The challenge for ISP's is to figure out how to sell internet service at prices that people will pay (cheap, flat-rate) but prevent the p2p usage from crushing their networks.
Some ISP's are building out more capacity, and provisioning symmetrical instead of asymetrical infrastructure. Verizon FIOS' 20/20 plan is a good example of this.
"Utopia is one of the nation's largest wholesale muni-fiber deployments - via which users can get 8-15Mbps symmetrical fiber for $35-$45 dollars through AT&T or providers like MStar. The project has put Comcast in the unfamiliar position of having to truly compete, resulting in rare price reductions. According to this local ad, Comcast is now offering broadband, digital cable, and VoIP service for $90 a month in all of Utopia's footprint."
That guy's just got what was the issue with the Internet nowadays. Because legitimate websites like YouTube or Google Video don't weight down on the network's bandwidth use, it's illegitimate uses that do so! It's so simple, it makes me wonder why people don't understand that, it's not legitimate uses of the Internet that clogs it, it's only the illegitimate ones.
Thing is is he says P2P and nothing about anything illegal, so he's wrong.
In light of that perhaps we should conclude that all free thinking people should boycott his wonderful Dallas Mavericks and any of his other businesses.
Unfortunately it would be hard for me to boycott all of his businesses. I love to watch foreign and art movies that's aren't typically shown in regular movie theatres but his Landmarket Theatres is the only one in my area that shows them.
If it's for a class any competent university could set up a local server for the professors to host files on.
One professor I had maintained his own server while I was taking his classes. He had the syllabus, class notes and assignments, and course schedule for each class along with a message board the students could use to chat.
The best thing to do about a jackass like this is simply ignore him.
No, because he has money, and politicians listen to people with money, what people need to do is point out the flaws in his argument and tell the truth about the net.
This one is rich coming from a guy that invested in a BitTorrent wanna-be that was recently purchased by Akamai. I heard Cuban made most of his money back on that one.
No, Mark Cuban made his money by selling Broadcast.com to Yahoo! Yahoo! paid $5.9 billion for it, in stocks.
Though I have cable access, I get my service through a different ISP than the cable company.
If you guys don't want throttled move to DSL, you are less likely to experience this because the last-mile is yours, not shared between you and everybody else in the neighborhood.
Originally DSL was a dedicated connection but now it may be shared"
"Digital subscriber line History and science
DSL service was first provided over a dedicated "dry loop", but when the FCC required the incumbent local exchange carriers ILECs to lease their lines to competing providers such as Earthlink, shared-line DSL became common."
"Utopia is one of the nation's largest wholesale muni-fiber deployments - via which users can get 8-15Mbps symmetrical fiber for $35-$45 dollars through AT&T or providers like MStar. The project has put Comcast in the unfamiliar position of having to truly compete, resulting in rare price reductions. According to this local ad[.zip], Comcast is now offering broadband, digital cable, and VoIP service for $90 a month in all of Utopia's footprint."
From what I gathered, he's basically saying that a commercial company shouldn't have to force their consumers to use up their own bandwidth to download that company's product.
I don't see where he says anything about any commercial company. Can you provide a quote?
As a consumer, I want my P2P experience to be as fast as possible. The last thing I want slowing my internet service down are regular downloading freeloaders, only getting content from one source, and clogging up the tubes, rather than downloading different parts of my final file from a whole bunch of different (and potentially local) sources. Seriously.
More than likely they pay for their connection just as you do.
Nice red herring, but most ISPs do make you share the bandwidth.
Or maybe you have an alternative offer for the term "dedicated connection"?
"DSL History and science
"DSL service was first provided over a dedicated "dry loop", but when the FCC required the incumbent local exchange carriers ILECs to lease their lines to competing providers such as Earthlink, shared-line DSL became common."
I don't really see P2P downloading as abuse, but I could see how beancounters could interpret it that way. Their infrastructure wasn't built to support it. So, people are working outside of the bounds they set, and it's interferring with them.
It doesn't or shouldn't matter how the bandwidth is used, 1 gigabyte is 1 gigabyte whether it's html, ftp, gopher, or P2P. As for how much the infrastructure can handle, it's the providers' own fault they haven't built out the last mile. Cablecos and telcos were given subsidies to build out but they didn't. Instead they used them to cushion their bottom lines.
Only if the demand for music exceeds the supply at the price of producing that music and marketing it. Do you really think that is the case?
