& cplSiteName &
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
<<   <   Page 6 / 18   >   >>
stephencooke
stephencooke
12/5/2012 | 4:09:09 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
Dreamer,

In existing areas that currently have no/little phone service, wireless is definitely the way to go. However, for anywhere with existing infrastructure (ie: cabling) the people who installed that infrastructure justified the investment based on several decades of payback. They aren't going to be too happy to just let their investment go away by allowing cheaper players to come in without paying their dues.

The business case in telecom today is finding innovative ways to help carriers get more return on their infrastructure investment (ie: twisted pair). New flavours of DSL are part of the solution but carrier business models have to change as well as the technology. The Home Gateway Initiative (HGI) is the type of platform that will need to be built with multiple access technology options (fibre, wireless, twisted pair, others?). Value-added services are definitely the way carriers have to go and QOS is just a part of the overall solution.

Please note: "solutions" that do not raise the bar, compared to competitive offerings, are a waste of development time and money. The capabilities that carriers will need to invest in are those who leapfrog competitive offerings and have a lifetime of at least 10 years.

Steve.
rjs
rjs
12/5/2012 | 4:09:08 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
Stephen:

I do not believe that the RBOCs are entitled to any revenues. This attitude of entitlement stemming from the monopoly days is the exact thing that is the root of all the problems the US telecomm is currently facing.

-RJS

"Actually the point that I am making is that the fees that the RBOCs charge for Internet Access is not sufficient to make up for lost voice revenues via VOIP (from any carrier including themselves)."
rjs
rjs
12/5/2012 | 4:09:08 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
Most network access in India is based on
a certain amount of GigaBytes a month. Note that
in that regard the internet is really not free.
The person who is downloading P2P porno will
sooner or later have to pay for the bandwidth.

This is a nice way of keeping the telcos out of services. QoS fees is just a red herring and a veiled attempt by the RBOCs to monitor traffic and give preference to their services.

-RJS

DoTheMath
DoTheMath
12/5/2012 | 4:09:07 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
... and I do belive DSL can be (if not it already is) very profitable at $20-25 for 3 Mbps, and in for 50 Mbps VDSL, something already common in Japan.

The equipment is already dirt cheap, and getting cheaper all the time. The chinese vendors are willing to deal.

What we need in the telecom business is a Dell, who accepts that kind of economics, and makes the business model work within those parameters. What we are getting instead is old IBM thinking.

Yes, jobs will be destroyed on the network side, but it will lead to an explosion of job creation on the services/applications side.
DoTheMath
DoTheMath
12/5/2012 | 4:09:07 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
RBOCs are inefficient, even accounting for the truck-roll etc. Cars require far more customer touch points than networks ever will, yet auto companies don't employ the salesmen and auto-mechanics on their rolls (think union scale wages ...). RBOCs could easily franchise out the customer-touch-point part of the equation, and let the competitive market provide that.

So don't assume that a future RBOC replacement/alternative will operate the way current RBOCs operate. Their vertically integrated business model is obsolete. They are foisting that high cost business model on the rest of us, refusing to reform and change.

At one level, they are not really scared of the internet and VOIP as technologies; they are scared of the business model challenges, as they should be. Liberation will come only when the tired old Bellheads running these companies give way to a fresh-thinking younger generation.
mr zippy
mr zippy
12/5/2012 | 4:09:06 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
QoS makes sense - for the operator, they get to differentiate their service thereby making incremental revenues, the end user gets a faster service, the service provider (being iTunes etc) sacrifices some margin but gets better access to their customers, and can also differentiate their revenues to their customers (click here, and for another 20 cents, we guarantee faster downloads!!).

I don't necessarily think end users buy their bandwidth that way. Bandwidth is cheap enough, much like desktop performance, that they buy based on what their peak performance expectations are, rather than their average.

From part of earlier post I wrote in another thread :

http://www.lightreading.com/bo...

Firstly, I think people buy their bandwidth not based on their average utilisation, rather, what sort of performance they want for instant or peak utlisation. This is similar to how they buy their PCs, as discussed by Clay Shirky in http://shirky.com/writings/gri.... Further evidence of this is how people seem to disproportionately care so much about how quickly an application, such as MS Word, starts and is available after they click the icon, rather than caring as much about how it performs once it has started, and their using it. Humans are after "instant" statisfaction, or at least statisfaction within no more than 3 or so seconds.

When it comes to the Internet, I expect a web page I access to be displayed as fast as my broadband link operates. Accessing web pages is certainly bursty in nature, however I think it causes people to expect that sort of performance from all applications they use the Internet for, such as file transfers and P2P i.e. constant load applications. I commonly see people trying to buy the largest bandwidth broadband links to "speed up their downloads", so that a 600MB ISO file only takes 5 minutes to download.


