Jafo232
You Can't Spell Democrat Without Rat.
Premium
join:2002-10-17
Boonville, NY
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Ok..
Whenever a company like this says "beneficial to customers", you have to be worried. That is usually a code for "We are about to screw the customer when he/she is not looking"..
--
Design, Hosting, Programming At MediaFlavor.com. |
|
valuepac0
join:2001-05-30
Santa Monica, CA | Where my fiber to the curb... |
|
pumpkinhead7
join:2002-06-14
Fairmont, WV | This is stupid
ISP's need to realise that they are an onramp to the information highway. No more and no less. Does mcdonalds pay more to the gov since we use the roads to get there?
I'll just add att to the ever growing list of companies i am boycotting. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| WRONG!!
This "arrangement" they are talking about is ONLY beneficial to them. It gives absolutely zero added value to the other parties. AT&T (or rather SBC) just wants to double dip companies that are making more than they are. Companies already pay for the bandwidth they use so there is nothing there are no free rides that SBC might like us to think is happening. Customers are already paying for the bandwidth also so in theory these Bells are already getting money from both ends.
If you ask me going multi-tier is likened to extortion, and should be treated as such by the courts... considering how little the FCC seems to mind about such tactics. |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
 ·AT&T Southwest
4 edits | reply to valuepac0
Re: Ok..
Great...by this logic AT&T should share some of their extra profits thus obtained with the local electric companies -- without whom they could not function as well (or maybe a 2 tier electricity grid...)
AT&T is damm lucky that Google is out-there -- inducing us to rent DSL lines -- at no cost to AT&T! This plan is blantantly anti-competitive unless they also charge their YAHOO partners as well. |
|
freethenet
@shawcable.net | Gov't watchdogs are needed
This is DEFINITELY something the FCC or some other powerful gov't watchdog needs to get involved in. Someone has to keep an eye on these buffons! |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | hmmmmm....
this is just one of the reasons why we are lagging behind other countries in affordable high speed broadband....
--
BlooMe |
|
deadzoned
Premium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA | Well Damn
The begining of the end in progress... |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| They WILL Have to Block Access To Make This Work
If customers don't notice the hobbled access to websites like Google, Yahoo, or worsened performance with VoIP providers, then those providers won't be inclined to pay the extortion fee to access AT&T's victims customers.
The only way content providers would be in any way forced to pay such fees would be for AT&T to block their customers from accessing these sites. Of course, this doesn't stop AT&T's customers from switching ISPs.
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! |
|
deadzoned
Premium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA | ??
How will this even work? Seems like a pretty major task to undertake. I suppose that big money will do anything it takes to make more money. |
|
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
 ·VOIPo
| I like this part...
“However, the reality is that business models are changing and I think there are opportunities..."
Yeah, opportunities for you to screw everyone over more and line your already filthy rich pockets you scum bag!!!
--
FWD#: 223611 |
|
verolom
join:2002-03-23
Eagleville, PA
·Comcast
| Blah
This is the SBC part of the new company talking. The former AT&T as a CLEC and LD provider used to scream "bloody murder" at the access fees the ILECs (incl. SBC) were charging for completing calls on both legs, sometimes exceeding the 7 cents it was getting from the consumer.
In short, this is ridiculous and a reason why we need a functional and impartial FCC. |
|
XBL2009
------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL | Greedy Bastards
They already make Billions per year in profit and charge us for the service and now they want to charge the places were going as well.
If I were Google and Microsoft I would object to this. |
|
fegul
Premium
join:2004-08-23
united state
| Wait a minute...
So they are threatening to throttle connections to google because their customers like it so much?
Why dont they threaten Yahoo?
Or maybe Newegg?
Or maybe AskJeeves?
Or maybe DSLreports??
Or maybe it could eventually get down to charging me not only for my hosting provider, but every damn person that visits my site?
Fsck that.
--
|Networking Help|My Blog|Fegul.com| |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
|  reply to Jafo232
Here is the reality and not the fantasy
It is really a simple idea:
AT&T besides being a distributor of content is ALSO going to be a provider of content.
And when they are the provider, they are going to make sure that content is delivered with the BEST quality of service possible. Even if they have to spend extra money on infrastructure to make that possible.
And other providers will get the standard old best effort internet non-optimized delivery vehicle. UNLESS ... they also pay extra to get on the optimized path too.
It is a purely economic decision to spend their investment dollars to enhance their own ROI. If government steps in and tries to forbid the so-called 2 tier system, then 1 of 2 things would happen:
1) the ISPs will not spend their money to upgrade infrastructure to handle the new products(video, etc.) at all. So everyone suffers. OR
2) the ISPs will upgrade the infrastructure to support all comers and the PRICE to their customers goes up accordingly.
The option everyone wants can NOT happen. And that is an enhanced infrastructure paid for only by the ISPs with no increase in costs to the customer. Investors of the ISPs will not support that option.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page |
|
DrewCapu
Giant Diehard
join:2001-12-19
California
clubs:
| reply to fegul
Re: Wait a minute...
said by fegul  :Or maybe DSLreports?? Because it could possibly affect »/forum/sbcdirect |
|
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ | No Google for AT&T customers
Google should stop providing service to AT&T customers.
I suspect that AT&T will STFU very quickly. |
|
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Here is the reality and not the fantasy
AT&T besides being a distributor of content is ALSO going to be a provider of content.
And when they are the provider, they are going to make sure that content is delivered with the BEST quality of service possible. Even if they have to spend extra money on infrastructure to make that possible.
And other providers will get the standard old best effort internet non-optimized delivery vehicle. UNLESS ... they also pay extra to get on the optimized path too.
Maybe you should tell the AT&T CEO about your plan, because he didn't specify any "non-optimized" outlet for google. He said "since people use our bandwidth for you instead of us because you have a superior service, we'd like to charge you money rather than beat your service."
And can you explain the engineering behind such "optimized" information delivery. Whatever would that mean? |
|
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| reply to ronpin
Re: Ok..
said by ronpin :Great...by this logic AT&T should share some of their extra profits thus obtained with the local electric companies -- without whom they could not function as well (or maybe a 2 tier electricity grid...) Bad example. You pay for how much electricity you use by the watt. You pay a flat fee for internet access, regardless of how much you use it. |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Here is the reality and not the fantasy
said by TKJunkMail :...Even if they have to spend extra money on infrastructure to make that possible. ...No
AT&T must upgrade their infrastructure anyway -- just to survive against the cable companies. Nobody will be using DSL for any purpose at-all unless it's upgraded to compete with DOCSIS3.
I'll definitely switch to a cable provider if AT&T does something this stupid (they've already waited too long for FTTP) |
|
