how-to block ads
|
Comments on news posted 2005-12-13 14:13:02: An executive for BellSouth recently argued that the telco should be able to charge companies like Google more if they wish to be accessed by customers more quickly. ..
| |
 
plk
bo may sleep in loft
Premium
join:2002-04-20
Ogden, IA
| This is as serious as it comes for the net Folks As far as I am concerned, this will destroy the Internet as we know it.
This paradigm would quickly lead to destruction for those who can't pay and a "package" for those who do. Select web sites will appear and others will crash, fail to load, and be so annoying to visit, most will stop.
This is NOTHING but a money and power grab for and by the Bells......They failed to innovate time after time. Now they are dying if they do not upgrade. But even the upgrade will leave them powerless, they will only stay in the game.
We need to nip this in the butt before it even gets off the ground. Time to start writing our reps.
--
Thermaltake 2000a/Asus P4C-e/p4 3.4/ocz3500 2x512/WD.2x200g/raptor2x74 raid 0/ATI 9600/APC sua 1500/Logitech z-680/ Samsung 213t LCD/MX 1000 | |
| | 
wwdubbia
join:2002-06-03
Clinton, NY | Re: This is as serious as it comes for the net Folks I doubt congress will endorse anything that further contributes to any sort of 'digital divide'. But who knows, stranger things have happened... | |
| 
P Ness
You'Ve Forgotten 9-11 Already
Premium
join:2001-08-29
Mineola, NY
clubs:  | GOOGLE to the rescue lol and everyone laughed when google talked about buying their own fiber backbone company | |
| | 
LinkTech
Former Linksys Tech
VIP
join:2002-07-02
Mission Viejo, CA | Re: GOOGLE to the rescue They can buy ther own backbone, its still not going to help them with the last mile. | |
| 
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
 ·Bright House
| Which came first? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? If it wasn't for the network providers, content providers like Google and Yahoo would never be in business. Then again if it weren't for the content providers why would we need an internet connection. This kind of argument has been going on for years.
I can make an argument that companies make money off of my personal info, so why can't I get a piece of the pie? | |
| 
pog
Premium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI
 ·Hawaiian Telcom
| ??? The Boston Globe article says:
The battle is largely over video services. Several major telecom companies are working on ways to deliver broadcast-quality television over the Internet. Currently, online video can be slow to download and choppy to watch, even with higher-speed Internet services.
The proposal supported by AT&T and BellSouth would allow telecommunications carriers to offer their own advanced Internet video services to their customers, while rival firms' online video offerings would be transmitted at lower speed and with poorer image quality.
AT&T and other telecoms want to charge consumers a premium fee to connect to the higher-speed Internet. The companies could also charge websites a premium to offer their video to consumers on the higher-speed Internet. That could mean that a company like Yahoo might have to pay AT&T to send high-quality video to AT&T subscribers. IOW, this is all to do with the extra capacity that'll have to be put in place to accomodate IPTV... it has nothing to do with anything else... like search engines, etc. The only effect it will have on us is, if our ISP offers IPTV, a competitor's pricing will just have to reflect a tariff of some sort.
I don't view this as any different than getting DSL from a 3rd party. The costs for the line still has to be paid to whoever owns the equipment at the CO. Why should IPTV be any different? | |
| 
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Let them be AOLs... Let them. I don't think they'll be very happy. with the results. 
And if they don't know how to prioritize their internal network traffic already.... | |
| 
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Malarchy! Doesn't the Governement (We, the Sheeple, taxpayer elect) subsidize the telcos? So any excess is then a loss and absorbed by Uncle Sam's wallet?
If telcos wnat to be profitable, they must be aborted from the Feds. But because communication IS the most important part of ANY society, the telcos created their market and control it. Pockets of the senators (ah say young man) in the south must be golden and deep.
its one thing to sell dark fiber to google. Its another to charge them for being accessed. Hmmm...sounds like a flimflam. You make money, you get taxed on the money you make. you get taxed on the remaining that you spend with. You get taxed on the money you saved and spend later. you sir, are f-d! Oh, and you even subscribed each month to get taxed! Muhahahahahaha | |
| 
CableConvert
Premium
join:2003-12-05
Atlanta, GA
| Know Your Rep in Congress!!! »www.house.gov/Welcome.shtml
Just enter your zip code at the top and it will give you all the info to write them and tell them if they even think of supporting this type legislation you will NEVER vote for them and will try to convince everyone you know to do the same | |
| |
LinkTech
Former Linksys Tech
VIP
join:2002-07-02
Mission Viejo, CA | Reverse Extortion If I was Google,Yahoo or MSN I would block all traffic from ATT and BellSouth and watch people jump ship cause they can't access their webmail or search engines. T | |
| haertig
join:2000-12-31
Broomfield, CO
1 edit | A possible solution... The problem would be solved if Google, Yahoo, etc. simply said:
"Heck no we won't pay an extorsion fee. And while we're at it, we won't serve content to your users either so long as you continue discriminatory business practices. Our corporate policy forbids us to deal with discriminatory vendors."
