Sam and Matt, very well said. To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your competition. You can't win by the rules that they make. The network neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider economics enough in very positive directions for you. This is a politically-charged enough topic that something interesting may actually happen on this :)
First of all, get more customers! With enough customers, the oversubscription on bandwidth becomes much better--you can fit thousands and thousands of resi customers in a 100Mb/s pipe without dropping, but about 10-20 in a 5Mb/s pipe. With enough customers, the bandwidth cost per customer comes down to almost nothing. If you need to limit a couple of outlying customers (the ones using 3Mb/s all the time), sure, go ahead. But don't hate bit torrent or any other protocol :) Bit Torrent bandwidth costs _exactly_ the same price as http bandwidth. I really don't agree with a business philosophy that fundamentally sees it as a bad thing if people are actually using your service :). Embrace it and figure out how to make it profitable (hint--spend more time getting new customers and less time trying to shave costs). The bandwidth math is MUCH better with 1,000 customers than a hundred and MUCH better with 10,000 than a 1,000. To everyone thinking that there needs to be "network neutrality" requirements for big guys, but little guys should be allowed to block: do you really want to send the message to your (potential) customers: hey--my competition will let you run the service you want, I won't. This is an opportunity to actually get ahead of the game and have a leg up on your competition. Here are the facts as I see them (applies to the residential market only): 1. The cost of bandwidth for telcos and MSOs is really extremely low on a per customer basis. The bulk of their cost--and why this is a big issue for them--is the cost of getting that bandwidth to the customer. For these guys, the major cost is in the transport networks: fiber buildout is extremely expensive, transport gear is incredibly expensive, etc. WISPs have ridiculously cheap transport networks and, with enough scale, don't really pay much more for bandwidth. If you get scale, your bandwidth costs also drop. In other words, once you hit a certain scale, your cost of delivering service becomes much less than your competition. 2. You can't compete on price with a telco/mso doing triple play. The economics aren't there. You don't offer video. Your customers want video. They want to be able to watch House and CSI and Dancing with the Stars. This means that even if they keep you for Internet access, they will sign up for television service. They will then, every month, get offers for bundled video + data services (and sometimes voice) for prices that you can't compete with. 3. Your competitors can't compete in price without subsidizing their network buildout with revenue from overpriced, monopolistic telephony and video solutions. If/When the Internet becomes _the_ medium for delivering this, you can adapt to that by...the end of this week. Your competition will take years and years to get to this point and fight it every step of the way. >From a revenue / cost standpoint, they simply cannot survive in such an environment. However, if people use Joost and Vuze and whatall, then they can use YOUR connection and no longer have a need to get their video services elsewhere. Embrace this. Advertise this. Help your customers find video services online. Make a portal for this. Start mailing your customers (and your competitor's customers!) and saying "Bob's Internet: includes over 10,000 video channels for free" and "Bob's three step guide to saving $800 per year: (step 1: get Bob's Internet, step 2: Tell your cable company "bye-bye" step 3: Enjoy 10,000 video channels on Bob's Internet Access). Get your customers thinking: "I can watch CSI and so forth on the Internet". You take a data customer away from a cable company...big deal. You get a community converted to watching their video on the Internet and the math changes DRASTICALLY in your favor. You are trying to compete using a business model that revolves around a $30-$40 average monthly revenue per customer against providers who have $100-$250 average monthly revenue per customer. Attack that! They simply can't afford to be profitable on a single pipe / single service model--you can. Remember, the late 90s were a golden era for independent ISPs because they got ahead of the curve. Most of you are, quite bluntly, behind the curve now. This is an opportunity to get ahead of the curve Comment on this to the FCC--just comment in favor of Network Neutrality. Believe it or not, you will do MUCH better under this model than your competition because it very much favors your business model and is incredibly harmful to your competitor's business model. If you question my math, feel free to contact me offl-list--there are some specifics that I'm not willing to discuss in a public forum. Thanks, Clint Ricker -Kentnis Technologies On Nov 18, 2007 10:44 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My strong feeling is that the free market approach is by far the best > approach to the Network Neutrality/Network Management. If Comcast wants > to degrade the service to their customers, then that is an opportunity > for the other providers in the market - they are essentially degrading > their own service, especially if they are doing it in a way