Re: [httpstreaming] [conex] [dispatch] Q-HTTP

Ben Niven-Jenkins <> Tue, 16 November 2010 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36BC03A6DBF; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 08:59:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.672
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.672 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.073, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9eu-G7dTo0Fe; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 08:59:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E2C33A6DBD; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 08:59:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([] by with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <>) id 1PIOtB-0003xX-9Z; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 17:00:13 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 17:00:12 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <01d801cb8083$8ca250f0$a5e6f2d0$> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <002a01cb81e1$40e58740$c2b095c0$@com> <alpine.DEB.1.10.1011112150370.2639@uplift.sw>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544
X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912
Cc: httpstreaming <>,
Subject: Re: [httpstreaming] [conex] [dispatch] Q-HTTP
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network based HTTP Streaming discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:59:31 -0000


On 11 Nov 2010, at 20:57, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Toby Moncaster wrote:
>> There is also the issue of fair allocation of upgrades. Obviously if an ISP spends a lot of money on increasing their backhaul then this money has to come from the customers. However as things stand the 20% of customers grabbing 80% of the network will also grab 80% of this increased capacity, so they are being even more heavily cross-subsidised. Clearly cross-subsidy is always going to happen to an extent so long as you have flat fees for access (even if you put in tiered fees, there is still cross-subsidy). But this should not be excessive else customers suffer.
> With global transit prices in the few dollars per megabit/month, the actual bandwidth cost per user even if they averaged 1 megabit/s/user at peak, is still not a major cost for the service which usually is in the several tens of dollars per month.

Please cite evidence to support this assertion. At least for the ISPs I have worked with & for the margins are pretty thin and while Transit/Peering costs are not the largest cost they are not insignificant. We saw large scale "streaming events", e.g. day long sports event broadcast on the Internet, had significant (localised) impact to the Transit costs and if they were permanent (e.g. your average 1 Mbps / user at peak time) they would have made a significant impact to the bottom-line.