how-to block ads
|
Comments on news posted 2005-12-01 10:35:55: According to the Washington Post, a BellSouth executive yesterday told reporters and analysts that the telco should be able to charge certain websites more if they wish to be accessed by customers more quickly. ..
| |
 johnh123
join:2002-11-19
Chicago, IL
| i'm all for this I think many people fail to understand what is going on here. For example, my cable company gives me 10 megs down. Essentially all traffic is treated equally within that pipe. I can sign up with vonage and get my phone service within that pipe- so it is sharing that bandwidth with anything else I might be doing using that 10 megs. I can also sign up to get voip with my cable company- the difference is that they have a segregated pipe for voip- so I can use their voip and still get the full 10 megs.
They are doing this today- Comcast is, RCN is, and i'm sure there are others. SBC and BS are just saying that they are going to do the same thing- with the added twist that they are going to allow other companies to pay to be added to this 'other' pipe.
If google chooses not to pay, then they are in exactly the same situation that they are in today. There really is nothing wrong with what they are proposing. | |
| 
yacman
@shawcable.net
| is this how it works? now ----
there are various speeds and bandwith i can now subscribe to.
i pay a fee for that subscription. i use the available bandwith for what I choose.
the content i choose is hosted by someone. they pay their isp for their speed and bandwidth.
if they get what they want----
my isp as described above will charge the content owner a fee because that data has to travel over their network?
is that not why i am paying the isp? if i want that data faster/more bandwidth, don't i have to pay for a faster/bigger conection?. will the costs accured by the content i want be passed on to the user?.
my solution----
let them do what they want. as users of the telcos are hit with extra costs from google, yahoo or whoever, they will leave to companies who do not charge the content providers.
there is NO chance that all isps will do this all at the same time.(i would'nt be suprised to see some compeditors use this as ammo.) the telcos would then have to basically aquire new subs at a rate of 2 new iptv users for every lost inet customer.( the majority of tv subs are BASIC's. where i live inet costs around $40 - after all promotions , while basic cable costs between $20 -25 ). not to mention the cost of the set top boxes, the manpower involved installing them, system upgrades, ect.
in my opinion, this will be the proverbial biting the hand that feeds you. | |
| jdir
join:2001-05-04
Santa Clara, CA
| it's call QOS I think the "Bell head" wants to sell QOS over IP - wait, are the "BELL" convert their network to IP or are they still stuck in ATM, where real time feature like QOS is easily provided at a cost (of course)
Yeah, that's one thing wrong with the "Bell head", any features is an extra cost. | |
| | | |
|
