Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Embraces BitTorrent, Considers Usage-Based Pricing
Wired is running a story about AT&T's chief technical officer, John Donovan. He contrasts his view of BitTorrent and P2P in general against the controversial policies adopted by other ISPs. Donovan also explains why AT&T is considering usage-based pricing, citing the cost of network upgrades which only affect a small number of users. AT&T is expected to test the new pricing scheme later this year, which should give them plenty of time to see how Time Warner's customers respond to the idea.
"'I don't view any of our customers, under any circumstances, as pirates -- I view them as users,' Donovan said. 'A heavy user is not a bad customer.' What he wants to do is gently encourage more efficient usage of his network, and usage-based pricing may be one of the ways that happens. Such measures may not even be necessary, as Donovan admits that users self-adjust their habits to take advantage of off-peak times. For instance, he said, BitTorrent on the company's network peaks around 4 a.m., when other traffic is at an ebb. Overall P2P traffic accounts for about 20 percent of the network's usage, Donovan said."
To a point, I don't think that's a terrible idea. What I do have a problem with is the technical difficulties behind actually doing it fairly. For example, suppose I'm sharing files with my next-door neighbor, and our packets are never going farther than the first switch we have in common. Should I be billed the same as someone streaming gigs to Tokyo? Of course not, but that's probably not technically possible to accurately track without massive hardware upgrades, and even then it sets a bad precedent of charging extra depending on destination.
I'm not sure what to think on this one. I mean, they're acknowledging that they can't offer unlimited access, which we all knew anyway but is nice to hear them actually say. And yes, P2P probably is costing them lost of money. I don't think variable pricing is the answer, though, and I don't think their customers will either.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Apparently your telecoms are horribly run if they can't manage to make a profit off of Internet access. In America, many (most?) ISPs are small private companies who receive no federal subsidies at all, but still turn enough profit to keep growing and offering new services.
The fact that your local companies are incapable of doing so says that 1) they're all dumb, every single one, or 2) there are market forces there that we don't have, so your whole premise is inapplicable here.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
You must be confusing New Zealand with the reset of the world. I'm not aware of any non flat-fee adsl/cable providers over here (NL). Even the dutch Chello is (and always has been AFAIK) flat-fee.
Though there used to be some a couple of years ago, mainly for people switching from dialup to dsl thinking they wouldn't use more than 1Gb per month. Which would have been true if their surfing habits didn't adapt to the always on mode.
Give me one fat pipe, and let me choose which VOIP, IPTV, and ISP companies I wish to deal with.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
In the UK currently with demon, £17.99 for 50GB peak hours, Unlimited off peak, off peak is set as 11PM to 9AM. Downside is 12 month contract when you first sign up and customer services is based in the part of india were people take it as a challenge to speak with an accent so thick you could drown in it.
"I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
Just out of curiousity, just how easy do people think it is to 'upgrade the network'? I see that brought up a lot in the comments (i.e. "AT&T should just upgrade their network" "Given Moore's Law, the network should be cheaper" etc. etc.) It certainly gives the impression that people think that a nation-wide IP network is as easy to upgrade as their personal computer as as proportionally cheap.
When I was working in telecom, network upgrades (and maintenance) could be ferociously hard. If you wanted to upgrade the link between two co-location facilities, besides the problems of running the lines, you could run into issues if you needed to upgrade your networking equipment at either end -- suddenly, you had to stock new on-site spares, make sure the technicians were prepared, deal with power, space, and cooling issues. (If you needed to replace your current router with a newer router that was physically bigger, there had to be rack space available for it. If it needed more power/cooling, that had to be available. If space/power/cooling wasn't there, *someone* had to pay for the upgrades, or you had to move to a new facility and re-home all the network connections there. Not trivial and just the man-hour costs could be huge. (And in some places, the co-locations were subject to union rules, which placed additional restrictions on work.))
(Actually, for some network facilities, the fields would refuse to go without a security escort, because they weren't going to be responsible for driving trucks full of valuable equipment into some areas and leaving them outside while they worked inside. That increased the cost noticeably.)
Most of the business plans (at the time) assumed that equipment would be paid off over a period of years, not months. People would be expensive new telecom gear and plan to pay it off over the course of three or four years so they could set their monthly rate to customers at X, rather than try to pay it off in one year by charging customers more -- the lower prices/competition may have appeared great to the customers, but once the rush of entrants into the ISP business died out and people stopped pumping money in, the equipment upgrades got stalled because business realities demanded that the providers pay off the old equipment first.
So providers had gone in with models saying they would buy equipment for their networks, charge customers X amount, and, say just for kicks, maybe 5% of that amount went to paying off equipment. Of course, every time there was an unexpected cost, or they had to lower their rates to stay competitive, less money could be used to recoup their capital expense in hardware, which meant they couldn't afford to upgrade. (Of course, at a certain point, some couldn't afford to not upgrade, either, and self-destructed.) So the 'life span' of old equipment kept going because no one could raise rates due to the competition, who also couldn't for the same reasons, and new entrants coming in with fresh capital/investments that kept the rates of the moment low. The 'rapid advances' in technology were in part due to the money being poured into the marketplace (investment of one sort or another), *not* the success of the business models. Once the party was over and the reality of the bills hit, a lot of the upgrades stalled pretty hard.
It's not that Moore's Law hasn't affected the cost of providing bandwidth, it's that people are still struggling with buried (sic) infrastructure costs from previous technology. If you feel you are paying 2004 prices for 2004 technology, network-bandwidth-wise, rather than the equivalent 2008 price/performance, it's because you probably are, because the 2004 technology is still getting paid off.
(Let's say that, oh, I could get a 48 port DSLAM for $2400, or $500 a port. So just to recoup my capex on buying that sucker, I need to make $500 per port. If I can throw $10/port a month at the hardware cost, that's 50 months, or over four years until I can justify upgrading it. It can be surprisingly
Experience proves that this simply isn't true. ISPs in Finland (where I live), and several other countries that I have no personal experience with, provide ridiculously fast unlimited connections for very reasonable prices already and keep making a profit. I have a 100Mbit connection for 43e a month, and similar connections are getting more and more prevalent. You could also get an unlimited 3G data plan for 10e a month. Finns have a long history of heavy p2p usage as well, yet the ISPs aren't even complaining, stay in business just fine and my connection at least isn't throttled at all, *true* unlimited bandwidth. They do use QOS, but no artificial bandwidth caps or whatever, just prioritization for low-latency use. Just because your anti-competitive "free market" (we have actual competition thanks to some government regulation of the market, tell me again how your system is so much better) can't do it right doesn't mean it can't be done.
Nobody expects the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.