Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
If your network cannot handle the traffic, don't offer the services.
In network access for the masses, downstream bandwidth has always been
easier to deliver than upstream. It's been that way since modem
manufacturers found they could leverage a single digital/analog
conversion in the PTSN to deliver 56kbps downstream data rates over
phone lines. This is still true today in nearly every residential
access technology: DSL, Cable, Wireless (mobile 3G / EVDO), and
Satellite all have asymmetrical upstream/downstream data rates, with
downstream being favored in some cases by a ratio of 20:1. Of that
group, only DSL doesn't have a common upstream bottleneck between the
subscriber and head-end. For each of the other broadband technologies,
the overall user experience will continue to diminish as the number of
subscribers saturating their upstream network path grows.
Transmission technology issues aside, how do you create enough network
capacity for a technology that is designed to use every last bit of
transport capacity available? P2P more closely resembles denial of
service traffic patterns than "standard" Internet traffic.
The long term solution is of course to make sure that you can handle
the traffic that the customer wants to send (because that's what they
can control), perhaps by charging for it by some scheme that involves
not offering flat-fee.
I agree with the differential billing proposal. There are definitely
two sides to the coin when it comes to Internet access available to most
of the US; on one side the open and unrestricted access allows for the
growth of new ideas and services no matter how unrealistic (ie, unicast
IP TV for the masses), but on the other side sets up a "tragedy of the
commons" situation where there is no incentive _not_ to abuse the
"unlimited" network resources. Even with as insanely cheap as web
hosting has become, people are still electing to use P2P for content
distribution over $4/mo hosting accounts because it's "cheaper"; the
higher network costs in P2P distribution go ignored because the end user
never sees them. The problem in converting to a usage-based billing
system is that there's a huge potential to simultaneously lose both
market share and public perception of your brand. I'm sure every
broadband provider would love to go to a system of usage-based billing,
but none of them wants to be the first.
-Eric