How many customers would these greedy ISPs retain if the above were to unfold? | |
| st7860
join:2004-05-13
San Francisco, CA | shaw shaw cable in canada already does something like this. $10/mo for a so called quality enhancement feature that is supposedly helpful with VOIP services. | |
| 
a
@rr.com | P2P is salvation? I'm a little confused as to how this would work, but from what I can understand I have to ask would this affect p2p applications being used as a substitute to centralized hosts. | |
| kmedcalf
join:2000-03-08
CANADA
| IP Transit If BellSouth does not want to provide Transit to IP Networks (source or destination) that do not pay them money (ie, purchase Transit), they are free to do so.
However, once they start limiting the Transit they provide, they will find that no one will transit their traffic either, and they will become an island unto themselves with no connectivity outside of their own little wee direct customer base.
Telco's and CableCo's are notoriously stupid and have absolutely zero idea how the Internet functions. If Bellsouth implements such a stupid policy, you can be assured that they will be out of the internet business in short order.
This is just as stupid as a certain other telco policy (Teleglobe Canada) of issuing BGP transit routes with overblown preferences so that all traffic was sucked into their crappy (slow) network so they could maintain their quid-quo-pro peerage arrangements. Unfortunately (for them, and fortunately for everyone else) this was noticed in rather short order, it became common practice to request that BGP announcements to Teleglobe be filtered. The result? Bankruptcy.
Problem solved.
Were Bellsouth to take such action I (for one) will arrange to have my networks filtered from Bellsouth transit altogether, and you can be assured that most carriers will do the same.
Since Bellsouth customers will only be able to talk to other Bellsouth customers, everyone will abandon Bellsouth. They will either "revisit" their policy, or go bankrupt.
In a free country, it is their choice. | |
|
backtothebits
@70.104.x.x
| Price per meg? wtf Telcos are slow to change from the old means of billing customers for data, and yet have to embrace it or let cablecos and clecs eat their lunch with voip or more competitive services. Another way to look at it is if they both don't deliver what the consumer wants, they BOTH LOSE BILLIONS!!
Both telco and cablecos have huge warchests of money earned in the 80's and 90s' and are now having to invest in infrastructure upgrades and implementing poorly..
Backbone providers need to begin deploying internet-2 generation fiber links for backbone services. With video, the aggregate bandwidth needs are 5x to 200x current growth patterns. Single strands need to go from 2.4gbit to 50+gigabit with new wavelengths, modulation standards etc.
Data path extortion is not a good means to finance required upgrades, finding a model to deliver next-generation services people buy is much more likely to work. More likely to happen, more dark fiber links are gonna be lit as net traffic picks up in 2006. Seems like we've gone from a broadband shortage to surplus to shortage but not from usage, from extortion and greed ultimately raising the prices of guaranteed QOS bandwidth. | |
|
Enthal
@rr.com
| Re: WTF?! Long post made slightly less long: this will kill the internet. It will completely eliminate competition and kill upstart companies. I honestly think this will have an effect on the economy because of this. Screw shooting ourselves in the foot, we might as well aim for our own throats. If this is allowed to happen, there is going to be a lot of pissed people moving to Sweden, and I might just join them. | |
| |
Flibbetigibbet
@lmco.com
| Dear BellSouth: ..|.. This is why monopolies suck.
BellSouth and all the old Bells ought to be broken up, sold off, and forced to compete. They haven't changed a bit. If they could, they'd make VOIP and cell base stations illegal, and force you to rent a black rotary phone for $15 a month. Oh, and internet service goes back to by-the-minute charges, and if you don't like it, we're the Phone Company, so there's nothing you can do about it.
It's also why I haven't had wireline service for over two years now--and I don't miss it one bit.
Nice job, BS. You used to get a check from me every month. Now you don't get squat--and you'll never get a cent from me again, you monopolist bastards. The day you go broke can't come soon enough. | |
|
alwaysanon
@mdsnwi.ameritech
| Just like old cable tv Just like when cable tv got going, the big deal was no commercials cause the subscriber/viewer pays the fee. After a while they went and added commercials back in so now both the viewer and the provider are paying, instead of the viewer only.
Why is it that people aren't used to getting double screwed like this yet? Nobody has done anything effective in the past to stop it, nor will they now... and I grow so tired of listening to ppl rag about it.
You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. Nobody is a neutral. If you pay for it and take no action to change it, then you're part of the problem. | |
| | 
ssj4android
Redefining Reality
join:2002-04-14
Wyoming, MI | Re: Just like old cable tv I think it's more like charging customers for cable access, then charging the channel providers some fee for access to the customer's TV. Think that would work? | |
| | | |
|
·
·