Thinking about this a bit more, and summarising, it seems that people are willing to spend the most on the most obvious thing that performs the least.

Startup times of applications is the thing that performs the least on a desktop PC for most people today, not the operation of tha application itself, so they now judge the performance of their PC based on application startup time, not the application's operational speed.

For broadband, download speed e.g. the time it takes to download a 3 or 4 MB MP3, or for "downloaders", the time it takes to download a ISO, a TV show (legallitiess ignored), are the things that have the least performance, and so people are willing spend on them. Latency is of course important, however I think it has become less so as the bandwidth of most broadband services today can easy meet the latecy requirements of most applications where it matters.

I'm not really saying that QoS isn't something that needs to be worried about anymore, rather, that I think that it is not the primary thing people are willing to spend a significant proportion of their "broadband budget" on achieving. It seems that a lot of QoS problems I hear of people having with existing broadband services are resolved by prioritisation on the CPE, hence you tend to see "VoIP optimised" CPE these days. To get acceptable QoS for these applications, nothing is done on a per customer basis by the upstream ISP.

In that context, where throughput seems to be becoming the dominant thing people care about, could the RBOCS be sued for artificially degrading a service so they can squeeze more revenue from there customers ? (Bearing in mind I'm in Australia and don't have any idea how trade practices laws work in the US)
PO
PO
12/5/2012 | 4:09:06 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
@Stephencooke, "If you feel that these companies should spend billions to upgrade their networks so that they can get zero return on investment...stay out of management. The carriers have plainly stated that they are not in the business of being 'dumb bit transporters'. You can argue this until you can't type anymore but those with the jurisdiction to make the decision have done so and the rest of us have to deal with it as fact."

Then we need to get these carriers out of the business of mixing their phone and internet operations. This is already supposed to be required by federal law, but apparently it isn't working.
PO
PO
12/5/2012 | 4:09:06 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
What does QOS mean to you? Does it mean low delay? Well, I don't see anyone offering to raise the speed limits for light in a fiber optic cable, as they might on an Expressway.

Does it mean low packet loss? But packet loss is a feature, not a bug, in TCP/IP networks, serving to identify the upper limits of the available end-to-end bandwidth.

Perhaps people are talking about "overbuilding" networks with optimized connectivity. But unless they're going to prevent other traffic from taking advantage of those networks, what good does that do? And then all they're really talking about is working to give "normal" traffic worse service.

Often, when people talk about QOS, they're talking about contention resolution algorithms: how does a forwarding point decide which of two or more packets contending for the same output port should be forwarded first, and which should be "delayed" or dropped. And how much delay might a packet incur, if it is delayed?

But where does this contention occur? It can occur on your local network (e.g. your in-home LAN). It's likely to occur at your access link (e.g. DSL modem). It can occur crossing your ISP's network (although for reasons we'll only touch on below, that's unlikely). It's likely to occur when your ISP hands traffic off to the next Autonomous System in the forwarding path, and again at other network hand-off points. And it's likely to occur at the destination "access" link.

At a high-speed interconnection point, even if a packet is delayed, it's unlikely to be delayed for very long. Packet warehouses are expensive and provide no value for anybody (despite the plan of at least one equipment vendor to build such atrocities in the past).

How many of those congestion points does a service provider have control over? You only control "all" of them if you've set up a virtual circuit between the two endpoints, which requires expensive gear all along the way. That may be fine for some specialized applications, but not for the masses.

For most residential users accessing popular web pages, the Bandwidth-Delay Product is going to be dominated by either the link speed at one end of the connection (perhaps divided by the popularity of either end of the connection, if there are multiple simultaneous connections).

So what is QOS going to get you? The opportunity to have the same decision made with everyone else's "high-quality" traffic on that same congested access link. That, and a higher bill.

Why is a packet unlikely to incur congestion while crossing a network, but instead at a network boundary point? Because this is simple economics: the edges of the network represent high expenses (NAP charges, access links, etc). If congestion is occuring in the core of your own network, those edge expenses are being wasted. We could go on about this, but we'll leave it at that for today.
rjmcmahon
rjmcmahon
12/5/2012 | 4:09:05 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
Their {the RBOCs] vertically integrated business model is obsolete.

Dothemath,

I've always wondered when a vertical model works vs a horizontal (or transactional one). Any opinions? Do you consider the cable companies and the cellular companies as vertical? They are the only examples from recent history for successful facilities buildouts in the US.
rjmcmahon
rjmcmahon
12/5/2012 | 4:09:05 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
Seven,

Google doesn't own content. They index content found on the internet.

Also, what revenue generating services is Bell South going to enable with QoS?
<<   <   Page 6 / 18   >   >>


Featured Video
Upcoming Live Events
October 22, 2019, Los Angeles, CA
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