 
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden |  Common Sense!
This goes against "common sense" on the internet.
-Tzale | |
|
spewak
R.I.P Dadkins
Premium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA | Trifecta to show... Anti-trust to place...
Greed & envy over Google's near term $600. a share to win!
--
The weekend is here, grab a can of beer! | |
|
liquidnw
join:2005-06-05
Bronx, NY
| Why this is happening What is see is these telcos seeing the voip is taking off at levels they never thought would happen. Since they can't block it altogether this is the next best thing. I really hope google isn't really negotiating with them because it will really set a bad precedent. WHats next? will broadcasters have to pay more if they want better picture quality. The can shove there fiber if certain sites video or downloads from other sources are lower quality. Anyone with vonage,akimbo,windows media center pcs,etc will be jumping straight to cable. | |
|
xdeadhead
220, 221, Whatever It Takes.
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Mechanicsburg, PA
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Comcast
2 edits | article should have been headlined... verizon ceo wants EVERYONE to pay.
umm that would be a toll on the info $uperhighway. like he doesnt have enough ivory backscratchers. this just proves how the senior management (as well as most other managers and supervisors) are out of touch with reality and what their customers really want. ever called VOL? then you know what im talking about.
--
I am not herbert. | |
|
twofaced
| Two-Faced idea Yeah, but it sounds like a two-faced idea. On the one hand, you profit from hooking people up to the internet for content on the last mile and have significant backbone resources which you share with peering arrangements. On the other hand, you have content providers which want favorable peering for content which your customers pay that last mile to access. Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too.. now this doesn't mean that some arrangements can't be worked out for peering, but having an unfair relationship whereby you provide 100% of the fiber backbone to provide that content, or cover at least 50% of the costs of transmitting that data (on both sides) that is what network neutrality is all about (spirit of which, anyways).
NOW, with that said, if the costs are going up, then that must be managed fairly. Something can be said for google that has a stock price of $400 per share based upon speculation that backbone providers line up to provide peering relationships that hook all the way to redmond wa, or los angeles, or whatever city these companies are headquartered is ludacris. Each provider should shoulder their fair share of the burden. Otherwise what you have is a METERED interent, and back to the price/per/megabyte, etc days which means it will backfire in both companies faces.
1. You can't justfy fiber to the home if there isn't competitive (OR FREE) content available.
2. You can't horde network resources of a peering partner because your google, or microsoft, cogent, or another 1-900 dial a major coroporation on the internet, you will have to pay a bill. Sorry, just another cost of doing business, no matter who you are.
Another synical question, why does all this network neutrality always spit on my dslreports once gas prices rise?!?!? | |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| "Sit on our network?" "We have to make sure that they [application providers] don't sit on our network and chew up bandwidth,"
Ok, maybe I have too many functional brain cells to "get" this, but last I checked Google isn't sitting on AT&T's network. And if they are, then they are paying for their servers' bandwidth requirements. So Google pays for their end of the pipe and the users pay for their end. There's no one freeloading in there anywhere.
Of course, what's really going on here is that the bells see websites like Google making money and are trying to find a way to get a cut of it. (Kind of like the RIAA seeing Apple making money on iPods and wanting to get a cut.)
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com | |
|
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| Why would I need to upgrade? In my opinion, these are dumb executives. If they implement a 2 tier internet, they limit me on what I can do, then why would I need to upgrade? What would be the incentive to spend more money to upgrade to a faster speed? If my internet is going to be limited then they won't get anymore more of my money, screw em!
Now I can see why countries like Japan and South Korea puts this country to shame. Makes the Ceo's at Verizon and SBC look like morons. | |
|
Sumeet
join:2000-12-01
Chantilly, VA
| Don't be a reactionary Guys...guys calm down. First of all reading all the reaction I was taken back by knee jerk reacton of some of my friends. Calls of WTF, no freakin way, call FCC abound..... but instead one should respond to this threat calmly and with logic. We as consumers already PAY for the access to the Internet by paying the local ISP's. Google and other content providers in turn pay their ISP or if they act as their own ISP they have peering agreements with other ISP's in place. Depending on how much traffic flows in whatever direction, determines who pays who. So people and google etc should tell these people to go take a hike. If we get FCC or govt involved...guess who has most lobbyists  . Let the battle be decided in the market place rather than in congress. That is why I don't have Verizon FIOS, even though it is available | |
|
nshulga
join:2002-06-06
Morrisville, PA | Tell Verizon CEO to go hang himself I'm going to write a triple nasty letter to that speedbump. | |
|
looser
join:2001-02-04
La Mesa, CA
| The future This is a prelude for INTERNET2, they are just getting there feet wet. What, they don't read these forums "ya right", this is the future and always has been, they just want to see our reaction. Man I wish I could get to this thread 3-6 yrs from now and prove I'm right on this. But what does suc I was right about Texas last night, but that is a whole other subject. | |
|
Admiral Stockdale
@verizon.ne
| Completely off-topic question Ok, I've been reading DSLR for years and seen the image many times before. I've never asked until now, but I'm really curious: what the heck does the image associated with this story represent? It looks like a leaf-blower with an erection or something. What the heck is that thing???
(In case you're unsure what I'm talking about, I'm referring to this: »i.dslr.net/urls/93/1993.gif) | |
|
 |
Admiral Stockdale
@verizon.ne
| Re: Completely off-topic question Hmmmm, no responses so I guess nobody else knows what the hell that thing is either. Oh, well, I still don't know what it is but at least I know I'm not alone in being confused by the image »i.dslr.net/urls/93/1993.gif | |
|
| | |
taar
join:2000-11-21 | Google, buy Verizon and fire that asswipe Yep, thats the way to go. | |
|
ssj4android
Redefining Reality
join:2002-04-14
Wyoming, MI | "one of three or four [companies]" Yipee for monopolies.... | |
|
djdanska
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Glen Ellyn, IL
clubs: | Just disconnect them.. Have Google disconnect verizon.. See how fast verizon will lose subscribers to a different provider that has google. | |
|
TechSponge
join:2001-05-14
Hillside, NJ
| PLEASE FCC...Next Xmas wish list .... 1) Strip these arrogant/Ignorant Aholes of their last mile infrastructure so we can get to a fair and level competetive services playing field.
2) A real fair and effective Telecom act rewrite with the interest of the consumer at the forefront.
3) lumps of coal for the lobbying, scumbaggy, criminals currently in charge of the mono/duo/tri-opolies
4) etc etc etc. It gets brutal here...so I will spare yas all. | |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| Then verizon should pay... ...for the right to serve Google's copyrighted content to their consumers. No content = no consumers...it's really not that hard Verizon. Cable providers have to pay programmers to distribute their content...if VZ wants to play this game...it can go both ways.
--
WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, except ending slavery, facism, communism, Nazism.... | |
|
csspaa
join:2004-12-08
Belleville, MI | Verizon Said Verizon said they wanted to future proof there network. I guess there future didn't include Google. | |
|
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ | Google should play hardball Google (and MSN, and Yahoo, and AOL) should stop taking traffic from Verizon customers and let them know the reason.
Market forces will resolve the issue very quickly. | |
|
downeastboi
join:2005-07-28
Beaufort, NC
| All I have to say is... ...AHHHHH....what in the world are these execs thinking. Let me ask you guys a question. How much bandwidth does it take for the end user to do a search on Google? If there are any venture capitalists reading this, send me a PM because I have an idea for you. | |
|
|
ssj4android
Redefining Reality
join:2002-04-14
Wyoming, MI | Re: All I have to say is... They mentioned a new Google video service. | |
|
travelguy
join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM
| Telco Mentality This is classic telco mentality, same as the cell phone companies: They want to charge for both sides of a connection. Just like they charge both sides of a phone call (wired or wireless), they really, really want to charge both sides of an internet connection.
The cable guys will go along with it, because they do the same thing: Charge the cable subscriber, and either charge the channel, or insert their own advertising. | |
|
|
|
|