What? Today demand can't exceed supply technically, only people's taste can. The major cost of creating music is creating the master record, analogue is a bit high but with digital tech the equipment needed can be afforded by many. Then audio software is free, Macs come with Garage Band and Audiocity is Open Source audio software that's a cross platform, running on Linux, OX S, and Windows as well as other OSes. Once the equipment is paid for duplication is practically nil digitally, that's part of the fuss with P2P, copies are easy to make and distribute. The only other barrier, other than talent, is having someplace sound proof to record in. But with what many listen to that's not a big deal.
The market for music quickly becomes something quite similar (though not identical) to the market for lemons, where the price commanded by good quality work is brought down by the fact that it's not any more noticeable than bad work for the buyers.
Ah, the net allows a person to try before they buy, as do some brick and mortar stores. It's their own fault if someone buys music they don't like. The only problem I see is when a person has to buy a whole album just for one song but again the net allows them to download just that one song. Well I see another problem, but it's not related or is only obliquely related. As for fliters, friends can serve as filters quite well. Music store employees can even be filters. The last tyme I bought an album I went into the store looking for a specific artist but the only album I could find I already had. Asking an employee there he said they didn't have anything else in stock but if I liked that type of music I should try another artist. So I listened to clips of the songs on one album, liked what I heard and bought it. Before listening to the clips I had never heard of the person.
.. so this assholes logic is his traffic is better then mine? I pay just the same as he does for the service and as long as i use it inside the terms of my agreement he has no right to say anything.
He has every right to say whatever, what he doesn't have the right to is to make demands of others and have them enforced.
Concert tickets often go for $500 or more per seat
Boy, I don't know where those concerts are. Though it's been years since I though of going to a concert the last tyme I checked the price of tickets, to a Norah Jones concert in 2000 or 2001, tickets were less than $100. Inflation must of been really high since.
Poor fans (those lacking in financial resources) can be "real" fans in the sense that they love the music. These are not mutually exclusive concepts, but complementary.
Ok, it was my perception from what you said before that those who can't pay aren't "real fans".
It provides a service to the artist, in that it helps to raise their work above the noise threshold of unsigned bands, and provide infrastructure and existing relationships to distribute product. It's not directly a service to you, but it has to be paid from somewhere (if that service is desired). If not from the buyer directly, then the artist would just be paying from their increased revenue.
But the net makes it relatively easy AND cheap to market music for musicians. A band could create an online profile on MySpace, Facebook, and or any number of other social networking websites. There they can offer clips of selected songs if not a compleat catalogue of all songs. Then lower bitrate versions can be downloaded while higher bitrate versions can be paid for then downloaded. If this isn't enough then there are more steps that can be taken to heighten net advertising. About the only thing a middleman may be able to that's worth it is setting up concerts, which is where many musicians make their money, not off of tape, cd, or download sales.
Buying from a label guarantees some level of quality control
Brittany Spears anyone? I don't really know about her music or singing but seeing as how I've seen quite a few negative comments about her on/. I used her as an example.
What I think will happen in the long term, if self-publishing or microlabels really take off, is that the price will slowly drop to a more reasonable level. Although music isn't a fungible good (it's not like people really shop for new artists based on price; ten tracks of artist X's music aren't worth the same to everyone as ten tracks of artist Y's), consumers are somewhat price sensitive. Success is going to be met by the artists who understand their fans, and deliver to them the music they want at a price they're willing to pay.
Artist can do what the Grateful Dead did. Deadheads were allowed, even encouraged, to record Grateful Dead concerts.
theaters might have to go digital so I will accept that they are trying to recoup the cost but I doubt it will go down after they do recoup it
That's something that puzzles me about what Mark Cuban is doing. Cuban owns the arthouse theatre chain Landmark Theaters, and though I haven't found it again a few years ago I read how Landmark was delivering movies to the various theatres digitally via the net. From one location they could distribute movies to all of the theatres showing the movie without having to deal with producing film copies then sending them via roads. Delivering movies this way takes less than an hour versus the days it takes to deliver film. Using the net to deliver movies like this is actually cheaper.
Slashdot Mirror
The challenge for ISP's is to figure out how to sell internet service at prices that people will pay (cheap, flat-rate) but prevent the p2p usage from crushing their networks.
Some ISP's are building out more capacity, and provisioning symmetrical instead of asymetrical infrastructure. Verizon FIOS' 20/20 plan is a good example of this.
A better example is Broadband Utopia. According to DSL Reports, Comcast Versus Broadband Utopia, Comcast was "forced to offer $90 bundle in fiber-fed region".
"Utopia is one of the nation's largest wholesale muni-fiber deployments - via which users can get 8-15Mbps symmetrical fiber for $35-$45 dollars through AT&T or providers like MStar. The project has put Comcast in the unfamiliar position of having to truly compete, resulting in rare price reductions. According to this local ad, Comcast is now offering broadband, digital cable, and VoIP service for $90 a month in all of Utopia's footprint."