that > "breaks" specific applications. In markets where there is a monopoly > or duopoly and both providers engage in purposefully breaking specific > applications, leaving the customer with no choices, the market condition > is a result of poor regulatory policy - not poor network management. > Competition will take care of that problem. The few remaining > independent ISPs have this as one of the few potential advantages that > they can bring to the table - a truly different type of service, with > the concerns of the provider and the customer in balance and appropriate > for both parties. The issue that Vuze seems to be taking is that > breaking of applications is unacceptable, but good network management is > fine, as long as it doesn't discriminate against specific applications > or protocols. > > I do take issue with the characterization of Vuze/BitTorrent as being a > "parasite" on our networks. They are not forcing the customer to use > them for content - our customers paid for connectivity to the Internet, > and should be able to use that connectivity for whatever they want to, > in a way that does not degrade the performance of the network. It is > the responsibility of the network operator to deploy the network is a > way to deliver appropriate levels of service, establish clear > definitions of the different levels of service and communicate the > differences to the customers so that they know what they are getting. I > personally love Vuze, I use it to get my favorite Showtime shows and > also for downloading OS images and software updates. Using it for these > purposes doesn't harm or degrade my network and is a very appropriate > set of uses for me or any other user on my network. It does help that I > have optimized the software to use a limited number of connections, and > have also optimized my network to ensure that no customers are able to > open an excessive number of connections to use it. This not a > violation of "Network Neutrality" or an example of "Intentional > Degradation" to an application. It is optimization. It is also the > responsibility of companies like Vuze to make sure that their software > is optimized for good performance as well - it is in their best interest. > > Bit Caps are not necessarily the answer, as it introduces levels of > billing complexity and doesn't always represent the best solution. If > there is extra capacity on the network, and the provider's backbone > connection is not subject to bit caps or usage-based billing, then bit > caps are not needed because the economic cost of extra bits is > inconsequential. However, too many have taken this too far, leading to > the idea that "bits are free", which is total B.S. There is always an > underlying foundational cost of infrastructure connectivity, and that > cost needs to be taken into consideration. The "free bits" exist in > the netherland of non-peak hours and the interval between a backbone > connection that is too large and one that is saturated. Free bits > represent a place for innovation, and some providers are doing just > that, with open downloads and service level upgrades during off-peak > hours. But not all bits are free. > > In conclusion, I don't think that the Vuze petition is too far off the > mark. Someone SHOULD be raising a stink about what Comcast is doing - > it goes beyond prudent network management and right into anti-trust type > behavior. > > Matt Larsen > vistabeam.com > > > > > > > > > > Anthony Will wrote: > > Here is some food for thought, > > > > We may want to approach this issue with a free market approach. We > > may want to emphasize that the free market can and will self regulate > > this behavior. If Comcast is discouraging their customers from > > operating this type of software, that creates an opportunity for > > another operator to move into the area that does not. We do have to > > keep in the back of our mind that the main issue for us as wireless > > operators is that P2P solutions create an burden on our systems not so > > much for bandwidth but on the amount of connections that are created > > by this type of software. One P2P application that goes wild with > > 2000+ connctions can bring an AP to its knees thus effecting 50 - 200 > > other customers on that same AP. > > We may also want to empathize that his type of "distributed" content > > if allowed to continue likely will lead to bit caps or other types of > > metered solutions for customers. Vuze and other "content" providers > > are looking to use our infrastructure to implement their business > > plans without paying for that distribution, with the minor exception > > of a one time "seeding" of that contact to the Internet. This is in > > my opinion as close to theft as you can get without crossing the > > line. The only recourse that operators will have is to implement a > > bit cap (by the way this is common in almost every other part of the > > world) in order to fund the increased infrastructure needed to carry > > these content providers products for them. Ultimately the customer is > > the one that is going to have to pay for this and other organizations > > bypassing of the reasonable cost for the distribution of THEIR content. > > Of course we would also want to put in there the reality that the vast > > majority of the content provided by P2P is the illegal distribution of > > copywrited materials. > > > > Looking forward to the discussion, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
