Graduated response coming soon to American ISPs?
mobius.media
Thread Starter
#1
23rd June 2011
Old 23rd June 2011
  #1
Lives for gear
 

Thread Starter
Graduated response coming soon to American ISPs?

#2
23rd June 2011
Old 23rd June 2011
  #2
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 

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.
#3
24th June 2011
Old 24th June 2011
  #3
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
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

Quote:
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
#5
24th June 2011
Old 24th June 2011
  #5
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
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
#6
24th June 2011
Old 24th June 2011
  #6
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
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.)
#7
24th June 2011
Old 24th June 2011
  #7
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
You've confused the two so often in the past
Have I? Really often, or once or twice?
mobius.media
Thread Starter
#8
24th June 2011
Old 24th June 2011
  #8
Lives for gear
 

Thread Starter
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.
#9
24th June 2011
Old 24th June 2011
  #9
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
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.)

Last edited by Don Hills; 24th June 2011 at 10:46 AM.. Reason: Clarified the example.
#10
24th June 2011
Old 24th June 2011
  #10
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
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.

Quote:
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.
#11
24th June 2011
Old 24th June 2011
  #11
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
...
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.
#12
24th June 2011
Old 24th June 2011
  #12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
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.
#13
24th June 2011
Old 24th June 2011
  #13
Lives for gear
 
Neenja's Avatar
 

As sang by Dionne Warwick:

That's what SSL and alternate DNS are for!
#14
24th June 2011
Old 24th June 2011
  #14
Lives for gear
 
Neenja's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
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.
#15
25th June 2011
Old 25th June 2011
  #15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neenja View Post
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.
#16
25th June 2011
Old 25th June 2011
  #16
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
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.
#17
25th June 2011
Old 25th June 2011
  #17
Lives for gear
 
Neenja's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
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.
#18
25th June 2011
Old 25th June 2011
  #18
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
... (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.
#19
25th June 2011
Old 25th June 2011
  #19
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
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.
#20
25th June 2011
Old 25th June 2011
  #20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neenja View Post
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.
#21
25th June 2011
Old 25th June 2011
  #21
Lives for gear
 
Neenja's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
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?
#22
25th June 2011
Old 25th June 2011
  #22
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neenja View Post
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.
#23
25th June 2011
Old 25th June 2011
  #23
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

It's funny how 'credentials' seem to speak louder than actual words here?!?!
#24
25th June 2011
Old 25th June 2011
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Neenja's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
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.
#25
25th June 2011
Old 25th June 2011
  #25
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
You're holding others to a standard you patently don't respect yourself.
Regarding anyone's knowledge of DSL/Cable technology, the truth is out there. You can easily research it yourself and verify... without knowing "credentials."
#26
25th June 2011
Old 25th June 2011
  #26
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deepthoughts View Post
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?
#27
25th June 2011
Old 25th June 2011
  #27
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neenja View Post
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.
#28
25th June 2011
Old 25th June 2011
  #28
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deepthoughts View Post
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.
#29
25th June 2011
Old 25th June 2011
  #29
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Hey, I have little or no knowledge on cable/DSL technology.
You don't need to "defer" to anyone when 5 minutes of searching on Google will get you what you need to know. "Credentials" are only important to those who are frankly too lazy to verify.
#30
25th June 2011
Old 25th June 2011
  #30
Lives for gear
 
Neenja's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
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.
Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
RIZ Records / Rap + Hip Hop engineering & production
8
cbucks / So much gear, so little time!
2

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.