33 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Copyright © 2014 E. William Horne. All Rights Reserved.

The Telecom Digest for Aug 25, 2014
Volume 33 : Issue 143 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
You may click on a subject to navigate to that post, or scroll through the entire digest
Re: This has got to stop (rvh40)
Re: This has got to stop (Bill Horne)
Re: This has got to stop (John David Galt)
Red Hook's Cutting-Edge Wireless Network (Monty Solomon)
Sprint, With Marcelo Claure at Helm, Aims for Comeback With Price Cuts (Monty Solomon)
Two Countries, Two Vastly Different Phone Bills (Monty Solomon)

We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime.  - Geoffrey Welsh


See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details.
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 03:37:23 -0400 (EDT) From: rvh40@insightbb.com To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: This has got to stop Message-ID: <1320396542.9915206.1408865843257.JavaMail.root@insightbb.com> From: Fred Goldstein <fg_es@ionaryQRM.calm> > "The places they're" ... already ... "located in"? That does a > lot of good (not) for rural providers, who are the ones that can't > get Netflix except via backbone. For these ISPs, many of whom depend > on fixed wireless, backbone connections are outrageously expensive > due to middle mile -- the link from their area to a backbone node -- > costs. The middle mile often has to come from the ILEC, at > outrageous rates, since there isn't much competition to rural areas, > unless the stimulus build (BTOP) added some. If you run an ISP and you signed up your customers by promising them "Unlimited Internet", then you find out that it costs you more to provide that service than you had expected, because they're watching Netflix on three TVs while they're running 35 simultaneous torrents of pr0n and they're watching 10-hour YouTube videos on seven different computers behind their NAT, then guess what? You are the one who miscalculated. Sucks to be you. If you signed your customers up with a TOS (which nobody reads) that says you can throttle their speeds after some point which is entirely up to you to set, then guess what? They should have read the TOS. Sucks to be them. Why is any of this controversial?
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 11:24:55 -0400 From: bill@horneQRM.net (Bill Horne) To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: This has got to stop Message-ID: <20140824152455.GA16592@telecom.csail.mit.edu> On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 03:37:23AM -0400, rvh40@insightbb.com wrote: > Fred Goldstein <fg_es@ionaryQRM.calm> wrote: >> "The places they're" ... already ... "located in"? That does a >> lot of good (not) for rural providers, who are the ones that can't >> get Netflix except via backbone. For these ISPs, many of whom >> depend on fixed wireless, backbone connections are outrageously >> expensive due to middle mile -- the link from their area to a >> backbone node -- costs. The middle mile often has to come from the >> ILEC, at outrageous rates, since there isn't much competition to >> rural areas, unless the stimulus build (BTOP) added some. > If you run an ISP and you signed up your customers by promising them > "Unlimited Internet", then you find out that it costs you more to > provide that service than you had expected, because they're watching > Netflix on three TVs while they're running 35 simultaneous torrents > of pr0n and they're watching 10-hour YouTube videos on seven > different computers behind their NAT, then guess what? You are the > one who miscalculated. There's a fine line between "unexpected" and "unacceptable" traffic, so please recall that many previous start-up companies, such as Google, took advantage of the common resource that is the Internet, without receiving demands that they contribute more to pay for the physical layer. End users did not receive unexpected charges from ISPs because they used Napster to download MP3 files, nor when they downloaded Windows updates, Adobe Acrobat updates, Symantec Anti-virus updates, or McAfee software. In other words, if streaming content is an issue of degree instead of type, then I must ask if you feel ILECs are entitled to limit the amount of such traffic so as to keep adequate bandwidth available for the other services the ILEC's users are paying to have available, such as CNN, or MSNBC, etc. > Sucks to be you. Why? Because "I" designed a system with the best information available to me at the time? Your logic infers a belief that every driver should be forced to buy a semi-tractor as a family car, since they are more crashworthy than a compact sedan, but that's not the way we do things: both companies and consumers take risks in accordance with their own estimates of value and costs. > If you signed your customers up with a TOS (which nobody reads) that > says you can throttle their speeds after some point which is > entirely up to you to set, then guess what? They should have read > the TOS. > Sucks to be them. Well, that's not always reasonable or workable. If "they" didn't read the "TOS" in their flood insurance contracts, then "they" are without food, medicine, or homes the day after hurricane Katrina left New Orleans and Mississippi. Except, it doesn't work that way. Some follow-on events are too big to predict, and that means that responsible adults must do their best to adapt to an unforseen (and, I submit, unforseeable) situation that demands large-scale adjustments to the underlying paradigm. > Why is any of this controversial? Because limiting the bandwidth available to streaming content is a major shift in the business model previously available to entre- preneurs offering a product or service over the Internet: that of "end user pays" for all transport costs. However, nothing happens in a vacuum: we all know that NetFlix and other streaming video services have been more successful than most predicted. That success, however, does not entitle NetFlix to externalize more of its costs onto Internet users whom don't subscribe to its service. I'd like to clarify this debate, so please answer these questions: 1. Verizon's voice networks are designed for "busy-hour" business loads: assuming the data networks are also able to carry that kind of load, do you feel that streaming content providers should, or should not, be allowed to make use of that capacity (during off-hours) without paying more? If not, is Verizon, or any other ISP, entitled to demand ongoing direct revenue from streaming providers, only a one-time payment to cover the upgrade costs, a regulated rate-of-return income that tracks bandwidth use attributable to streaming content, or nothing? What about network-of-networks players such as Layer 3? 