Re: [WISPA] Should content providers pay for standard access to consumers?
On 11/2/2005 3:41 AM, Tom DeReggi created: [...] > Sounds like a good plan. You can do that at gigabit speeds, because > people that know they need to buy gigabit speeds understand the > business. Residential End users on the other hand do not. I actually do it at tens-of-megabits-speed for (mostly) small businesses. There is definitely a steeper customer education curve for residential consumers, but if they can't grasp the concept of bits through the network, then they are doomed to believe most marketing hype thrown at them. Imagine consumers who were unable to differentiate between different grades of meat at the supermarket... oh yeah, I guess most can't without the USDA. We definitely need a better system, but I believe that the system involves fact-based, consistent metrics instead of marketing-department-chosen metrics. [...] > Great point. These low price points that follow assumptions, are fueled > by large marketers like ILECs and Cable companies. And all ISPs get > squeezed into this position. It is extremely difficult to compete in the short run with a competitor dumping product into the market. Monopolists are experts at this type of behavior because they have money that they can burn to put potential competitors out of business and extract their previous losses from the consumers during their period as a monopoly. It's the responsibility of government to ensure that this doesn't happen. Unfortunately, the current regulators are either unqualified to apply the existing law to these circumstances or unwilling for other reasons. [...] > If you sell by features and > consumers understand all that, you'll always loose he business because > someone else always has better features. They don't need to evaluate > what they are buying, they just need good guarantees to protect them. > So if their perception of perceived value is not there they can go > elsewhere. Thus bringing up the need for competition. Competition is all about selling features that consumers can understand better than the others. If you can't provide an efficient product for the consumer then your business should either change what it sells or go out of business. Would you rather that marketing budgets determined who stays in business? Government? I don't think that consumers benefit from either of the latter models. I would much prefer winning the customer's business with a superior product. [...] > Agreed. but hard to inforce accuracy of published data. I think that this is the battle worth fighting. It ensures that consumers receive the most accurate information so that they can make an informed decision about the services that they are purchasing. Allowing marketing to determine consumer perceptions only makes money for the marketers and the company with the most effective marketing campaigns. Providing a level playing field with accurate, comparable information allows the competitor with the best services to prevail. [...] > The problem is that if I charged for usage I'd be out of business, > because nobody uses their service very much. > Instead I charge for QOS, I can deliver it since the network is so > underused. You don't necessarily need to charge based on usage. You can charge based on whatever you like. My point was that if you provide an 'unlimited' service you should be able to deliver an unlimited service. In the end you have to charge based on usage (or substantially raise your prices) if your customers' usage patterns change. If I understood you correctly, you were advocating finding someone else to charge for usage when the usage patterns change. This doesn't make sense to me for two primary reasons: 1) Why would 'others' (not your direct customer) pay you unless you had a monopoly on the consumer[1]? 2) Your customers are demanding the additional bandwidth so why shouldn't they pay for it? [...] [I snipped the stuff about discounts because I don't think that charging content providers is a feasible endeavor unless you have unusually loyal customers demanding a high volume of (valuable to the content-network) information] [...] Tom, you're a pleasure to have a discussion with. Thanks for your insights. - Tony [1] Or you colluded with the other duopolist. -- This was essentially AOL's (and CompuServe/Prodigy/etc) model before the Internet was part of their service offering. After the Internet became popular, they realized that their ability to control the relationship between the content provider and the consumer was limited because the consumer often had other (cheaper, faster, simpler) choices for accessing the content provider. To try to retain customers, they provided a connection to some of the same (paying) content providers through the Internet without being directly compensated for it. On the other hand, there is a market for certain large content providers to pay eyeball networks (directly and indirectly) for access. A few companies have even created bus
Re: [WISPA] Should content providers pay for standard access to consumers?
This is a situation where additional regulation will only help those adept at manipulating the regulators. (Additional comments inline) On 11/1/2005 10:10 PM, Tom DeReggi created: > The truth is services like VOIP and IPTV are going to challenge end > user's connections, and they are going to learn what over subscription. > And end users are going to kick and scream about how their service > provider is ripping them off, and service is poor because the video is > choppy, while they are using their 3 mbps link that they are paying $30 > a month to. In most cases their service provider lured them in with the hype of an "Unlimited use" 3Mbps connection and then told them that they can't use all of it[1]. Where else in life are we handed something and then told that we can't use it[2]? If we could prevent the providers from misleading their potential customers this problem would fade away. All of my access plans are charged for usage in some way. Most are based on monthly Gigabits allowed to pass through my network. It's easy to understand and so far I've never had a client surpass the bandwidth included in the plan. If they get close I let them know and provide them with a way to gage their usage more accurately. If usage patterns change substantially, then I lower the maximums or change the plans. If a contract is in place, nothing changes for the length of the contract. > The bottom line is no Internet provider on the planet is selling speed > pre-allocated for sustained throughput of speed sold. [...] Over-subscription is based on a business model where your customers typically consume 1% of what you are selling them. That doesn't change the fact that you sold them 99% more than a typical customer uses. If usage patterns change, then contracts need to be updated and marketing needs to change their tune. There is no basis in law (IATNAL) for retroactively changing a contract because one side realizes that their business model was based on flawed assumptions[3]. Providers will definitely have to rethink how their products are marketed and sold. Legislating usage restrictions independent of marketing's messages to consumers is a foolish way to correct an oversight