amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs: | gimme a break
oh poor google, with their 'cheap' servers...
like they don't already PAY to get their own bandwidth!
sick of these dweebs already... we both already pay for service! |
|
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
|  WTF?
What I don't get, and I mean REALLY don't get, is how these telco execs are confused about the fact that their customers are already paying them for the use of their network. But these are also the geniuses that think we're going to keep paying $50-$100 per month for dial tone...so nothing that comes out of the mouths of these fools surprises me anymore |
|
aaronfitz
Premium
join:2004-03-06
Cedar Rapids, IA
| reply to amungus
Re: gimme a break
Yeah, really.
If these telcos thought that the Internet didn't have a high enough profit margin for them, they shouldn't have started ISPs. If by some rediculous reason they actually try this and the cable services don't, it'll only take one sentence to convince everyone I know on DSL to get off. "AT&T is slowing down Google for you unless you give them more of your money."
--
This signature space is for sale. I need to gather as much money as I can to cover tuition  |
|
jdracer47
join:2005-10-16
Auburn, PA
| Again with this
Will this get fiber to my home any faster or will it go straight to the investor's pockets? Wait, I know the answer to that one already, I live in a rural area that won't help the bottom line so I will never see fiber.
Do the telcos realize that without the content providers there won't be any reason to have internet service? Verizon reminds me of a spoiled brat that gets their way or they throw a temper tantrum until someone sticks a pacifier in their mouth. |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| Lunchtime...
Quoth Verizon:
It is enjoying a free lunch that should, by any rational account, be the lunch of the facilities providers. Maybe, if the "facilities providers" provided worthwhile content, they'd get to enjoy the fruits of that content. As it stands, they are gorging themselves on the fruits of the labors that they do provide: the network connectivity paid for by their dial-up, broadband and peering clients.
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) |
|
kalphearion
In nomine Patri
Premium
join:2003-11-08
Denver, CO
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to jdracer47
Re: Again with this
said by jdracer47  :Will this get fiber to my home any faster or will it go straight to the investor's pockets? Wait, I know the answer to that one already, I live in a rural area that won't help the bottom line so I will never see fiber. When has any consumers money gone into improvements and upgrades? umm Never. Ya Verizon is slowly deploying Fiber, but how about the other 40 states? If anything, the telcos' should be paying US (the consumer) to even sign up for their service |
|
IanR
join:2001-03-22
Madison, NJ
| The business plan
These Telecomms people are confused as to what their business really is. So let me explain to them:
Your business is to facilitate the transfer of high speed data along a backbone between the wholesalers (like google etc and the ultimate customer who shall be called the consumer or the business user). In return for providing these high speed data services you will be financially remunerated by a competitive monthly fee charged to the consumer/business end user.
You will make your pipeline attractive to these users by dint of your reliability, speed and as many wholesale offerings as you can facilitate. Less wholesale offerings means you provide a less competitive service and your end users will cancel your service.
You too can get into the wholesale business, if you so desire, but if you selectively slow connections to other wholesalers you will lose customers. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to kapil
Re: WTF?
said by kapil :What I don't get, and I mean REALLY don't get, is how these telco execs are confused about the fact that their customers are already paying them for the use of their network. What they (the telco execs) are saying, is that they want to have their own toll road on the information superhighway. They want to "upgrade" their networks and have someone else pay for it. People can cry all they want about having a separate highway but this is all about who is going to pay for the upgrade. Soon, the older network will be retired in favor of better methods of delivery and there will not be 2 "physical" tiers.
We will all suffer in the end for this. No more 3rd party choices since the telcos do not want competition. The ONLY way for this system to be beaten is for EVERYONE to come together and tell ATT, Verizon, and everyone else that we (content providers) will not pay and let the consumers know what is going on. |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| Wah Wah Wah...
Cry me a river. You have your monopoly, and now you want to rape the customer even more? Does your greed know no limits. As the other posters said, you dubmass executives REALLY DON'T GET IT. Do you even KNOW what you sell?
You sell internet connectivity, you don't sell Verizon or SBC internet connectivity. You move packets from point A to point B. Period. If you aren't making enough money, then raise your rates! Is that so hard to understand.. Oh, wait, by the way, if you raise your rates too much, I, the customer, am going to demand a refund for the 100 BILLION+ in subsidies I provided you over the years to build your network. You see, we only provided you with those subsidies (right of way, guaranteed profits, etc) over the last 50 years to ensure that everyone got service. If you are deciding to use the same telephone poles for a new service, that's ok too. But only if you play by the same rules that applied when we first gave you access to the poles.
Keep talking dumbasses. Congress is-a-changin in November, and you're going to have to buy a whole new slate of politicians.
--
Sure the internet has lots of porn and piracy, but I'm sure there's a downside to it. |
|
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27 | Collusion? Price fixing?
Doesn't this violate some commerce laws? Intra and interstate?
Any trade lawyers here?
I'm beginning to smell Ma Bell has returned... deregulated my hiney!
|
|
millerja01a
join:2005-10-03
Montgomery Village, MD
|  Ohh My God...
The day is dawning where the Internet will be TOLLED!!! I'm at a loss for words!!!! How can these ISP's even think about this silliness!! I mean Google is a service provider and yes they are doing very well. That's CAPITIALISM!!!! Ain't that why we love the U.S. of A. anyway?!
These ISP need to be very very carefull. Customer backlash will be strong and wide. Anyone who isn't doing this silliness will experience huge growth.
And any lawmaker who supports this won't get me vote thats for sure. |
|
sirozha
join:2001-11-18
Kennesaw, GA
| Google can fight back!
