Is Verizon a Network Hog? 310
pillageplunder wrote to mention a piece in BusinessWeek asking whether or not Verizon has the right to set aside bandwidth for its own projects. They're planning a television service, and have allocated a swath of their bandwidth (which could otherwise be used for net and phone traffic) to back this service. From the article: "Leading Net companies say that Verizon's actions could keep some rivals off the road. As consumers try to search Google, buy books on Amazon.com, or watch videos on Yahoo!, they'll all be trying to squeeze into the leftover lanes on Verizon's network. On Feb. 7 the Net companies plan to take their complaints about Verizon's plans to the Senate during a hearing on telecom reform."
Verizon's recent purchase makes this subject moot. (Score:5, Interesting)
They Paid For It (Score:4, Interesting)
If it's their network... (Score:5, Interesting)
Keeping promised bandwidth (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure than can - provided they keep speeds up (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm supposed to get 768/128 throughput. I actually get more like 640/100 with my Verizon DSL. If Verizon can't maintain something close to this even with their pipe-grab, then I would simply switch to broadband from 1 or 2 of the other options available.
If it's a matter of shared phone lines and other DSL providers being choked out too, then that's a good reason to go with cable or over-air altogether.
Re:Verizon's recent purchase makes this subject mo (Score:3, Interesting)
(1) Pay-to-play - ISP's charging content providers so that traffic to and from their site is not delayed (Internetwork traffic)
(2) QoS - ISPs doing QoS to reserve bandwidth for specific applications they themselves offer their own customers (Intranetwork traffic)
- Tony
Don't Cable companies do the same? (Score:2, Interesting)
Hog? In what sense? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd like to say that more of the laid fiber is lit, but most of it is just plain dark. So long as we're only using a small fraction of the capacity of the medium already in place, what does it matter how much they use? They pay for it, they light it up, they can use it. If there's more demand, light up some more fiber.
Dont they own their network (Score:2, Interesting)
Verizon networks - built with Google's money? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yes, they do (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't an issue of what they're allowed to do (legally) with their network. It's theirs, and they can do what they want with the parts they control, as far as prioritizing traffic.
The interesting issue is exactly how much Verizon thinks it can get away with before they start irritating customers. It's not like it'll be hushed up, and it's not as if people won't explain exactly why it's a bad idea.
30 percent is a lot (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:They Paid For It (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Verizon's recent purchase makes this subject mo (Score:5, Interesting)
This would put any video on demand service that Google may (will) have at a severe disadvantage.
Even if a gob more dark fiber is available for all these pipes, it costs serious amounts of money to light them up. Obviously if VOL can "reserve" a big portion of bandwidth on the existing links to the point where they can offer all their value-add services, they don't have an incentive to light up more fiber.
Re:They Paid For It (Score:3, Interesting)
No, they paid for the networks, the customers paid them... if the customers don't feel like they get the speed they think their money is worth, a competitor will step up and the customers will go there...
Re:They Paid For It (Score:5, Interesting)
The money from many of these fees goes directly to the phone company to "enable them" to build networks to outlying areas, improve their infrastructure, etc. These fees are basically taxes and as such we the people have been paying for their expansion.
Re:Verizon's recent purchase makes this subject mo (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, capacity is not some monolithic thing that you "have enough of" or "have too much of". Capacity is from a place to a place across a set of resources. VZ can have plenty of capacity from NY to VA but not enough peering to AS3356 (level3). Or They might have plenty of cross-country capacity until a train derails in Colorado causing a 3-4 day outage of the middle path and congesting some other paths. It all depends and the devel is in the detail.
Even using generous estimates of multicast efficiencies, video over packet (or IPTV) is going to consume a *lot* of resources. ~20-25Mb/s per channel. Right now, virtually no one has "enough capacity" for that.
Re:If it's their network... (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's play devil's advocate. It is their network, why shouldn't they be able to do with it what they want? I mean we hear the I own the software I should be able to do anything I want with it all the time. How is this any different?
OK, here are a few differences. Does the government grant you a localized monopoly on using the software, enforced by federal agents? Does the government grant you immunity from prosecution for anything you do on behalf of your customers using your software in exchange for you not using your software in the proscribed way? Finally, did the government subsidize the creation of your software and facilitate its construction by seizing land and right of ways via immanent domain?
If you can answer "yes" to all of these, then I think the government should have a say in how you use your software.
Re:Verizon networks - built with Google's money? (Score:3, Interesting)
Frankly the solution to this problem is to separate service from physical infrastructure - another anti-trust breakup. Have the local ILEC ONLY provide the wires / buildings and have third party service providers do everything else. True competition. Today, the ILEC's can charge customers less for full DSL service than other DSL providers are charged for the lines alone.
