Businesses Gain From Internet Fast Lanes - InformationWeek

InformationWeek is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

IoT
IoT
Comments
Businesses Gain From Internet Fast Lanes
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
ChrisMurphy
50%
50%
ChrisMurphy,
User Rank: Author
10/6/2014 | 8:42:06 AM
Re: Why was this editorial promoted in your email newsletter?
@herickson482 -- It's not a paid advertisement, and guest columns like this aren't for sale. It's exactly as you say: "This is an opinion piece that ..." We state who the writer is and where they're coming from with this point of view, and we leave it to readers to decide if they agree or disagree. You can reach out to me with your ideas -- chris dot murphy at ubm dot com.    
Ron_Hodges
50%
50%
Ron_Hodges,
User Rank: Moderator
10/3/2014 | 8:24:39 AM
Re: This opinion piece is wrong on so many levels
@Midnight, Thank you very much.  :-)
moarsauce123
100%
0%
moarsauce123,
User Rank: Ninja
10/3/2014 | 7:08:07 AM
Dillusional lobbyist piece
I agree, this article is so wrong on so many levels that it is really just a dillusional lobbyist blurp in favor of big telcos.

"Those throttling limits make sense." - No, they do not! Carrying extra data over the often ridiculously low limits (such as 5GB per month shared for five lines) costs the providers fractions of pennies. What costs a lot is having many people generate a lot of traffic at the same time. For that reason, throttling only makes sense when it is turned on at all times. The current approach increases the bandwidth needs at the beginning of a billing cycle when there is no throttling while it drops bandwith needs at the end of a billing cycle when folks hit the limit and the transfer speed is artificially lowered. Providers have to keep sufficient bandwidth available at all times so the throttling doesn't really help. All it does is collect extra cash from customers, it does not address the technical issues in any way!

"Segmented traffic treatment on an optional fast lane could help solve access and billing problems" - While I understand the benefit for the providers, it clearly is a massive disadvantage to customers AND businesses. It hits especially those businesses who try to enter the market as new content provider. Having pay for play fast lanes benefits only established players with deep pockets. Startups would need to secure more investments just to be able to compete on a technical level before they can even generate interest with their content. The barrier to market entry will be incredibly huge. This means that less content providers will be able to operate successfully under the proposed fast lane model, which means less competition and less competition always means higher consumer prices. Compare broadband costs for consumers in the US and Europe and you will see that the more competitive market is in Europe benefiting consumers and businesses with much higher bandwidth offerings at a much lower price point and plenty of service providers to chose from. The proposed model will only solve access problems for a select few offerings. And billing problems ought to be not a reason for anything, billing is a commodity task found in EVERY business in EVERY market. There are gazillion solutions for all the billing issues that might come up. Providers would not have billing issues if they provided less ridiculously complicated service plans. Billing by application falls flat when businesses start using a wide variety of applications, some of the custom to the business. Are the providers really tracking usage of every brand new app that comes out? How about billing when VPNs or proxies are used? While there may a benefit to separating business expenses from private expenses I heavily doubt that the added complexity is cheaper than a business paying for an employee checking sports scores on the business plan. In case of BYOD, it is much easier to have the company pay a fair share of the access plans. Administering a flat amount each month is not only easy, it is also by far more predictable. Alternatively, make use of devices that support dual SIM cards, one for business, one for private. That tech already is available and nobody has to wait for providers to offer specialzed billing. Often times it just does not pay to nickle and dime folks for everything.

"Gartner predicts" - Gartner has shown its ineptitude in the tech sector for years now. Many if not all of their predictions turned out false. On top of that, Gartner's predictions obviously always favor the entitiy paying for the reports. Gartner is as trustworthy as any cheap tabloid magazine.

"he held senior product leadership roles at AT&T" - Ah, that explains the obvious bias. InformationWeek should have lead with that statement at the beginning of the article. Would have been much easier to dismiss this campaign piece as the fluff it really is.
Brian.Dean
50%
50%
Brian.Dean,
User Rank: Ninja
10/3/2014 | 6:13:52 AM
Re: Lost me at...
Agreed, that is the core debate. I feel the consumer is not concerned with the type of internet to which they are connected. They are only concerned that the internet works. And different consumers expect different things (packets) from the internet. These packets have an economic value that consumers create in aggregate.

If the internet is of the late 1990s timeframe, then mostly FTP packets consisted in the internet. There is only a certain level of value that a consumer can extract from FTP packets and they pay for it accordingly. From the consumer's perspective, if SIP is added then the value of the internet increases. If the goal of connectivity is to gain cloud resources, then again value increases, and so forth. 

