Internet-related links (2010-12-19)

GigaOm published two interesting articles by Joe Weinman: in the first one, he describes why pay-per-use residential broadband Internet is probably inevitable, in the second one he predicts changes in user behavior if the service providers decide to implement it. I would also suggest you take time and read his in-depth Market for Melons article.

Obviously, collecting money costs money and the pay-per-use model is no exception (not to mention that most people would pay less), so the service providers prefer usage caps. There are numerous ways to implement usage caps, but implementing usage cap as an acceptable use policy and calling exceeding the cap policy violation is not the way to do it. Some people are truly trying to alienate the users.

Last but definitely not least, the Comcast/L3 saga continues, with leaks documenting saturated upstream links and Level3 trying to apply all sorts of legal pressures on Comcast. Enjoy the show!

More information

I’ve been describing the challenges of broadband residential Internet in Market Trends in Service Provider Networks webinar (buy a recording) and Upcoming Internet Challenges presentation (recording available as part of yearly subscription).

4 comments:

  1. If yall want to know about pay-per-use residential broadband, ask any Australian ISP - that's all we've had until the very recent release of an all you can eat broadband plan.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Alexandra Stanovska20 December, 2010 16:58

    This is discussion about home broadband connectivity - but mobile providers are chapter on its own. Caps and limits everywhere. And while US carriers (pipes) get under fire for Internet Neutrality Act, this is something I'd consider being more than just raising an eyebrow and whistling: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/12/carriers-net-neutrality-tiers/ Okay I know there had been call for wide internet QoS at carrier level, but specially page 18 displays nothing but pure greed. This may not be way to go either.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think this whole net neutrality debate is single dimensional. Products are multi-dimensional as I have described here: http://thinkingproblemmanagement.blogspot.com/2010/12/product-amplifier.html

    Typically, Starbucks has product differentiation at higher prices and no-one calls them greedy, but dare a service provider try and do the same!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for the link. Interesting presentation, but nothing I haven't seen before (and seeing Wired & Co trying to make "news" out of each such event is becoming boring).

    As for page 18, you can look at it from another perspective: someone has to pay for the bandwidth. It can be the consumer through monthly bill (fixed or pay-per-usage) or the content provider.

    The business model is also not new: every time you order a catalog from a retailer (Quelle comes to mind if you're in Europe), they send you one (including paying the postage) even through you might never buy anything from them.

    However, I am positive many SPs will try to do double-dipping and I have to agree with this article: http://www.fiberevolution.com/2010/12/internet-service-guarantees-is-what-net-neutrality-and-consumers-need.html - we need transparency in service definitions.

    ReplyDelete

You don't have to log in to post a comment, but please do provide your real name/URL. Anonymous comments might get deleted.

Ivan Pepelnjak, CCIE#1354, is the chief technology advisor for NIL Data Communications. He has been designing and implementing large-scale data communications networks as well as teaching and writing books about advanced technologies since 1990. See his full profile, contact him or follow @ioshints on Twitter.