/05/06/crtc-usage-based-billing-internet.html?ref=rss
>>
>>
>>
>> The idea of charging people for bits consumed is a crazy idea since you
>> aren't consuming bits. We've been through this before - do I need to
>> explain
>> once again how bad the idea is?
>>
>>
>>
>> . It creates scarcity. A copper wire (or fiber or radio) is just
>> sitting there idle. We limit how much can be used.
>>
>> . Even if there is a temporary constriction somewhere else it
>> means
>> we can't use the capacity locally. To take it to an extreme imagine if
>> there
>> is such a limit in your house - you can't copy too many files between your
>> computers.
>>
>> . FiOS VoD, for example, goes over IP through my router. I can't
>> watch much "TV" [sic] if the limit is applied to those bits. If the limit
>> is
>> not applied we have a vertical playing field where the provider has all
>> the
>> advantages.
>>
>> . Any sane price doesn't allow making video affordable if we're
>> going to make the cost of other uses visible.
>>
>> . As with SMS any market that permits prices to be millions of
>> time
>> cost (determined by competition with Moore's law) isn't really a market in
>> a
>> useful sense. It's rent taking gone to hostage taking.
>>
>>
>>
>> But basically it shows a deep inability to comprehend the very concept of
>> connectivity using best efforts. It's railroaders banning the use of roads
>> unless you buy a ticket for a ride every time you leave your driveway even
>> if it is just to reorder the cars in the driveway.
>>
>>
>>
>> Others care to add to the reasons why this is crazy?
>>
>>
>>
>> http://frankston.com/public
>>
>>
>> [ And coming soon to a U.S. ISP near you (and me) too, I'll wager.
>> Since the FCC chairman has shown no interest in including any
>> sort of pricing or realistically effective competition-enhancing
>> elements in his proposed "third-way" regulatory plan, the
>> dominant ISPs are ensured a captive audience of users who will
>> "pay through their noses until their skulls are a vacuum" (as one
>> high level ISP executive expressed it to me yesterday --
>> picturesque, this guy, and a master of invective as well ...)
>>
>> -- Lauren Weinstein
>> NNSquad Moderator ]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>