Re:They Paid For It (Score:2, Interesting)
Will they, though? Will they really? The other day, here on Slashdot, some guy was flipping out at me about how terrible Steam was because "bandwidth isn't free" and "what if you use up your bandwidth for the month?"
So, this is someone in a country developed enough that he can get modern video games, and yet the best internet service he can find has both a monthly bandwidth limit and charges by usage. I find it difficult to believe that consumers are so happy with this arrangement that there's no point in someone setting up a competing service. So your magical free market is breaking down somewhere in there.
It's working out ok where I live. The cable guys and the phone company (ADSL) compete with each other enough that you can get pretty high-speed unlimited-use internet for a decent price. It sounds to me, though, like there are other places (presumably still with a "Free Market") where nobody is stepping in to provide the services people are looking for.
..and consumers will use other connections.. (Score:3, Interesting)
The real issue is if Verizon is required to provide equal access to the local POP or not. This is a regulation issue -- is owning the copper to the home a monopoly?
Nobody is suing anyone (Score:3, Interesting)
Suing would be a stupid thing for Verizon's competitors to do.
They're taking the smarter path and trying to get the Senate to lay the smack down on Verizon.
Since you read TFA, show me where it says anything about a lawsuit.
Your comment got modded up by the standard "OMG TeH L4w5u1t5 aRe t3h 3viL" crowd.
You = Offtopic
Re:Sure than can - provided they keep speeds up (Score:3, Interesting)
You'd think so, and most often you'd be right. I did tech support for an ISP for a number of years, including DSL issues. I remember one case where a customer was right next door to the CO, but was too far away because he was at the wrong end of the loop. That's right, the loop went out and came back making him the last customer on the circuit. Don't know how it turned out, but I hope the telco was nice enough to run him a special line!
Re:Verizon's recent purchase makes this subject mo (Score:3, Interesting)
"Their" pipe? (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's see if we can apply some property rights here...
Verizon (or ANYONE) is not entitled, authorized, or any such thing to dig in MY property. Whether to lay copper, fibre, or dead bodies.
The GOVERNMENT gives the right to do so. But there are some rules. Rules that I (we) impose. If the government has allowed such action (more accurately, has FORCED it), we am entitled to some benefit:
Specifically, access to the property or service at reasonable rates, with reasonable sharing.
Of course "reasonable rates" are debatable; as is "reasonable sharing".
It's not "their" pipe -- it's "our" pipe.
When cable was rolled out, it was rolled out on the understanding that cable TV was to be provided. Was an alternate TV network contemplated when the fibre was rolled out? If it was, then ok; if not, we need a PUBLIC debate.
Nothing against Verizon (or any other public utility), but that IS the rule. And if anyone gives me a hard time about, I'll backhoe my property. Sue me already.
As a final observation: Let's get into this century, already. I don't see the sewage removal provider making a play for Gas delivery. I don't see the Gas provider (delivery only) making a play for water delivery. They kind of stick to their own turf.
But the "data" services are coallescing. Voice, TV, Internet -- its all data. Reasonably, we expect that NEW pipes would treat it the same. If you close your eyes really tight, and pull back 20 years, then, yeah, its different. Which gave rise to "Cable TV" as separate from "Phone".
Now I expect a single bundle of fibre to a home and I expect it to carry ALL the data equally. A separate "bandwidth" supplier distinct from purposing.
As an example: if you have a home heated by a Gas furnace, and a Gas BBQ, and a Gas stove, would you really expect two or three different bills? Of course not, a single bill each month suffices.
I want a single "data" bill every month, that combines "TV", "Phone", "Internet", "VOD" carrier fees. I may have a separate accounting for "VOD movies", "POTS integration", "HBO access".
I advocate complete separation of the cost of maintaining the "plumbing" and "delivering" the data from the data itself. The Gas company here (Enbridge) can do, so I expect the fibre suppliers to be able to do it as well.
Ratboy.
Re:You know what? It doesn't matter! (Score:4, Interesting)
Alright, fine -- Internet service might not be a public utility right at this moment. However, in a very short time -- maybe 5 years, or 10 at the max -- Internet access is going to be pretty much required to function as a citizen. People who "can't afford it" have no excuse, you know, because of free access at public libraries and/or free city-wide WiFi.
In five years, which will be more important: Internet service or POTS service? Hell, which is more important now? I say Internet!
Even if Internet service isn't a public utility, it damn well should be!
Except that it's not that simple! Between telecom monopolies and content monopolies, some customers may very well be forced to use Verizon. Your solution works very well in a free market, but the particular market under discussion is approximately as far away from a free market as it can possibly get.
You know, I consider myself to be libertarian, and support the least-interference solution wherever possible. This, however, is an issue of the tragedy of the commons [wikipedia.org] (which, by the way, most Libertarians ought to read [sciencemag.org], since they don't seem to understand the concept). It needs to be protected, and the only effective way to do that is -- unfortunately -- government regulation.