how-to block ads
|
Comments on news posted 2006-01-05 18:28:48: Back in October, BellSouth executives ignited a firestorm by suggesting that Google and other websites (and IP services) should pay the bells for quicker access to customers. ..
| |
page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4  |
 
BBACIS
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-23
Raleigh, NC | Fiber Hey,
Verizon has to pay for all of that fiber somehow... | |
| rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| What about other utility companies? This is insane. What's next? In addition to what they charge for energy, will the gas and electric companies want a cut of business' profits because their energy enables the companies to make money?
In my opinion, this is sour grapes. If the backbone providers cannot support the network for the prices they currently charge, then they should increase their fees.
Why aren't the backbone providers going after the profits the cable companies make from broadband subscribers? Aren't cable subscribers at least half the reason the Googles and Microsofts of the world consume bandwidth? | |
| 
TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Brooklyn NYC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Content-provider association neededWhat's needed here is a content-provider association. All the big ones, Yahoo, MSN, Google, AOL, Ebay .... etc. Then just say screw-you to the telcos, or better, charge them for the privilege of allowing their customers access. CONTENT drives the net, not bandwidth!
If the Telcos insist on demanding extortion, then all the content providers can simply refuse connections from all customers of the offending company. How long will Verizon DSL last if no one can reach any internet sites worth a damn?
Seems to me, the content providers have the upper hand here, not the bandwidth providers.
Bob
--
Motor Vessel - Tamara B.
43' Long-Range Trawler
Cape Elizebeth ME.
See her Here. | |
| 
bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto
join:2001-02-10
Santa Clarita, CA
·AT&T Yahoo
1 edit |  Been there, done that...
So now the 3 stooges are going to try this. Funny how those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. They will see in short order the world does not revolve around them, and there are always alternatives to their products.
I have an idea. They can charge more once they stop outsourcing support. Bring all the jobs back here. Every single one of them. Believe me when I say the US has just as many dumbshits as India or anywhere else. This should be mandated and enforced by the FCC. If a complaint comes in that someone is talking to an agent off US soil, the telco gets smacked but good. No hearing, no due process. One day to the next. Make it hurt. A simple warning is all that's needed. Violate it once, you get it between the eyes. Twice, up the arse. Third time, the FCC comes out with some loppers and cuts your fiber. | |
| | Mutiny32
Network Security Engineer
join:2000-07-04
Lees Summit, MO
| Re: Verizon A simple solution: refuse content to netowrks that limit bandwidth to you.
All of a sudden all Verizon and SBC customers are unable to get to Google, Vonage, Skype, AIM, MSN. ISPs will have hell to pay if they try it.
That's like shooting yourself in the damn foot. | |
| ANWDREW
join:2004-01-21
Sterling, VA | I have no DSL /Fiber Thx VZ Well I don't know how this works but I have Adelphia Cable and Google is my Home Page lol. Many charges ? what ever VZ. I just dropped my lan line for Vonage... | |
| 
whfsdude
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC | Peering If anything Verizon and other ISPs should offer Google free peering on their network so Google can offer better content to their customers (like video).
If Verizon offer free peering it would be a win win for both parties. | |
| 
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL
| The argument is stupid THAT'S WHAT WE PAY WEB HOSTING FEES FOR, MORON!
Now, if they throttle down p2p, I have no problem since 99% of that's illegal file-sharing anyway.
But, think about it, if people are using Google and Gmail and never hitting their home pages (the ISPs), aren't they saving money by NOT paying for hits (bandwidth)?
If it was me, yeah, use Gmail, I don't have to pay for email storage, servers, etc. Stupid argument by the three Dumb-Bells! | |
| mmoon
join:2005-12-03
Marietta, GA
| You will watch what we show and like it! It seems to me the telco/broadband companies now see themselves as content providers. The attitudes portrayed are saying telcos push content now (AOL?). Google, Yahoo, etc. do not. It is pulled by the user thus a wanted deal. Is it becoming a 2 party system, this web of ours? (Meaning the content pushers and the paying audience.) No not yet. We still have a choice. As long as we vote by leaving those providers who try to force content on us (whenever possible) we of the paying public still have a chance. | |
| 
TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO
| Reverse the rehtoric!! These telco monopolies are 2 of the 10 most profitable companies in the world. They spend far more on lobbying than they do on R&D.
Make no mistake, the FCC will give these monopolies what they want, they have yet to stand in their way. But we have a unique opportunity to put these monopolies in a hole now, that they can't get out of. The companies they want to block have the grand position of being the most popular Internet application service companies in the world. Maybe they should take Bells' advise and start charging SBC, Verizon, and Bell South to allow the their customers to access the application providers' content at broadband speeds.
Imagine the impact it would have on the Bells' bottom line if their customers could not browse to Ebay, Amazon, iTunes, Microsoft, Google, etc without paying a premium. Those customers would switch to cable so fast Bells heads would ring.
This is what happens when you allow the Bells' to dump their DSL services far below what it costs to actually provide broadband services. They want to dump their inferior services on the market and force the real content providers to pay the difference. | |
| | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: Reverse the rehtoric!! But do the cable companies have their own backbones? I thought they were mainly in the last mile business and ultimately leverage the backbone of the telcos after the subscriber leaves their plant. | |
|
TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO
| Mmmm, Mmmm Good! You all seem to forget these bell companies have been sucking of the teat of a government subsidized local telephone monopoly for over a hundred years. They are use to being able to force companies to pay to get any kind of access to their customers over their 'pipes.'
Now they think the Internet is their pipe and they should be able to charge you whatever. Now that the Bells own huge portions of the backbone with the allowed mergers of AT&T with SBC and Worldcom/MCI/UUnet with Verizon there isn't going to be a whole lot anyone can do to keep them from putting their packet shaping equipment where ever the hell they want.
The Bells seem to forget, us ISPs and ASPs are already paying to access the Internet. Like end users, we must pay for Internet access, only we don't get T1 or greater speeds for $10-15 a month, we have to pay $400-1000 or tons more for T3s or OC-43s, etc. It is the Bells who do not pay, ASPs allow the bells customers to access their content free of charge in cases like google, ebay, etc. It costs big money to maintain networks large enough to allow the Bells' customers to grab their content at broadband speeds and it should be the Bells then that are paying the 'connection' fees for accessing the ASPs pipes.
We all sat back while the Bells' dumped their DSL services far below market value and we have reeped what we sowed. People were so worried about consumers having to pay $50 for broadband that they allowed bells predatory practices to go unchecked, now that they are quickly becoming a broadband Internet service monopoly through collusion they will eliminate the content competition as well.
Forget about low cost VoIP/phone services, forget about Independent IPTV competition. Pony up your bucks to the Bells and Cablecos and continue paying $50 a month for phone service, $50-100 for tv, and $50 for Internet (make no mistake you may pay less now, but it will go back up slowly starting in about 2 years or when fiber hits your neighborhood).
Don't like the future? Write your congressman. Quit voting the party lines and start voting out the Bell whores like McCain, Tauzin, Dingle, etc...
Vote with your dollars, turn away from the $10 DSL of Verizon and SBC and go cable or better yet find a local ISP that offers their own DSL. You may spend a little more now, but you will spend far less in the future. Already you can get $20 VoIP unlimited phone service from Independent ASPs, how long before you can get $20 cable TV? Never if the Bells have their say. | |
| Machinedoc4
join:2002-09-27
Centralia, WA
| Re: Verizon CEO Wants Google to Pay I think you guys are missing the big picture. Verizon and Bell South are baby bells. AT&T is all that is left of Ma Bell. What do you think the chances are that they would stick together on something like this? Pretty damn good I think.
Verizon is, or has just wrapped up the acquisition of MCI. Do any of you know what that means? MCI IS the backbone of the internet if I remember correctly. Isn't that why the government would not let them fail and be sold off in pieces during their bankruptcy? It is no longer about some tier 1 or 2 provider charging for access. Every provider, including cable and satellite, will have to use Verizon networks. How's that for extortion? You know it will give system preference to its relatives, the other Bells. Everyone else will have to pay up just to get close. And the government is just handing it to them? | |
| 
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27
 ·Verizon FIOS
| oh, how google bought the moon! How dare you use our network for your income! ...says the bells.
We should be making money off our network and not some company made up of young, super-smart college grads led by former university professors!...says the bells.
I think Google should gain momentum (um who's share are far more valuable than the bells combined)
and buy a bell or two. Don't you agree? | |
| 
JackRabbit456
@customer.a
| This is the stupidest stupid idea ever If all-you-can-eat fixed-price per month bandwidth ever becomes unsustainable, then the ISPs should charge customers per megabyte of bandwidth usage instead. It would work the same way as your electric bill does.
Attempting to collect fees from the content providers is as stupid as if your electric company attempted to collect fees from the companies that make the appliances in your home that use electricity. The content providers are a BOON to the ISPs because they create demand for what the ISPs are selling: bandwidth. If Verizon thinks they need more money to sustain their ISP business, then let them increase their monthly fees, or charge customers per megabyte of bandwidth usage. Then consumers can decide whether they want to stay with Verizon, or switch to a competing ISP which is cheaper. I can tell you that if my ISP (Comcast) ever cut bandwidth to any of the websites I use on a regular basis (such as Google), I would switch ISPs in a heartbeat. | |
| | 
csspaa
join:2004-12-08
Belleville, MI
1 edit | Shutter This all start because the Telcos wanted to be like the Cablecos. The Cablecos have been able to set aside bandwidth/spectrum for TV since they started offering Data. Now that we are going to an all IP based network the only way to segregate the network is at a protocol level. They had to started thinking about how to reducing shutter(Real time protocols and QoS) for IPTV and VoIP.
No one really gave it a second thought because that's is the only way it going to work, or we all might as well go back to POT's lines.
The problem arose when Skype,Vonage,and video.google.com started eyeing there peace of the pie. Network Neutrality is to important to sacrifice for corporate greed. The problem is how can you have Network Neutrality if you have to use Real time Protocol's? Now charging Google that is way over the line. | |
|
wakeupamerica
@rr.com | They Should Be Thankful ISP companies should be thankful that google and other search engines are one of the main reasons why customers want dsl. | |
|
AIRWAVESAREFREE
@vic.com
| We're paying for fixed lines The guys had better start looking into the future.
As wireless ranges get longer and longer, no ones going to need land lines anymore.
Imagine a Giant MIT Roofnet »pdos.csail.mit.edu/roofnet/doku.php
spanning hundreds of miles, with hundreds of thousands of routers all talking wirelessly. (owned by regular people)
The Internet over the next 10 years is going to change drastically, and the bastards that think they "own" it are in for a rude awakening. | |
| waiting4fios
join:2005-04-08
Howell, NJ
·Verizon FIOS
| facts being distorted The issue here is not about net neutrality and broadbandreports has distorted the facts. In reading the actual comments from the article, Verizon CEO admits that both companies rely upon and need each other. Also, the article specifically mentions setting up a parallel network in which Google (or any other content provider) could pay for access to that network. This is a simple concept, you have 1 very congested roadway where your packets arrive whenever they arrive. You build a second roadway with a toll where your packets arrive faster. There is nothing wrong with that. Right now if I wanted to get to work, I have two choices, I can take Route 9 or I can take the Garden State Parkway & NJ Turnpike. If I take Route 9 i pay nothing to use the road but it takes me 2 hours to get to work. If I take the Garden State Parkway and NJ Turnpike, I spend $3.45 on tolls but it only takes me 1 hour and 15 mins to get to work. Yes I know you all say that you already pay for Internet Access, but I also pay taxes, and my taxes cover the maintenance and access to public roads, but I pay extra to use the private roads. This is the same concept that I understood from reading the article. Verizon is open to the idea of setting up a secondary network that provides faster access, and apparently Google is open to the idea as well. Everyone here is crying foul and "write to your legislator" and Google doesn't seem to mind the idea. Why? Probably because its just as beneficial to them to have faster access to you, as it is for the ISP to provide that faster access. This has nothing to do with net neutrality because no one is talking about blocking packets from certain companies. If Google doesn't want to pay more than they don't have to pay more, its just an option. I've said it before, if the US Postal Service wants to charge me $3.00 for express delivery compared to $.40 cents for regular delivery its my option which one I want to buy. Sometimes regular mail arrives at the same time as express, but by paying for express I paid for a guarantee that my packet would arrive in a specific time frame. All negative posters as well as the misleading topic by broadbandreports are complete idiots. I stand by my comment because I'm free to say it, and YES YOU ARE FREE TO FLAME ME because I won't take it personal as everyone is entitled to their own opinion. | |
| 
DSLTech
join:2000-12-30
San Jose, CA
1 edit | The death of oversubscription In an environment where people use the internet to read news, look at pictures and check email, the amount of oversubscription that providers can do was pretty substantial.
Now that we have impending services such as highly demanding VOIP application packets, massive movie downloads and streaming TV and other high-bandwidth applications that make assumptions about the availability of bandwidth, providers--and not just ILECs, this will very heavily affect independent ISPs as well--will begin to see their large pipes(DS3s, OC3s, OC-whatevers) reaching their max with much fewer users on them.
In turn, this will cause all providers to have to spend more on not only additional circuits, faster circits, but also new equipment and ports to terminate these circuits onto.
Its no wonder they would like to see the companies benefitting from the openness of the Internet start to pay-up. This is a real problem if downloads actually do start to skyrocket.
The fact is that most infrastructure is just not prepared to handle a move to IPTV and widespread VOIP. | |
| |
C
| Re: The death of oversubscription Verizon is a corporation which is out of control and is very anti-customer. The FCC needs to step in and stop this baby bell once and for all, they are a wanta-be Ma Bell. Ivan Seidenberg, chief executive officer of Verizon Communications is the king of the fat cats. Must be Ivan doesn't feel Verizon has gotten its fair share of handouts yet this week, and is complaining to the media. Google should do NOTHING for these ISP's but compete and put them out of business.
"Why in the world would you think your (cell) phone would work in your house?" he said. "The customer has come to expect so much. They want it to work in the elevator; they want it to work in the basement."
Ivan Seidenberg, chief executive officer of Verizon Communications
»www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c···R091.DTL
I'd go with cable to just stay away from the GREED and arrogance which saddly is Verizon. | |
|
erpster
@mindspring.com
| reply I don't think it will work. People will start flooding the support phone numbers complaing that "why is google so slow?" and "Why is microsoft update taking all day?". People paying for broadband want their speed and will complain and even switch. I don't believe MS or Google will ever pay extra. | |
| | | |
|
