Comments on: P4P Missing the Bandwidth Utilization Boat http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/04/p4p-missing-the-bandwidth-utilization-boat/ A weblog dedicated to educating the community on security threats that matter Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:26:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Danny McPherson http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/04/p4p-missing-the-bandwidth-utilization-boat/#comment-100125 Danny McPherson Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:01:03 +0000 http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/04/p4p-missing-the-bandwidth-utilization-boat/#comment-100125 Good point dirtywerx.. I agree. I suspect that content management by ISPs with a P4P model (i.e., copyright, DRM, etc.. and illegal content - e.g., child exploitation) will be an issue as well, in particular given MPAA, IFPI and similarly remarks. As such, users will be reluctant to employ such systems without some economic incentive. Furthermore, I believe that peak transfer rates will increase, as client/server RTTs will be less, and this will only exacerbate the multi-access local loop contention problem. Good point dirtywerx.. I agree. I suspect that content management by ISPs with a P4P model (i.e., copyright, DRM, etc.. and illegal content - e.g., child exploitation) will be an issue as well, in particular given MPAA, IFPI and similarly remarks. As such, users will be reluctant to employ such systems without some economic incentive. Furthermore, I believe that peak transfer rates will increase, as client/server RTTs will be less, and this will only exacerbate the multi-access local loop contention problem.

]]> By: dirtywerx http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/04/p4p-missing-the-bandwidth-utilization-boat/#comment-99533 dirtywerx Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:20:09 +0000 http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/04/p4p-missing-the-bandwidth-utilization-boat/#comment-99533 One must also consider that in the residential/consumer market there are 2 basic media sets in use: 1) shared local access (cable/wireless) 2) dedicated local access (dsl/fios) In a world where competition (and survival) may depend on CAPEX differences between competitors pushing upgrades and costs to the competitors makes infinite sense. VZ has, essentially everywhere, dedicated local access (fios/dsl). The competition to VZ has mostly shared access media. For the competitors to match the rates/costs of VZ they will be, in a world of more localized p2p access/delivery, forced into more upgrades and higher infrastructure costs (more CAPEX expenditures). In the long run this p4p initiative only benefits providers with dedicated access media... it only benefits VZ. One must also consider that in the residential/consumer market there are 2 basic media sets in use:

1) shared local access (cable/wireless)
2) dedicated local access (dsl/fios)

In a world where competition (and survival) may depend on CAPEX differences between competitors pushing upgrades and costs to the competitors makes infinite sense.

VZ has, essentially everywhere, dedicated local access (fios/dsl). The competition to VZ has mostly shared access media. For the competitors to match the rates/costs of VZ they will be, in a world of more localized p2p access/delivery, forced into more upgrades and higher infrastructure costs (more CAPEX expenditures).

In the long run this p4p initiative only benefits providers with dedicated access media… it only benefits VZ.

]]>