FalconI don't need shit from comcast. There are plenty of ISPs who want my business.
How many ISPs can you get broadband from though?
FalconThat guy's just got what was the issue with the Internet nowadays. Because legitimate websites like YouTube or Google Video don't weight down on the network's bandwidth use, it's illegitimate uses that do so! It's so simple, it makes me wonder why people don't understand that, it's not legitimate uses of the Internet that clogs it, it's only the illegitimate ones.
Thing is is he says P2P and nothing about anything illegal, so he's wrong.
FalconIn light of that perhaps we should conclude that all free thinking people should boycott his wonderful Dallas Mavericks and any of his other businesses.
Unfortunately it would be hard for me to boycott all of his businesses. I love to watch foreign and art movies that's aren't typically shown in regular movie theatres but his Landmarket Theatres is the only one in my area that shows them.
FalconIf it's for a class any competent university could set up a local server for the professors to host files on.
One professor I had maintained his own server while I was taking his classes. He had the syllabus, class notes and assignments, and course schedule for each class along with a message board the students could use to chat.
FalconThe best thing to do about a jackass like this is simply ignore him.
No, because he has money, and politicians listen to people with money, what people need to do is point out the flaws in his argument and tell the truth about the net.
FalconThis one is rich coming from a guy that invested in a BitTorrent wanna-be that was recently purchased by Akamai. I heard Cuban made most of his money back on that one.
No, Mark Cuban made his money by selling Broadcast.com to Yahoo! Yahoo! paid $5.9 billion for it, in stocks.
FalconMore people can get cable than can get DSL.
In most metros there are at least 2-3 ISPs.
Though I have cable access, I get my service through a different ISP than the cable company.
If you guys don't want throttled move to DSL, you are less likely to experience this because the last-mile is yours, not shared between you and everybody else in the neighborhood.
Originally DSL was a dedicated connection but now it may be shared"
"Digital subscriber line History and science
FalconDSL service was first provided over a dedicated "dry loop", but when the FCC required the incumbent local exchange carriers ILECs to lease their lines to competing providers such as Earthlink, shared-line DSL became common."
I think that's about what T1 costs. If you want honest, unlimited, 1.5mbs, then isn't that what you should pay?
Higher speeds can be had for less:
Comcast Versus Broadband Utopia"
"Forced to offer $90 bundle in fiber-fed region"
"Utopia is one of the nation's largest wholesale muni-fiber deployments - via which users can get 8-15Mbps symmetrical fiber for $35-$45 dollars through AT&T or providers like MStar. The project has put Comcast in the unfamiliar position of having to truly compete, resulting in rare price reductions. According to this local ad[.zip], Comcast is now offering broadband, digital cable, and VoIP service for $90 a month in all of Utopia's footprint."
FalconIs Utah in China?
I didn't think so.
You said, and I quote, " I've yet to hear of a 100Mbps connection though."
FalconFalcon Wolf? Did you just pick a few things you thought sounded cool and mashed them together?
No, I love both falcons and wolves.
FalconFrom what I gathered, he's basically saying that a commercial company shouldn't have to force their consumers to use up their own bandwidth to download that company's product.
I don't see where he says anything about any commercial company. Can you provide a quote?
FalconAs a consumer, I want my P2P experience to be as fast as possible. The last thing I want slowing my internet service down are regular downloading freeloaders, only getting content from one source, and clogging up the tubes, rather than downloading different parts of my final file from a whole bunch of different (and potentially local) sources. Seriously.
More than likely they pay for their connection just as you do.
FalconNice red herring, but most ISPs do make you share the bandwidth.
Or maybe you have an alternative offer for the term "dedicated connection"?
"DSL History and science
Falcon"DSL service was first provided over a dedicated "dry loop", but when the FCC required the incumbent local exchange carriers ILECs to lease their lines to competing providers such as Earthlink, shared-line DSL became common."
All ISPs offer a "shared bandwidth" plan where they tell you that you will be sharing the bandwidth at the last mile, with your neighbors.
Cable access is shared but DSL isn't.
Falcon> Yes, ethernet socket at home, 10/10Mb,
They have this in China too. I've yet to hear of a 100Mbps connection though.
"A Broadband Utopia"
"A municipally owned network in Utah is poised to offer 100 megabits per second--and that's just to start"
TFA is about 1 1/2 years old.
FalconI don't really see P2P downloading as abuse, but I could see how beancounters could interpret it that way. Their infrastructure wasn't built to support it. So, people are working outside of the bounds they set, and it's interferring with them.
