On Wednesday we reported that the ISP Comcast had set up a proposal for a new traffic 'throttling' system in which the heaviest users would see their top speeds reduced for periods lasting up to 20 minutes at a time.
Today however, Comcast has responded by saying they have yet to make a final decision on how they will manage network congestion from here on in.
The ISP has been under ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
It is typical that Comcast wants to throttle heavy users as a prelude to charging them more. However, pendulums should swing both ways. Will they give refunds, or extend service periods, to people who use less than average internet traffic? Three guesses, the first two won't count.
Moreover, heavy user communities will vary, from students downloading lectures to teenagers downloading myspace or youtube videos to linux customers to other teenagers downloading games, movies or music. Comcast can't differentiate who is legal and who isn't and shouldn't try.
The only solutions have to be "non-normative". Namely net neutrality or price by use with light users being charged little and heavy users more. Perhaps a subscription model in advance will work. However if suppliers want to sell bandwidth then there needs to be a market, as in free market. Monopoly or near monopoly is not a way to improve service, it is a way to rape consumers. In addition, there is a technical truth underlying all this: bandwidth is a commodity whose supply can be increased by adding more server racks.
Originally posted by jobardu: In addition, there is a technical truth underlying all this: bandwidth is a commodity whose supply can be increased by adding more server racks.
If only it was that simple. Not that I'm supporting crapcast.
Comcast and every other cable provider needs to get off there money grudging ass and get new infrastructure. the old stuff just ain't cutting it no more.
Blaph3my you are correct it's not as simple as adding servers. It's the lines that connect them and the equipment that runs those fiber optic connections. That equipment can run into the 10's if not 100's of thousands of dollars.
The only way the providers can get around adding this equipment is to have a tiered structure. Then again that structure may be hard for them to implement as cable providers operate their internet connections differently than dsl. There is one problem for both however and thats when you have lots of users there is eventually a bottleneck in the system somewhere!
What ever way they choose to go be prepared to pay more. Don't laugh at comcast subscribers just yet though, other isps are sure to follow when it comes to increasing prices!
Blackjax is correct about the need to couple server racks to more cable and repeaters and routers and related infrastructure. That is a cost of doing business.
But Blackjax is not correct in the equation of more users requiring rate increases. More users mean more income and also more advertising revenue. It allows economy of scale so that equipment can be purchased in bulk more cheaply or in sizes that lower unit costs. So more users can, and perhaps should, equal lower costs and more profit.
Any professional network model must perforce include a distribution of loads from users. Heavy use can occur in short bursts of high use or long steady loads such as people communicating on NET 2 applications.
What is clear is that Ma Bell and the other telecoms using price per bit nearly cost the US market leadership in the INTERNET. Only military intervention through DARPA and a supreme court decision allowed the net to begin growing. Thus returning to price per bit raises a lot of blood pressure in experienced people in this field.
A rational solution, which may exceed present political will, is to have open competition. That is what led to the present INTERNET, cable and wireless communications. In a competitive environment Comcast can propose whatever they want as long as there are a couple of other cable companies around who can offer (non-collusively) other alternatives. Also, Comcast needs to be open about making substantive changes to existing contracts. Such changes are, after all, a partial breach of contract that customers should be able to respond to by changing services, canceling service or changing plans. If they were justified in doing what they say then they should be able to say it publicly and not have a back door policy requiring customers to litigate and federal intervention.
Thus the market can work as long as government functions to maintain truly competitive markets. When there is no or marginal competition in certain geographic areas then the temptation to maximize profit at customers' expense becomes too great and politics and litigation take the place of economic laws, with the attendant distortion in each and all.
