Graduated response coming soon to American ISPs?

[chrisso]

Now the tech companies are moving towards supplying entertainment content (cloud music, internet tv etc) they suddenly see some merit in protecting it's value.

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Now the tech companies are moving towards supplying entertainment content (cloud music, internet tv etc) they suddenly see some merit in protecting it's value.

Don't confuse the content provider tech companies with the bandwidth provider tech companies.

Three strikes, throttling coming to US surfers ? The Register

The biggest change in the landscape is the success of Netflix and the imminent arrival of Ultraviolet, a customer-friendly legal initiative. Both give ISPs an incentive to make money from content flowing over the networks – something they cannot do when that material is unlicensed P2P material.

From the carrier / ISP point of view, which is my point of view, "legal" content can be charged extra for, because you can sell premium QoS for it. It also illustrates my often-made point that carriers / ISPs don't see copyright infringing traffic as a revenue earner.

A perfect example, just announced:
Your TV, Anywhere | Alcatel-Lucent - The Blog - Alcatel-Lucent

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by mobius.media

Well isn't this interesting.

Exclusive: Top ISPs poised to adopt graduated response to piracy | Media Maverick - CNET News

bout' time...
ISPs Look Ready for 'Graduated Response'. But Isn't This 10 Years Too Late? - Digital Music News

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

Don't confuse the content provider tech companies with the bandwidth provider tech companies.

I'm not.
Telcos are looking to access the lucrative home entertainment market.
TV - Telstra T-Box

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by chrisso

I'm not.
Telcos are looking to access the lucrative home entertainment market.
TV - Telstra T-Box

You're right in this case. I apologise. (You've confused the two so often in the past that I've developed a kneejerk reflex.)

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

You've confused the two so often in the past

Have I? Really often, or once or twice?

[mobius.media]

Originally Posted by rack gear

bout' time...
ISPs Look Ready for 'Graduated Response'. But Isn't This 10 Years Too Late? - Digital Music News

It's running 10 years late for the music industry, about 2-4 years late for the movie industry, but right on time (or ahead of time) for the books and games industries.

That's just how it goes. Someone had to bleed long enough and deep enough to prove to the government this was a real problem. Thank CDs, iPods, and MP3s for the fact that it was music.

Either way, everyone should benefit now, so it's all good IMO. I am looking forward to seeing this come into play.

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Have I? Really often, or once or twice?

Shall I count the ways? But so long as the "in the past" remains valid, I won't have to.

Originally Posted by chrisso

Now the tech companies are moving towards supplying entertainment content (cloud music, internet tv etc) they suddenly see some merit in protecting it's value.

May I suggest, instead of "tech companies", that you differentiate between content suppliers and ISPs / carriers? In turn, I'll try to appreciate the difference between record companies and the distributors.

The announcement you referenced is for an Internet enabled DVR. In keeping with a typical ISP's core business, it's a conduit for carrying content supplied by businesses who have streaming content supply as their core business. The value in it for ISPs is that they can sell premium bandwidth to their users and the "service ready" subscriber base to content providers.

Now, a few words on why ISPs see this as a way to make more money:
Normal ISP data traffic is carried as BE (Best Effort) priority. A typical home connection might have a PIR (maximimum data rate) set as high as the "up to xx Mbps" advertised in the sales brochure, but the CIR (guaranteed data rate) is often as low as 32Kbps. This means that during peak usage periods, the bandwidth you experience will become erratic and generally slow. That doesn't matter too much if you're just downloading something to experience later, but it's not suitable for providing a high quality streaming experience. So, for a price, an ISP can up your CIR to a figure high enough to maintain the streaming, and mark the streaming traffic with a higher priority (CoS or QoS) that will be given preference through the network over "best effort" traffic. It costs more because they have to put the hardware in place to support the traffic. (I've explained elsewhere in GS today why they try not to do so, and why they do not actually make money from illegal downloading, contrary to sentiments often expressed here.)

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

May I suggest, instead of "tech companies", that you differentiate between content suppliers and ISPs / carriers? In turn, I'll try to appreciate the difference between record companies and the distributors.

Whatever.
Have I jumped down your throat for mistaking a distributor for a record company?.....No.
Have a whined about your often serious and sometimes joking and often less well informed assessment of the professional musician's lot?......yes.

The announcement you referenced is for an Internet enabled DVR..... ....

Bottom line, which is why I drew your attention to it in the first place......
If a telephone company stroke internet service provider sees a way to make more money by persuading you to install a home entertainment hub in your living room, they are hardly going to be happy to see the same content, in the same quality, being delivered free via piracy sites (via their own internet line). So, faced with unfair competition, it's hardly surprising they're suddenly serious about tackling illegal content coming down their fiber optic cabling.
It's simple really.