Normally, as value is added to a service, consumers pay extra for the service. If the service is an enabler of productivity, then it is an important service. 
Brian.Dean
50%
50%
Brian.Dean,
User Rank: Ninja
10/3/2014 | 5:27:18 AM
Re: This opinion piece is wrong on so many levels
This is a technical issue and assumptions are needed to be made before a right decision can be formulated. Assumptions for example, mobile and fixed connections are different from the consumer's perspective, yes it is currently because data costs differently on mobile vs. fixed, but if mobile technologies advance and mobile data becomes cheaper or at par with fixed data, the opposite will be true.

If mobile data technology does not advance, the cost of mobile data can still drop due to economies of scale -- mobile devices are growing in sales and this will cause the consumer base to continue expanding.

Why will a carrier charge $10 extra per connection by limiting data flow in a consumer base of let's say 100 consumers, when it can earn more by allowing traffic to flow efficiently and expand it consumer base by 10%?
Midnight
50%
50%
Midnight,
User Rank: Strategist
10/3/2014 | 1:04:39 AM
Re: This opinion piece is wrong on so many levels
Ron... Ya' nailed it. This is an official 'What he said' salute to you.
Somedude8
50%
50%
Somedude8,
User Rank: Ninja
10/2/2014 | 10:59:17 AM
Lost me at...
This "At the heart of the debate is whether people (or businesses) should be able to pay for data traffic prioritization. "

Should have been "... should HAVE to pay..."
anon0597103255
100%
0%
anon0597103255,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/2/2014 | 10:51:51 AM
Well, that's one opinion
This is a technical issue that has gotten mired in our lack of trust in providers, in particular large providers, and really specifically AT&T and Comcast.  At the root, consumers reasonably expect businesses to operate consistently.  Since consumers have been treated badly before, it's reasonable to assume that anything that AT&T lobbies heavily for is not in our interest.

The opinion stated does not take into account the fact that people signed contracts with AT&T for "unlimited service", contracts that AT&T no longer feels obligated to service.  If that same person tried to slip out of their obligations of the contract, AT&T would howl!  I agree that it was naive to write a contract for unlimited service, but they are grown-ups and they employ a cadre of lawyers and they don't exhibit sympathy toward others, so why should they expect sympathy?

Finally, I'm not clear on how Netflix, for instance, is taking advantage of anything.  I pay for my service, Netflix pays for theirs, so why is there a new invented charge that has to come in the middle?

From a technical perspective, I'd be fine if the FCC allowed carriers to charge to honor DSCP (the way MPLS contracts are written), but I don't think that the carriers should be able to elect how traffic is marked.
herickson482
100%
0%
herickson482,
User Rank: Strategist
10/2/2014 | 10:35:47 AM
Why was this editorial promoted in your email newsletter?
If this is a paid adverisement, it should state that up front.  This is an opinion piece that contains a very dangerous slanting which conveniently ignores most of the current facts about current internet and bandwidth dynamics.  As a previous commentor indicates, the pay to play model is already in place at both the provider and end user points.  I can choose how much bandwidth I want to pay for in both personal and business settings right now, and providers do the same.  Adding an additional layer of 'premium' bandwidth payment structure is adding 'protection' to the network model, or legalizing thuggery.  In a capitalistic society that total degree of monopoly will always be strived for, but cannot be allowed legitimacy.

This magazine is setting a dangerous precedent when it allows opinions to be publicized as 'journalism'.  If this is truly an open place for opinion, let me know where to send my counter argument to this 'article' for equal exposure in your enewsletter.
CarlW
100%
0%
CarlW,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/2/2014 | 10:19:01 AM
Doltish
I am wondering why Mr. Zarrehparvar would call people with opinions differing from his stupid--the definition of "dolt"--and then expect them to read the rest of his commentary. Or, perhaps, it was only meant for people who agree with him. In any case, it's not a good approach.
Page 1 / 2   >   >>


The State of IT & Cybersecurity Operations 2020
The State of IT & Cybersecurity Operations 2020
Download this report from InformationWeek, in partnership with Dark Reading, to learn more about how today's IT operations teams work with cybersecurity operations, what technologies they are using, and how they communicate and share responsibility--or create risk by failing to do so. Get it now!
Slideshows
10 Cyberattacks on the Rise During the Pandemic
Cynthia Harvey, Freelance Journalist, InformationWeek,  6/24/2020
News
IT Trade Shows Go Virtual: Your 2020 List of Events
Jessica Davis, Senior Editor, Enterprise Apps,  5/29/2020
Commentary
Study: Cloud Migration Gaining Momentum
John Edwards, Technology Journalist & Author,  6/22/2020
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
Video
Current Issue
Key to Cloud Success: The Right Management
This IT Trend highlights some of the steps IT teams can take to keep their cloud environments running in a safe, efficient manner.
White Papers
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Sponsored Live Streaming Video
Everything You've Been Told About Mobility Is Wrong
Attend this video symposium with Sean Wisdom, Global Director of Mobility Solutions, and learn about how you can harness powerful new products to mobilize your business potential.
Sponsored Video
Flash Poll