& cplSiteName &
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
<<   <   Page 14 / 18   >   >>
paolo.franzoi
paolo.franzoi
12/5/2012 | 4:08:33 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything

When I mean a private IP network, I mean that let's say that BellSouth makes a deal with Disney so that Disney sells it's content in a premium fashion to BellSouth. BellSouth and Disney set up a connection in a BellSouth Data Hotel.

When a customer has this premium Disney Service, instead of getting the Disney content over the Internet that traffic is redirected to this Data Hotel and the Disney content is retrieved over the Disney network. In the new buildouts, Verizon (FIOS already using DLink equipment), SBC (rumored to plan to use 2Wire), and BellSouth (rumored to use Westell) will be placing Home Gateway Routers at the customer site.

So, the content that lies on Disney's network (where the Disney content actually is) can now traverse to the premium customers over a completely controlled environment. From the content server to the Data Hotel by Disney and from the Data Hotel to the customer by BellSouth. This same content can be available in a non-premium fashion via the Internet.

Now, why would Disney wish to do this? Suppose they decided to make some shows/movies/whatever available in real time to BellSouth's IPTV customers. This would be a way for that content to be made available to these customers.

BellSouth is going to use a premium setup for it's own IPTV connection. This is sharing the same physical port at the access layer as the customers Internet service, but will be differentiated by VLAN p-bits or DSCP. Thus, the networking equipment can apply distinct QoS to this traffic independent of the Internet traffic arriving at the same customer. This traffic will be groomed at the aggregation layer of the network over to BellSouth's IPTV backbone. Internet traffic from the same customer will head to the Internet. BellSouth's IPTV network is a Private IP network from that perspective and not part of the Internet per se.

So, these connections are VPN style connections to the content. The content owners are paying VPN charges for these connections. These VPN fees are indrectly subsidized by the signup of consumers to access these VPNs. These VPNs share some amount of metro and access network with the consumer's connection to the public Internet. From the perspective of the VPN occupying that bandwidth, it restricts the flow of information from the public Internet. But nobody that I am aware of is planning a QoS service for access to the public Internet.

Nobody thought that BellSouth was putting its video service behind the public Internet did they?

You can replace Disney in this message with say Vonage or BellSouth's VoIP network or any other content provider that wishes to do something in a premium way.

seven
paolo.franzoi
paolo.franzoi
12/5/2012 | 4:08:33 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything

Nobody is talking about charging more for use of the Internet. They are talking about BYPASSING the Internet and charging for the use of Private IP networks to provide higher quality than the Internet can provide.

The Internet gets more oversubscribed as you head deeper core > metro > access. Giving you access BW guarantees means you will get the exact same service you have without it.

seven
sgan201
sgan201
12/5/2012 | 4:08:33 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
Seven,

Let me play devil advocates. Let's say Disney has its own fiber and IP (non-Internet) network interconnecting all Disney servers. The Disney servers are placed in all the peering points. Why do Disney need to cut a deal with anyone?? Disney traffic will not transvere Internet anyhow. Google, Yahoo, Amazon, Ebay could have done the same thing.

By the way, the same approach can be done any place around the world by placing your servers in almost all the peering points in the world and you do not need to cut a deal with anyone.

Dreamer
sgan201
sgan201
12/5/2012 | 4:08:32 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
Seven,

By doing this, I had reduced the problem into the issue of having a guarantee Y Kbps per user to the peering point. I do not need and want carrier to prioritize based my application.

As long as one of the access provider (Cable versus DSL versus 3G versus WiMax versus WISP) provide a service that allow the guarantee Y Kbps, I have my problem solved. And, if one of them provide such a service, the rest of the access providers will have to match this or they will be out of business. End game.

Dreamer
paolo.franzoi
paolo.franzoi
12/5/2012 | 4:08:32 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything

So, you don't want to prioritize your application. Nobody is asking you to.

And no you don't have your problem solved. There are constraints other than bandwidth, like jitter and latency. It is not just x bandwidth guaranteed, it is x bandwidth with y jitter and z latency.