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by chrisso

...
If a telephone company stroke internet service provider sees a way to make more money by persuading you to install a home entertainment hub in your living room, they are hardly going to be happy to see the same content, in the same quality, being delivered free via piracy sites (via their own internet line). So, faced with unfair competition, it's hardly surprising they're suddenly serious about tackling illegal content coming down their fiber optic cabling.
It's simple really.

... except it's not that simple. The point you missed is that it's not going to be a level playing field. The illegal content will not get the same quality of service as the legal content. Take a careful read of the Alcatel-Lucent item I posted the link to in the last day or so. You'll see an oblique reference to the technology I'm currently helping to put into a production network.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

Shall I count the ways? But so long as the "in the past" remains valid, I won't have to.



May I suggest, instead of "tech companies", that you differentiate between content suppliers and ISPs / carriers? In turn, I'll try to appreciate the difference between record companies and the distributors.

The announcement you referenced is for an Internet enabled DVR. In keeping with a typical ISP's core business, it's a conduit for carrying content supplied by businesses who have streaming content supply as their core business. The value in it for ISPs is that they can sell premium bandwidth to their users and the "service ready" subscriber base to content providers.

Now, a few words on why ISPs see this as a way to make more money:
Normal ISP data traffic is carried as BE (Best Effort) priority. A typical home connection might have a PIR (maximimum data rate) set as high as the "up to xx Mbps" advertised in the sales brochure, but the CIR (guaranteed data rate) is often as low as 32Kbps. This means that during peak usage periods, the bandwidth you experience will become erratic and generally slow. That doesn't matter too much if you're just downloading something to experience later, but it's not suitable for providing a high quality streaming experience. So, for a price, an ISP can up your CIR to a figure high enough to maintain the streaming, and mark the streaming traffic with a higher priority (CoS or QoS) that will be given preference through the network over "best effort" traffic. It costs more because they have to put the hardware in place to support the traffic. (I've explained elsewhere in GS today why they try not to do so, and why they do not actually make money from illegal downloading, contrary to sentiments often expressed here.)

That's an excellent explanation of the way a cable based ISP generally operates. Cable generally advertises blazing fast rates but actually delivers far less most of the time, due to overselling their capacity. Cable is also generally less tolerant of piracy for this reason, as demonstrated in the brouhaha a few years ago over Comcast's throttling of Bittorrent based traffic.

OTOH none of this applies to DSL, which does not share lines in a neighborhood network the way cable does. DSL gives each customer his own line back to the substation.

Note that the company involved in the link Chris posted is a TELCO BASED ISP - that means it's almost certainly a DSL based network.

TELCOs generally have implemented DSL - it goes with their technology.

CABLE TV COMPANIES generally have implemented cable technology, for obvious reasons.

Perhaps we need to differentiate a bit more between ISP technologies.

DSL is better for consistent high bandwidth service, and tends to be more conducive to piracy because overselling is much less of an issue.

Cable is better for separating larger numbers of customers from their cash while delivering a substandard product due to overselling. Since this is exacerbated by high bandwidth pirates, cable tends to be less pirate-friendly.

[Neenja]

As sang by Dionne Warwick:

That's what SSL and alternate DNS are for!

[Neenja]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

That's an excellent explanation of the way a cable based ISP generally operates. Cable generally advertises blazing fast rates but actually delivers far less most of the time, due to overselling their capacity. Cable is also generally less tolerant of piracy for this reason, as demonstrated in the brouhaha a few years ago over Comcast's throttling of Bittorrent based traffic.

OTOH none of this applies to DSL, which does not share lines in a neighborhood network the way cable does. DSL gives each customer his own line back to the substation.

Note that the company involved in the link Chris posted is a TELCO BASED ISP - that means it's almost certainly a DSL based network.

TELCOs generally have implemented DSL - it goes with their technology.

CABLE TV COMPANIES generally have implemented cable technology, for obvious reasons.

Perhaps we need to differentiate a bit more between ISP technologies.

DSL is better for consistent high bandwidth service, and tends to be more conducive to piracy because overselling is much less of an issue.

Cable is better for separating larger numbers of customers from their cash while delivering a substandard product due to overselling. Since this is exacerbated by high bandwidth pirates, cable tends to be less pirate-friendly.

Hi. This is 2011.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Neenja

Hi. This is 2011.

And you live in a location that has quite new cable infrastructure and which has not been ridiculously oversold in terms of total carrying capacity.

I'm happy for you.

