Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

[Dave Sparro <dsparro () gmail com>]

On 9/14/2010 1:08 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Sep 14, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Dave Sparro wrote:
>
> > On 9/13/2010 12:05 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> > > It's a question of double-billing. I've already paid you to send and
> > > receive packets on my behalf. Detuning my packets because a second
> > > party hasn't also paid you is cheating, maybe fraudulent.
> >
> > Would you object to an ISP model where a content provider could pay to get an ISP subscriber's package upgraded on a 
> > dynamic basis?
> Yes... Because the reality is that it wouldn't be an upgrade. It would be a euphemism for downgrading the subscriber's 
> experience with other content providers.

So it's not fair for an ISP to limit a consumer's circuit to the speed 
they paid for, if there's excess capacity in the network?  ie. If the 
ISP has capacity to offer 15Mbps down, that's what they should provide 
to a customer that has paid for 10Mbps.  Where's the cut-off?

> > It would look something like my Road Runner PowerBoost(tm) service, only it never cuts off when the consumer is accessing a 
> > particular content provider's service.
> Except that PowerBoost(tm) provides a burstable service where the capacity is already available and using it would not 
> negatively impact other subscribers. This, on the other had, would create an SLA requiring your ISP to either build out 
> quite a bit of additional capacity (not so likely) or to negatively impact their other subscribers in order to deliver 
> content to the subscriber using this enhanced service.
I would think that the content provider's bag of cash is what would 
provide the incentive to add to capacity where needed.

> > That would allow Netflix/Hulu/OnLive/whoever to offer me a streaming service that requires a 15Mbps connection even though 
> > I'm not willing to upgrade my 10 up/1 down ISP connection to get it.
>
> There's little difference in my mind between this model and a model where service provider X is in bed with content 
> provider Y (perhaps they share common ownership) and subscribers to provider X are given a dramatically better user 
> experience to content Y than to other content of a similar nature.

I just don't see a way to get passed the current impasse.
The consumers are saying "I want faster, as long as I don't have to pay 
more."
Content providers are saying, "If consumers had faster, I'd be able to 
invent 'Killer App'.  I sure wish the ISPs would upgrade their networks."
ISPs are saying, "Why should we upgrade our networks, nobody is willing 
to pay us to do so."