All Google needs to do is to threaten to block these ISPs' IP addresses in retaliation, thus denying them service. If my ISP were blocked by Google, I would switch in no time because Google is the most valuable service on the Internet for me. The ISPs have the right to introduce multi-tiered network with different QoS on different tiers. Content providers like Google have the right to fight back. The same thing will happen to VoIP. Telcos and Cablecos will eventually put Vonage and other VoIP providers on a lower tier and will use a better-QoS tier for their own VoIP offering. Then, it will be time for the consumers to decide what to do about it. If Telco and Cableco's VoIP offering is competitive with Vonage et al, the consumers may decide to switch to their ISP's VoIP, but if the service is not competitive, the consumers may switch to another ISP that doesn't impede non-ISP VoIP. The competition will decide which way this is going to go. However, it's true that for VoIP to function on par with POTS, QoS tiering will be necessary to give VoIP traffic priority across the network, which must involve a certain degree of cooperation among Tier-1 ISPs. In the end, if the free competition is allowed to reign, consumers will win. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Google should join forces with the other large content companies. Sure, not being able to get to Google would be bad, but imagine if you couldn't get to Google, eBay, Yahoo, Amazon, etc. The telecos would quickly either reverse their positions or get lynched by customers and shareholders (the latter afraid of the inevitable customer loss and thus resulting revenue loss). Of course, knowing the telecos, they would just lobby Congress to pass buy legislation to require content providers to provide services to all ISPs equally. (Thus making the content providers' boycott illegal.)
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com |
|
su719
join:2006-01-29
Livingston, NJ | Wonder why these telcos are only going after Google. What would happen if they go after sites like Apple's Itunes and Amazon. I could imagine if they block all customers from AT&T you would see a mass exodus from the Ipod crowd. |
|
Shack
join:2002-01-17
Bloomington, IN | I do not believe that they are only targeting Google, rather all content providers. Google comes up in discussion since it is the premiere web service. |
|
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
1 edit | reply to Jason Levine
This is a prime example of why countries like Korea, and Japan are killing us in this area. These Telco's want everything their own way, and have a battalion of lawyers to back them up. Indeed they are starting to act like Mafia, If you don't do it our way we will break your legs.
Instead of facilitating advancement they are an impediment.
What needs to be done is outfits like Google, Earthlink, and yes AOL, if they can get their heads out their own a$$holes, plus all other content providers need to get together in an trade organization and go to the various city and towns across the country and go into a partnership with them to build out local Muni's, of course the Telco's will scream, and whine, and sue. This is where an organization of content providers could play a key roll as a lobbying organization. There are far more content providers then Telco's so the power such an organization would have would be substantial. Heck all they would have to do to get Senator Kennedy's vote is to send in a porno star with a bottle of booze.
Cities have powers of emanate domain I wonder is this power could be translated into setting up needed networks with in a city. This issue isn't just so the gamers in town can have a fast connection this is fast becoming a vital part of a cities economic infrastructure.
--
Low voltage Tech's are wimps, Real tech's use 45 pound filament transformers, plate voltages no less then 2400 volts with at least 10 amp's lighting 8877 triodes...BPL I'm coming to get you.
|
|
nunya
SEE ROCK CITY 475 MILES
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
clubs:
 ·AT&T CallVantage
| WTF?
This is the stupidest thing I've heard in a while.
So, should car manufacturers have to pay for roads? Never mind that I already paid taxes to build and maintain said roads?
Some how in big Ed and Ivan's twisted logic, they would find a way to defend this. Talk about going off the deep end.
I already pay $50/month for a connection from me to the world and the world to me.
Hopefully this stupid little idea gets nowhere in a big hurry.
Go ahead and block content a-holes. See how fast I switch providers!
--
SEE ROCK CITY 475 MILES |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to Transmaster
Re: Google can fight back!
said by Transmaster :Heck all they would have to do to get Senator Kennedy's vote is to send in a porno star with a bottle of booze. Well, all of those porn sites count as content providers so one could safely assume that at least a few would get on-board the "Content Provider Lobby" and would be able to send some senators some porn stars attractive female lobbyists. (And "attractive male lobbyists" for the female legislators. Let's not forget about them. )
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com |
|
iDonDon
join:2001-12-21
Fort Lauderdale, FL
| That explains it
OK, I thought I was the only one that kind of seen the side of the telcos(this was without reading the article). I thought the telcos were complaining about Google's plan to deliver the wifi network (bill or free plan), I didn't realize there were referring to content which is ridicules.
I don't think blocking access to their content would do the job, they would kill themselves, because I wouldn't switch my isp just because I cant get to a couple of sites.
--
iDonDon |
|
NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
| Good Ol' American Capitalism
There's nothing inherently wrong with this idea. I just can't understand why so many are getting their panties in a bunch. On its face, this is a good thing.
This is no different to building a toll road right next to a freeway, or widening the freeway to accommodate a few toll lanes.
The telcos are advocating building a parallel high performance toll access network right next to their high performance general access network. Now this new high performance network may be physically distinct or it may just be a logical QOS network overlay, but it is different. Your existing service won't be degraded.
We as consumers will still have our 15Mb/2Mb or 5Mb/384Kb or 10Mb/1Mb or whatever it is that we get. We can still get to and see and acquire any website or torrent or data we want. But if the site responding to your request has decided to pay for preferred access, that data will move along a (presumably) less congested path to you, ONLY AFTER the data reaches your connection provider's network edge.
Aggregate capacity goes up. How is that a bad thing?
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. |
|
