Telecom Trends

So if I understand correctly, we are supposed to feel for the unfortunate ISP's who had to actually provide the bandwidth that their users paid for?
 

I'm not suggesting that anyone should consider ISPs unfortunate.

However, you're naive if you think that ISPs have priced residential broadband in a manner that allows a sustainable business if every user is continuously consuming the full capacity of their connection around the clock.

I plan to write more about this on Monday. In the meantime, you may want to look at The Tragedy of the Commons.
 

No, I'm not naive. I would suggest that Rogers knows exactly when and how much the typical client will consume. Further, they know exactly the costs associated with providing the infrastructure and bandwidth to support this demand, with, one would hope, built-in capacity to cope with unanticipated traffic spikes. They then price their various plans such that they maintain their margins to match the required rate of return.

Rogers willingly entered into these contracts with consumers that provide for discrete blocks of bandwidth consumption. The success of Microsoft in creating a product that utilizes the Rogers infrastructure (or Google, Yahoo, Amazon, Skpye, etc.) is irrelevant to the discussion. Rogers is paid for the bandwidth consumed. It is paid by the consumer at terms that Rogers set forth. Rogers personnel complaining about the fact that their revenues are unaffected by the success of Microsoft is disingenuous. Rogers' customers are paying for the product they offer, at their terms.

I also do not agree with what appears to be your assertion that the Rogers network represents a common. The "Tragedy of the Commons" refers to unregulated resources. Rogers' bandwidth provisioning to its customers is completely regulated. If customers exceed bandwidth consumption limitations, they are expelled, per contract, from the network. Furthermore, there are many technological solutions to scarcity in data bandwidth. Need more bandwidth? Update the infrastructure. Cost too much? Charge more. Clients will either pay or leave. Either way, Rogers can regulate its consumable. Which , by the way, they seem to believe they have plenty of...

Cable and Telecom believes that the 860 MHz FTTF architecture
provides sufficient bandwidth for foreseeable growth in television,
data, voice and other future services, extremely high picture quality,
advanced two-way capability and network reliability. This architecture
also allows for other emerging technologies such as switched
video and MPEG4, and offers the ability to continue to expand service
offerings on the existing infrastructure. In addition, Cable and
Telecom’s clustered network of cable systems served by regional
head-ends facilitates its ability to rapidly introduce new services
to large areas of subscribers. In new construction projects in major
urban areas, Cable and Telecom is now deploying a cable network
architecture commonly referred to as fibre-to-the-curb (“FTTC”). This
architecture provides improved reliability due to fewer active network
devices being deployed. FTTC also provides greater capacity for
future narrowcast services.

This came from Rogers' 2006 annual report.

I look forward to your thoughts on Monday.
 

By the way, I recognize that I was picking on Rogers specifically. They just seemed the logical choice for the bullseye since they provide my bandwidth!
 

As it turns out, gaming is an application that is very demanding on ISPs. Like voice, gaming is not tolerant of latency. On the other hand, other applications can accommodate 200 msec of delay.

The impact of Halo 3 was to have ISPs respond by adding network capabilities to help customers enjoy a more satisfactory experience.

It is a balance of interests.