because it makes it nearly impossible for consumers to determine what exactly they are purchasing. > If we turn it around, VOIP companies like Vonage are no different. One > time I setup a Fax server on a pool of 4 or 5 of their VOIP lines. [...] This is yet another example why it should be illegal to advertise 'unlimited' when that is clearly not the case. "Unlimited" has a very specific meaning in the English language and it doesn't include the possibility for restrictions. While the fine print of your contract probably told you that it wasn't acceptable to actually use what you were sold, the marketing messages certainly didn't. > This is a time bomb waiting to happen. Worst of all it sets the stage > for market pressures to force ISPs to sell under cost, because marketing > has to over state the capabilities of the network. [...] Marketing has absolutely no reason to overstate anything if we have a competent oversight mechanism in place to prevent companies from misleading consumers about the products that they are selling. I think that a much better solution to this problem would be to force all companies to be completely transparent about their services and provide consumers with a simple way to accurately compare similar items. For example, if I were selling 3Mb/384kb DSL I would have to state that the average available bandwidth for my customers last month was 1.2Mb/150kb, average packet loss was 5%, latency was an average of 100ms across the network and you are limited to continuous bandwidth of 512kb/30kb and daily restrictions of 300MBytes of traffic[4]. This type of information would allow consumers to make an informed choice instead of blindly choosing the $14.95 (plus $40 for the phone line that they don't tell you about) 3Mb DSL that can barely move 256kb/s of information in either direction. Yes, I know that this is difficult to implement and to enforce, but we would be much better off if we put our government's resources into this instead of having them pretend to protect consumers by compelling megacompanies to wait three years before they begin to pillage the industry. > Laws will have to be put in place to compensate those that incur the > costs, or the quality goes to crap. I'd hate it if broadband stuped to > the low level of PC hardware and electronics. I remember I used to be > able to buy an original IBM PC, and that bad boy would last 10 years > without a hickup. Now I'm lucky to have PC hardware outlast the first > year. Consumer electronics typically come with only 90 day warrantees, > its rare that they last over the first year either. BUtits a commodity > market, forcing lowest price and features, with reliabilty nd durability > forced right out of the equation. I co
Re: [WISPA] Should content providers pay for standard access to consumers?
I read this on /. I think its a load of bs. Wont last long and it will point out just how much of a monopoly they have become (again). Maybe the FCC/DOJ will step in and break them up again? Now who gets to set these fees? I wonder if i can charge $10/bit that his customers use of mine =-) Jeromie Tony Weasler wrote: --- MarketWatch Quote --- "How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them," said Ed Whitacre in a BusinessWeek Online interview. "What they would like to do is use my pipes for free. I ain't going to let them do that." He argued that because SBC and others have invested to build high-speed networks, they are due a return. [1] --/ MarketWatch Quote --- It's a brave new world. I'm hoping that this is a clueless person talking about a business he is in charge of but knows little about. I fear that this is someone who has a feasible plan to accomplish what he describes. I don't think that a telephone-model overlay on the Internet will satisfy many consumers, but if they don't have an alternative what are their options? Hopefully, this will drive business to the WISPs, but I'm not sure that the consumers are well enough educated to make an informed decision and in many larger markets the LECs have driven us out of the picture by providing service for less than their cost. - Tony [1] http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B5A606A5A%2D18D7%2D4FC9%2DA65C%2DC7317BC7E1CB%7D Original interview from Business Week (registration required): http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_45/b3958092.htm -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Should content providers pay for standard access to consumers?
Have heard the same thing from others concerning voip and iptv. Guess it's not an isolated thought. George Tony Weasler wrote: --- MarketWatch Quote --- "How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them," said Ed Whitacre in a BusinessWeek Online interview. "What they would like to do is use my pipes for free. I ain't going to let them do that." He argued that because SBC and others have invested to build high-speed networks, they are due a return. [1] --/ MarketWatch Quote --- It's a brave new world. I'm hoping that this is a clueless person talking about a business he is in charge of but knows little about. I fear that this is someone who has a feasible plan to accomplish what he describes. I don't think that a telephone-model overlay on the Internet will satisfy many consumers, but if they don't have an alternative what are their options? Hopefully, this will drive business to the WISPs, but I'm not sure that the consumers are well enough educated to make an informed decision and in many larger markets the LECs have driven us out of the picture by providing service for less than their cost. - Tony [1] http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B5A606A5A%2D18D7%2D4FC9%2DA65C%2DC7317BC7E1CB%7D Original interview from Business Week (registration required): http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_45/b3958092.htm -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Should content providers pay for standard access to consumers?
--- MarketWatch Quote --- "How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them," said Ed Whitacre in a BusinessWeek Online interview. "What they would like to do is use my pipes for free. I ain't going to let them do that." He argued that because SBC and others have invested to build high-speed networks, they are due a return. [1] --/ MarketWatch Quote --- It's a brave new world. I'm hoping that this is a clueless person talking about a business he is in charge of but knows little about. I fear that this is someone who has a feasible plan to accomplish what he describes. I don't think that a telephone-model overlay on the Internet will satisfy many consumers, but if they don't have an alternative what are their options? Hopefully, this will drive business to the WISPs, but I'm not sure that the consumers are well enough educated to make an informed decision and in many larger markets the LECs have driven us out of the picture by providing service for less than their cost. - Tony [1] http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B5A606A5A%2D18D7%2D4FC9%2DA65C%2DC7317BC7E1CB%7D Original interview from Business Week (registration required): http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_45/b3958092.htm -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