Otherwise, it don't work.

By the way, the service you want is available today and is called Frame Relay. You can buy it anytime you want. Now, just because it is 10x the price of residential access should not concern you. It is exactly what you want.

seven
paolo.franzoi
paolo.franzoi
12/5/2012 | 4:08:31 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything

Dreamer,

Here is the thing.

It is not worth it. The Content companies can work with 7 companies and bypass the ISPs. That will cover 80%+ of US broadband users. The cable companies are their own ISPs and do not allow for 3rd party ISPs.

ISPs add no value here.

If you bought a Frame Relay connection to your ISP it would do the proper job. Basically, your ISP would have to set this up and lease the circuit from the LEC.

And it costs a LOT more. People are allocated about 20kb/s in traditional Internet metros and backbones. Lots of new equipment would have to be built to get more bandwidth/user.

seven
sgan201
sgan201
12/5/2012 | 4:08:31 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
Seven,

Come to think of it, Internet access over FR do not guarantee your bandwidth to the peering either as far as I know.

Dreamer
sgan201
sgan201
12/5/2012 | 4:08:31 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
Seven,

1) To be precised, the service is called Internet access over FR. It is not normal FR service.

2) It does not cost the carrier a lot of money to implement this over existing cable modem/DSL/3G/WiMax/WISP. In some cases, it is almost zero. And, I am willing to pay $10 more per month for this service. As soon as one access provider find out they can be profitable and implement this with their existing infrastrucute, it will happen.

Dreamer
stephencooke
stephencooke
12/5/2012 | 4:08:30 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
Dreamer,

In the BellSouth area how much of the traffic of all ISPs, of any access flavour, touch the BS network do you think? If there is even a single network provider that implements QoS in the path to/from the consumer it will affect all traffic that touches it's network. The days of commoditization of bit transporting are nearing an end I would say.

Steve.
stephencooke
stephencooke
12/5/2012 | 4:08:30 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
Seven,

Thanks for the example/clarification.

"This is sharing the same physical port at the access layer as the customers Internet service, but will be differentiated by VLAN p-bits or DSCP. Thus, the networking equipment can apply distinct QoS to this traffic independent of the Internet traffic arriving at the same customer."

How many data hotels will there be do you think? Where would they be physically located? If the premium service is to be offered throughout the BS network area that means a fair amount of route similarity with the public Internet, at least within the BS area, and may use more than a little high speed backbone bandwidth.

"But nobody that I am aware of is planning a QoS service for access to the public Internet."

To differentiate the premium traffic so that QoS can be maintained throughout the traffic path will require that the entire network support DSCP...? If the entire network supports DSCP (Differentiated Services Code Point, BT announced that it is using this to offer 6 Classes of Service - CoS - throughout its 21CN build) won't the general Internet traffic be assigned a default (ie: low) priority level? My point is that, though this may not be announced as a 'service', it may actually be a necessary side effect of the premium service implementation.

Given that the carriers are selecting the home gateways that they deploy (I am assuming here that these gateways will support DSCP), this will also imply that the applications will also have to support DSCP to make use of this capability (eg: online gaming, VoIP, etc.). As the consumer may be able to generate high priority traffic it follows that Service Level Agreements (SLAs) will be the next step for carriers, based on various levels of traffic per priority level... Obviously this implies that there will be different price points for the different levels, and, wait for it.... Congress will revisit its decision not to tax all Internet traffic because of different priority levels. My guess would be that they would not tax the lowest priority level to keep with their current stance.

It must have been some bad coffee this morning...sorry.

Steve.
<<   <   Page 14 / 18   >   >>


Featured Video
Upcoming Live Events
November 5, 2019, London, England
November 7, 2019, London, UK
November 14, 2019, Maritim Hotel, Berlin
December 3-5, 2019, Vienna, Austria
December 3, 2019, New York, New York
March 16-18, 2020, Embassy Suites, Denver, Colorado
May 18-20, 2020, Irving Convention Center, Dallas, TX
All Upcoming Live Events