2. Should Verizons be subject to "must carry" rules when streaming content providers use a system (the Internet) that was originally equipped with 50 kilobit-per-second links, to deliver multi-gigabit-per-second content, for profit? After all, Verizon shareholders had to pay to construct whatever capability is currently available, even if it was intended for a different class of traffic: should Verizon's investors be required to pay for upgrades and maintenance to pipes which most of Verizon's users will never employ? 3. How do you feel Verizon should be entitled to view the physical layer of the network? Does a regulated common carrier have an obligation to design, provision, construct, and maintain a Terabyte-per-second fiber link to every home or office, on the grounds that nobody else was ever asked to contribute to the costs before? Bill -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my email to write to me directly)
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 10:36:17 -0700 From: John David Galt <jdg@remove-this.diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: This has got to stop Message-ID: <ltd7qm$spg$1@blue-new.rahul.net> On 2014-08-24 00:37, rvh40@insightbb.com wrote: > If you run an ISP and you signed up your customers by promising them > "Unlimited Internet", then you find out that it costs you more to > provide that service than you had expected, because they're watching > Netflix on three TVs while they're running 35 simultaneous torrents of > pr0n and they're watching 10-hour YouTube videos on seven different > computers behind their NAT, then guess what? You are the one who > miscalculated. > > Sucks to be you. > > If you signed your customers up with a TOS (which nobody reads) that > says you can throttle their speeds after some point which is entirely > up to you to set, then guess what? They should have read the TOS. > > Sucks to be them. > > Why is any of this controversial? Because the number of ISPs, especially high-speed ones, on the market is still so small that there's not enough competition to keep TOSes fair. And that situation, as long as it persists, means there needs to be continued regulation, both of the anti-predation and antitrust kinds. But the problem will solve itself in time, if regulation is done in a way that doesn't prevent new companies from entering the field (nor prevent even the existing large companies from building into each other's territories and competing with each other).
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 08:39:58 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Red Hook's Cutting-Edge Wireless Network Message-ID: <874C6D4D-7BCD-4DE6-91A7-AE92D440662A@roscom.com> In an isolated Brooklyn area that was hit hard by Hurricane Sandy, a nonprofit group is working on a digital network that residents can use whether or not Internet service is available. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/nyregion/red-hooks-cutting-edge-wireless-network.html ***** Moderator's Note ***** The New York Times site requires viewers to pay for a subscription. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 10:26:52 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Sprint, With Marcelo Claure at Helm, Aims for Comeback With Price Cuts Message-ID: <05050187-6DF8-4A21-B07B-3F806589C2E1@roscom.com> sprint, with Marcelo Claure at helm, aims for comeback with price cuts. Sprint's new chief executive just started work last Monday and the company got straight to cutting prices. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/21/sprint-with-marcelo-claure-at-helm-aims-for-comeback-with-price-cuts/ ***** Moderator's Note ***** The New York Times site requires readers to pay for a subscription. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 10:15:30 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Two Countries, Two Vastly Different Phone Bills Message-ID: <50EE036F-3506-4BC1-B97A-0D43709D94AC@roscom.com> Two Countries, Two Vastly Different Phone Bills If your monthly cellphone bill seems high, it may be because American cellphone service is among the most costly in the world. A comparison of two phone plans. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/business/two-countries-two-vastly-different-phone-bills.html ***** Moderator's Note ***** The New York Times site requires readers to pay for a subscription. Bill Horne Moderator

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom- munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit educational service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne.

The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
339-364-8487
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom

This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Copyright © 2014 E. William Horne. All rights reserved.


Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself. Thank you!

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization.


End of The Telecom Digest (6 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues