nanog mailing list archives
RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk () iname com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:25:03 -0600
I'm not struggling -- anyone else volunteer that they are? It costs to upgrade plant/equipment to meet traffic growth, but it's being done and no one is saying that their prices are going up. Even from the customer perspective, the bang for their buck has continued to rise. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Roderick Beck [mailto:roderickbeck () tmo blackberry net] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 4:45 AM To: frnkblk () iname com; michael.dillon () bt com; nanog () merit edu Subject: Re: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial Hi Frank, My impression is that IP networks are struggling. Do you disagree? -R. Sent wirelessly via BlackBerry from T-Mobile. -----Original Message----- From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk () iname com> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:21:08 To:<michael.dillon () bt com>, <nanog () merit edu> Subject: RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial Which of the telecom service providers is moaning about being a provider? This conversation started with Time Warner's metered trial, and they aren't doing it in response to people complaining -- I'm pretty sure there was a financial/marketing motive here. There are some subscribers who complain about asymmetrical speeds, and some members of this listserv who fall into that category, but I would hazard a guess that less than 5% of the entire N.A residential subscriber base would actually pay a premium to have higher upstream speeds (we provide that option with our service today for an extra $10 and very few take it). And for that small base, an operator isn't about to rebuild or overbuild their network. Oh, they'll keep it in mind as they upgrade and enhance their network, but upstreams speeds aren't an issue that cause them to lie awake at night. I think FiOS as a competitive factor will move them more quickly to better their upstreams, though. So I don't think telecom providers think they are in the ghettos, and neither do most customers. As for creative technology, I'll let someone else buy DOCSIS 3.0 first and drive down prices with their volumes -- I'll join them in 3-5 years. On the DSL side, the work on VDSL2 demonstrates the greatest benefits on short loops. I haven't see any technology that serves fantastic upstream speeds at 1, 2 and 3x a CSA. Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On Behalf Of michael.dillon () bt com Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 5:36 PM To: nanog () merit edu Subject: RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial
There are symmetric versions for all of those. But ever since the dialup days (e.g. 56Kbps modems had slower reverse direction) consumers have shown a preference for a bigger number on the box, even if it meant giving up bandwidth in the one direction. For example, how many people want SDSL at 1.5Mbps symmetric versus ADSL at 6Mbps/768Kbps. The advertisment with the bigger number wins the consumer.
Seems to me that Internet SERVICE Providers have all turned into telecom companies and the only thing that matters now is providing IP circuits. If P2P is such a problem for providers who supply IP circuits over wireless and cable, why don't they try going up a level and provide Internet SERVICE instead? For instance, every customer could get a virtual server that they can access via VNC with some popular P2P packages preinstalled. The P2P software could recognize when it's talking over "preferred" circuits such as local virtual servers or over peering connections that aren't too expensive, and prefer those. If the virtual servers are implemented on Linux, there is a technology called FUSE that could be used to greatly increase the capacity of the disk farm by not storing multiple copies of the same file. Rather than moaning about the problems of being a telecom provider, people could apply some creative technology to get out of the telecom ghetto. --Michael Dillon
Current thread:
- Re: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial, (continued)
- Re: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial Simon Leinen (Jan 20)
- Re: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial Matthew Moyle-Croft (Jan 20)
- Re: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial Taran Rampersad (Jan 20)
- RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial Alex Rubenstein (Jan 20)
- Re: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial Matthew Palmer (Jan 20)
- RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial Alex Rubenstein (Jan 20)
- RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial Frank Bulk (Jan 21)
- RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial Sean Donelan (Jan 21)
- RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial michael.dillon (Jan 21)
- RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial Frank Bulk (Jan 21)
- Message not available
- RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial Frank Bulk (Jan 22)
- Re: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial Scott McGrath (Jan 22)
- RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial Frank Bulk (Jan 21)
- Message not available
- RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial Rod Beck (Jan 20)
- Re: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial Marshall Eubanks (Jan 20)
- RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial Rod Beck (Jan 20)
- Re: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial Joe Greco (Jan 20)
- RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial michael.dillon (Jan 20)
- Re: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial Steve Gibbard (Jan 18)
- RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial Buhrmaster, Gary (Jan 20)
- RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial Mark Foster (Jan 20)