Just don't make the mistake of assuming that all cable is like that or that your connection will always give the performance that it does currently.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

The point you missed is that it's not going to be a level playing field. The illegal content will not get the same quality of service as the legal content.You'll see an oblique reference to the technology I'm currently helping to put into a production network.

Fair enough. You know something, as an insider, I don't.
The experience in music is that quality hasn't persuaded vast numbers away from free, convenient, lower quality mp3's.
Let's hope your product doesn't go the same way.

[Neenja]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

And you live in a location that has quite new cable infrastructure and which has not been ridiculously oversold in terms of total carrying capacity.

I'm happy for you.

Just don't make the mistake of assuming that all cable is like that or that your connection will always give the performance that it does currently.

Don't make the mistake of thinking you know more about this than I do.

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

... (incorrect assumptions about the differences in cable and ADSL technology deleted.) ...

You've got it all backwards as usual, John. I'm not going to bother correcting you any more, you don't listen.

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Fair enough. You know something, as an insider, I don't.
The experience in music is that quality hasn't persuaded vast numbers away from free, convenient, lower quality mp3's.
Let's hope your product doesn't go the same way.

It won't do much to change the downloading of content. It will be very different for streaming content. It's a relatively new area, so there is the opportunity to start with content security already "built in". There is hope for music, though, with the new laws coming in.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Neenja

Don't make the mistake of thinking you know more about this than I do.

Likewise.

Given that you consistently refuse to present any credentials at all it's pretty difficult to determine what you might or might not know.

[Neenja]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

Likewise.

Given that you consistently refuse to present any credentials at all it's pretty difficult to determine what you might or might not know.

And how do the credentials you've given demonstrate a knowledge of anything that is discussed here?

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Neenja

And how do the credentials you've given demonstrate a knowledge of anything that is discussed here?

Yeah fair enough, but you didn't answer his charge.
You can't claim a higher ground or greater knowledge on anything when presenting yourself completely anonymously, and with a habit of disappearing from the forum after challenging others to prove their credentials.
You're holding others to a standard you patently don't respect yourself.

[Neenja]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Yeah fair enough, but you didn't answer his charge.
You can't claim a higher ground or greater knowledge on anything when presenting yourself completely anonymously, and with a habit of disappearing from the forum after challenging others to prove their credentials.
You're holding others to a standard you patently don't respect yourself.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by deepthoughts

It's funny how 'credentials' seem to speak louder than actual words here?!?!

NO, it's so simple I can't see how you are confused.
The words that 'speak the loudest' are the ones backed by credentials.
My real name is 'Fred22' and I'm a world authority on trout fishing.
See?

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Neenja

As usual..... a simple non answer. But demanding respect.
No one is ever going to give it to you until you come out of hiding.
REspect is earned, not just handed out by demand.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by deepthoughts

Regarding anyone's knowledge of DSL/Cable technology, the truth is out there. You can easily research it yourself and verify... without knowing "credentials."

Hey, I have little or no knowledge on cable/DSL technology.
I'm deferring to Don in large part.
I wont defer to anyone who just claims to know more, when they could easily be a high schooler or college student studying agriculture.

[Neenja]

Originally Posted by chrisso

As usual..... a simple non answer. But demanding respect.
No one is ever going to give it to you until you come out of hiding.
REspect is earned, not just handed out by demand.

I have told you and John many times that you may believe me or not believe me. It does not matter to me. I am not "hiding" either. You would actually have more creditability on these matter if you were, however.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by deepthoughts

Regarding anyone's knowledge of DSL/Cable technology, the truth is out there. You can easily research it yourself and verify... without knowing "credentials."

Don is our resident authority on the TECHNOLOGY of cable and DSL.

Don is an IT tech - that's his area of expertise.

Where Don is on somewhat shakier standing is the business strategy and internal policies of the companies he works for. Not to mention the companies he DOESN'T work for.

Do I believe that the suits in the corporate front office - or even in bookkeeping - are going to discuss corporate strategy with the tech department? No, I do not. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they made a point of NOT discussing it with the tech department.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Neenja

I have told you and John many times that you may believe me or not believe me. It does not matter to me. I am not "hiding" either. You would actually have more creditability on these matter if you were, however.

If you're not hiding then who are you?

[Neenja]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

If you're not hiding then who are you?

What difference would it make? It wouldn't make me anymore credible to you than I am now. The problem here is that we somewhat know who you are and what you supposedly have done and none of it has anything to do with any conversation that we have. So if you, admittedly having no experience in any discussion we have here is an authority on every discussion we have here, why can't I having actual experience in the things we discuss here be an authority on the things we discuss here even though you don't know my actual name (like many here BTW)?

How about you stop playing the games and insulting people you disagree with and just discuss the issues to the best of your ability and let your words stand?