It doesn't or shouldn't matter how the bandwidth is used, 1 gigabyte is 1 gigabyte whether it's html, ftp, gopher, or P2P. As for how much the infrastructure can handle, it's the providers' own fault they haven't built out the last mile. Cablecos and telcos were given subsidies to build out but they didn't. Instead they used them to cushion their bottom lines.
FalconThat's exactly what happens in the real world.
Only if the demand for music exceeds the supply at the price of producing that music and marketing it. Do you really think that is the case?
What? Today demand can't exceed supply technically, only people's taste can. The major cost of creating music is creating the master record, analogue is a bit high but with digital tech the equipment needed can be afforded by many. Then audio software is free, Macs come with Garage Band and Audiocity is Open Source audio software that's a cross platform, running on Linux, OX S, and Windows as well as other OSes. Once the equipment is paid for duplication is practically nil digitally, that's part of the fuss with P2P, copies are easy to make and distribute. The only other barrier, other than talent, is having someplace sound proof to record in. But with what many listen to that's not a big deal.
The market for music quickly becomes something quite similar (though not identical) to the market for lemons, where the price commanded by good quality work is brought down by the fact that it's not any more noticeable than bad work for the buyers.
Ah, the net allows a person to try before they buy, as do some brick and mortar stores. It's their own fault if someone buys music they don't like. The only problem I see is when a person has to buy a whole album just for one song but again the net allows them to download just that one song. Well I see another problem, but it's not related or is only obliquely related. As for fliters, friends can serve as filters quite well. Music store employees can even be filters. The last tyme I bought an album I went into the store looking for a specific artist but the only album I could find I already had. Asking an employee there he said they didn't have anything else in stock but if I liked that type of music I should try another artist. So I listened to clips of the songs on one album, liked what I heard and bought it. Before listening to the clips I had never heard of the person.
FalconThat's exactly what happens in the real world.
Tuneless Joe's garage tape, anyone?
I have no idea what this means.
Falcon.. so this assholes logic is his traffic is better then mine? I pay just the same as he does for the service and as long as i use it inside the terms of my agreement he has no right to say anything.
He has every right to say whatever, what he doesn't have the right to is to make demands of others and have them enforced.
FalconConcert tickets often go for $500 or more per seat
Boy, I don't know where those concerts are. Though it's been years since I though of going to a concert the last tyme I checked the price of tickets, to a Norah Jones concert in 2000 or 2001, tickets were less than $100. Inflation must of been really high since.
FalconPoor fans (those lacking in financial resources) can be "real" fans in the sense that they love the music. These are not mutually exclusive concepts, but complementary.
Ok, it was my perception from what you said before that those who can't pay aren't "real fans".
FalconIt provides a service to the artist, in that it helps to raise their work above the noise threshold of unsigned bands, and provide infrastructure and existing relationships to distribute product. It's not directly a service to you, but it has to be paid from somewhere (if that service is desired). If not from the buyer directly, then the artist would just be paying from their increased revenue.
But the net makes it relatively easy AND cheap to market music for musicians. A band could create an online profile on MySpace, Facebook, and or any number of other social networking websites. There they can offer clips of selected songs if not a compleat catalogue of all songs. Then lower bitrate versions can be downloaded while higher bitrate versions can be paid for then downloaded. If this isn't enough then there are more steps that can be taken to heighten net advertising. About the only thing a middleman may be able to that's worth it is setting up concerts, which is where many musicians make their money, not off of tape, cd, or download sales.
Buying from a label guarantees some level of quality control
Brittany Spears anyone? I don't really know about her music or singing but seeing as how I've seen quite a few negative comments about her on /. I used her as an example.
FalconWhat I think will happen in the long term, if self-publishing or microlabels really take off, is that the price will slowly drop to a more reasonable level. Although music isn't a fungible good (it's not like people really shop for new artists based on price; ten tracks of artist X's music aren't worth the same to everyone as ten tracks of artist Y's), consumers are somewhat price sensitive. Success is going to be met by the artists who understand their fans, and deliver to them the music they want at a price they're willing to pay.
Artist can do what the Grateful Dead did. Deadheads were allowed, even encouraged, to record Grateful Dead concerts.
Falcontheaters might have to go digital so I will accept that they are trying to recoup the cost but I doubt it will go down after they do recoup it
That's something that puzzles me about what Mark Cuban is doing. Cuban owns the arthouse theatre chain Landmark Theaters, and though I haven't found it again a few years ago I read how Landmark was delivering movies to the various theatres digitally via the net. From one location they could distribute movies to all of the theatres showing the movie without having to deal with producing film copies then sending them via roads. Delivering movies this way takes less than an hour versus the days it takes to deliver film. Using the net to deliver movies like this is actually cheaper.
Falcon