Slashdot Mirror
Is Verizon a Network Hog?
pillageplunder wrote to mention a piece in BusinessWeek asking whether or not Verizon has the right to set aside bandwidth for its own projects. They're planning a television service, and have allocated a swath of their bandwidth (which could otherwise be used for net and phone traffic) to back this service. From the article: "Leading Net companies say that Verizon's actions could keep some rivals off the road. As consumers try to search Google, buy books on Amazon.com, or watch videos on Yahoo!, they'll all be trying to squeeze into the leftover lanes on Verizon's network. On Feb. 7 the Net companies plan to take their complaints about Verizon's plans to the Senate during a hearing on telecom reform."
Since Verizon's recent purchase of MCI, they have more bandwidth, both lit and unlit, than they know what to do with. Making the whole point of squeezing anything totally a non issue.
Why shouldn't they be able to do what they want with it?
Let's play devil's advocate. It is their network, why shouldn't they be able to do with it what they want? I mean we hear the I own the software I should be able to do anything I want with it all the time. How is this any different?
As long as verizon keeps on delievering the 2 MB/s connection bandwidth to me , I donot care about their reservations. But if they cut it to promote their products, its then illegal.
They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me. -Nathaniel Lee
It's simply a matter of competition. If Comcast or another local cable provider can provide better bandwidth for a similar price, then go with the competitor.
I'm supposed to get 768/128 throughput. I actually get more like 640/100 with my Verizon DSL. If Verizon can't maintain something close to this even with their pipe-grab, then I would simply switch to broadband from 1 or 2 of the other options available.
If it's a matter of shared phone lines and other DSL providers being choked out too, then that's a good reason to go with cable or over-air altogether.
Is it just me or does this article appear to be confusing two issues?
(1) Pay-to-play - ISP's charging content providers so that traffic to and from their site is not delayed (Internetwork traffic)
(2) QoS - ISPs doing QoS to reserve bandwidth for specific applications they themselves offer their own customers (Intranetwork traffic)
- Tony
As far as I can tell, they're the only player lighting up the last mile, and the majority of their video bandwidth will be on segments wholly devoted to their own network. I regularly use 50Mb/sec, but since it's withing my house and on my LAN, I don't think anybody has a right to complain.
I'd like to say that more of the laid fiber is lit, but most of it is just plain dark. So long as we're only using a small fraction of the capacity of the medium already in place, what does it matter how much they use? They pay for it, they light it up, they can use it. If there's more demand, light up some more fiber.
As much as I am a proponent for the Good Of All Mankind, I am confused by the idea of a mandate that says Verizon must use their bandwidth in this way or that way. I understand that Verizon (MCI) owns a lot of Internet backbone, but the Internet is a public entity. Verizon is not. The money they spent to build those fiber highways did not come from public coffers (unless I don't know about some kind of subsidy program).
I don't believe this is about the long-haul backbones, this is probably about the local POP / loop, and the POP connection to the regional backbone. If a Verizon FIOS "hub" has a total of 1G bandwidth, and verizon is taking 800M of it, then all the other internet traffic can only use 200M split over who-knows-how-many end users. Furthermore, the POP to POP links may be allocated the same way. VOL will probably end up doing some massive video on demand system that will suck down most of the total bandwidth.
This would put any video on demand service that Google may (will) have at a severe disadvantage.
Even if a gob more dark fiber is available for all these pipes, it costs serious amounts of money to light them up. Obviously if VOL can "reserve" a big portion of bandwidth on the existing links to the point where they can offer all their value-add services, they don't have an incentive to light up more fiber.
Ummm, no. In short, no. Also, no. :-)
Seriously, capacity is not some monolithic thing that you "have enough of" or "have too much of". Capacity is from a place to a place across a set of resources. VZ can have plenty of capacity from NY to VA but not enough peering to AS3356 (level3). Or They might have plenty of cross-country capacity until a train derails in Colorado causing a 3-4 day outage of the middle path and congesting some other paths. It all depends and the devel is in the detail.
Even using generous estimates of multicast efficiencies, video over packet (or IPTV) is going to consume a *lot* of resources. ~20-25Mb/s per channel. Right now, virtually no one has "enough capacity" for that.
Of course it's "their" pipe. Under "my" land.
Let's see if we can apply some property rights here...
Verizon (or ANYONE) is not entitled, authorized, or any such thing to dig in MY property. Whether to lay copper, fibre, or dead bodies.
The GOVERNMENT gives the right to do so. But there are some rules. Rules that I (we) impose. If the government has allowed such action (more accurately, has FORCED it), we am entitled to some benefit:
Specifically, access to the property or service at reasonable rates, with reasonable sharing.
Of course "reasonable rates" are debatable; as is "reasonable sharing".
It's not "their" pipe -- it's "our" pipe.
When cable was rolled out, it was rolled out on the understanding that cable TV was to be provided. Was an alternate TV network contemplated when the fibre was rolled out? If it was, then ok; if not, we need a PUBLIC debate.
Nothing against Verizon (or any other public utility), but that IS the rule. And if anyone gives me a hard time about, I'll backhoe my property. Sue me already.
As a final observation: Let's get into this century, already. I don't see the sewage removal provider making a play for Gas delivery. I don't see the Gas provider (delivery only) making a play for water delivery. They kind of stick to their own turf.
But the "data" services are coallescing. Voice, TV, Internet -- its all data. Reasonably, we expect that NEW pipes would treat it the same. If you close your eyes really tight, and pull back 20 years, then, yeah, its different. Which gave rise to "Cable TV" as separate from "Phone".
Now I expect a single bundle of fibre to a home and I expect it to carry ALL the data equally. A separate "bandwidth" supplier distinct from purposing.
As an example: if you have a home heated by a Gas furnace, and a Gas BBQ, and a Gas stove, would you really expect two or three different bills? Of course not, a single bill each month suffices.
I want a single "data" bill every month, that combines "TV", "Phone", "Internet", "VOD" carrier fees. I may have a separate accounting for "VOD movies", "POTS integration", "HBO access".
I advocate complete separation of the cost of maintaining the "plumbing" and "delivering" the data from the data itself. The Gas company here (Enbridge) can do, so I expect the fibre suppliers to be able to do it as well.
Ratboy.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Alright, fine -- Internet service might not be a public utility right at this moment. However, in a very short time -- maybe 5 years, or 10 at the max -- Internet access is going to be pretty much required to function as a citizen. People who "can't afford it" have no excuse, you know, because of free access at public libraries and/or free city-wide WiFi.
In five years, which will be more important: Internet service or POTS service? Hell, which is more important now? I say Internet!
Even if Internet service isn't a public utility, it damn well should be!
Except that it's not that simple! Between telecom monopolies and content monopolies, some customers may very well be forced to use Verizon. Your solution works very well in a free market, but the particular market under discussion is approximately as far away from a free market as it can possibly get.
You know, I consider myself to be libertarian, and support the least-interference solution wherever possible. This, however, is an issue of the tragedy of the commons (which, by the way, most Libertarians ought to read, since they don't seem to understand the concept). It needs to be protected, and the only effective way to do that is -- unfortunately -- government regulation.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz