Freeloaders Are Not The Issue
from the can-we-stop-talking-about-it? dept
In the continuing annoying debate on net neutrality, one thing that the telco supporters keep bringing up is the idea that breaking net neutrality is needed to stop "freeloaders" from using up all the available bandwidth and choking off the network for everyone else. Of course, generally speaking, none of the people or companies described as "freeloaders" actually are freeloaders. They're all paying for the bandwidth they use. If part of the problem is that the telcos gave them too much bandwidth for the price, that's a telco pricing problem -- not a net neutrality one. No one is saying that connectivity can't be priced on usage. However, Tom Evslin, in his continuing series of smart thoughts on network neutrality, is now explaining why so-called freeloaders are not the problem in network congestion. He knows what he's talking about, as he started AT&T's WorldNet ISP to compete with AOL many years ago. It's an interesting read that pokes a lot of holes in the claims from telco backers that somehow these freeloaders using BitTorrent are going to kill the internet. Instead, those people are helping the network operator, spreading content out during off-peak times, making the network much more valuable to users, and bringing content closer to the various endpoints. Update: Meanwhile, along similar lines, rajesh points us to this blog post from someone at Global Crossing explaining how the numbers BellSouth is giving out about just how expensive it will be to offer IPTV are totally wrong. The baby bells lying about their actual costs? What a surprise.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
First Post!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hate
/bangs head on desk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it's going to be based on usage, then at least it should be based on UPLOAD bandwidth used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Telcos should be restrained from selling content. Period. They should be able to make billions from selling bandwidth, but not compete with the people providing content on that bandwidth. It's pretty simple, really. I don't want AT&T in the movie business, and I don't want Touchstone Pictures laying cable.
What, they don't make enough money being in the telecommunications business? Is there any limit to the rapaciousness of corporations? Who out there believes that a completely unrestricted marketplace is healthy us as a society or for us as individuals?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People's Network
Unrestricted marketplace? You're a total hypocrit ya know that? You just said you don't want AT&T in the movie industry or Touchstone laying cable. That would be an unrestricted marketplace.
It's really the free market that's helping to create monopolies and oligopolies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would it be possible to run an open source backbone network from donations? Basically anybody would be able to connect for free. However donations would be strongly encouraged. This would certainly begin to create some serious competition for the current giants.
Of course... I'm sure nobody will ever try this as it's totally insane to think people would pay when they don't have to right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: People's Network
You need to read his post again.
Whenever these tech-regulation issues come up, I always advocate letting the various factions fight it out through software before getting the government involved. There's somethiing gladatorial about it....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: People's Network
You missed Pope Ratzo's point. He is saying that a completely unrestricted marketplace is not good.
There need to be some restrictions to try and keep the playing field level for all players. The telcos should not be able to charge for bandwidth that is already being paid for by websites through their ISPs. If the telcos want to offer additional and/or guaranteed bandwidth levels for an additional fee, without affecting any other website or service, that is completely different.
The telcos do not seem to like that idea, though. They want to be able to charge some websites extra, just because they can. That would be similar to Exxon charging you an additional fee for gas just because you drive a Hummer. If you don't pay the extra fee for your gas, you may not be able to pump all the gas you need because Exxon has decided that your gas intake restricted to five gallons or less per trip to the pump until you pay the fee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freeloaders?
Why in hell cannot anyone do anything about that?
Spammers should be fined heavily and or jailed, virus/trojan initiators should get the death penalty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no such thing as a level playing field.
Answer me this, everyone bitches about America being behind in terms of broadband connections. Why the hell would Verizon run Fiber to the home at a cost of $800 only to have customers only pay $20 for monthly data service? Where is the ROI in that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And let's not forget the fact that Version (in particular, although they're not the only one) accepted BILLIONS of dollars from various government entities as part of a contract to lay fiber to the premises that was supposed to be complete by the end of 2006...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I already pay more for the bandwidth...
As for the level playing field bit, it sounds like the problem is a telco selling movies competing with other movie providers who have to pay that telco extra for the bandwidth. Makes it harder to compete with the telco. And as I said above, the extra bandwidth is already being paid for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, if Verizon goes to Google and says if you pay us money, we will deliver your content to our customers at a higher rate than they currently pay for, we will let you do that.
Nothing wrong with that, is there? Its all just a matter of who you give your money to. Nothing is free, the consumer will pay for it, one way or another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freeloading...
Besides if you REALLY wanted to freeload you could poach wireless off some unknowing coffeeshop or your neighbor. (not that I'd ever do that :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that just made my day
thanks man. that comment just was perfect. honestly, how are people so retarded?
"that comes from the govt...that isn't exactly the same as giving them taxpayer dollars"
wow. public education was one of the most detrimental legislations of all time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Telcos charging extra?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Utterly ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]