how-to block ads
|
|
view: topics flat text |
|
Comments on news posted 2006-02-07 09:13:36: Telco executives continued to push for a two-tiered Internet at a telecom conference yesterday, in an effort to impose a service tariff against voice, video and other IP services that will compete against them. ..
|
 amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America | 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! | |
| |  aaronfitzPremium
join:2004-03-06
Cedar Rapids, IA | 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  | |
| | |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: gimme a break Lets see... a company which charges you on both local + long distance (SBC + AT&T) from a somewhat regulated environment wants to impose its business logic on an unregulated market. Not going to work.
SBC gets you on the locally regulated line, AT&T gets you on the LD portion.
They wish to apply that kind of logic to the web...
They charge you the consumer for the connection to the DSL/DSLAM (local), then try to charge someone else for the backbone (LD) so that they make money and don't pay for anything. | |
| | | | | AT&T customers should only agree to this so called internet cloud scheme if the following is guaranteed in an iron clad contract with no tiny print or built in TOS escape clauses by ATT&T.
A. All Google and/or Video or content is reached on the 4th hop on a tracert with a max of no more than 25ms.
B.Absolutely no downtime or snafu's on customers connection.
C.The sync rate is raised to guarantee Maximum advertised speed or above is reached 24/7 .Higher down/up speed is never less than what customers purchase.IE.. 3mb down = 3.2
D.A healthy fat pipe with no restrictions, port blocking,no traffic shaping or filters.
E.Guaranteed no bottlenecks on AT&T lines or in the internet cloud or on the redback routers or UUNET.Nor On Google's end or anyplace else for that matter
F. All this at no extra or hidden fees to customers.Let AT&T
pay out their azz for this,Since it's apparent that's where their ideas are originating from.When AT&T puts all this in writing on stone, then SBC/AT&T customers have a good deal. 
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. | |
| | | |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | Re: gimme a break said by guitarzan:F. All this at no extra or hidden fees to customers.Let AT&T pay out their azz for this,Since it's apparent that's where their ideas are originating from.When AT&T puts all this in writing on stone, then SBC/AT&T customers have a good deal. When was the last time the TELEPHONE COMPANY didn't squirrel in a hidden fee to bump their price up.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
|  n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| These Telco CEO's need a little bit of cheese to go with their "whine".
What a bunch of greedy imbecilic morons. Google pays for their bandwidth as do Google's customers. Either the CEO's should figure that out or get into another line of work pronto.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
 kapilThe Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL |  WTF?
| |
| | | | 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. | |
| | |  kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | Re: WTF? said by moonpuppy: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. I agree, this is ridiculous idea.
We HAVE to protest, to show them the exit if they want to push further this outrageous, greedy shit. | |
| | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| said by moonpuppy: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. Here's the problem. The customers already pay for it. The Telcos want to have their cake and eat it too. What they want to do is have a business where they own all the infrastructure, and keep all the profits, but never have to do any capital investment or take any risk or expense in building infrastruture!
They want someone else to pay for them to build this upgraded network, but they want to keep ownership of the network and control usage of it, and of course, keep all profits reaped from it.
In other words, they are saying "We refuse to upgrade OUR OWN EQUIPMENT AND SERVICE unless we can make third parties, competitors, tax-payers or space aliens pay for our upgrades for us-- and we'll make our customers keep paying us too."
It's RETARDED. It's like saying "Hey I'll buy a new house, but everyone else must make the payments for me."
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| | | 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. 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 That's just it, they don't think you will continue to pay that much for dial tone. So they are doing what they have always done and that's insure they get a chunk of every competing services' revenue through access tariffs.
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com | |
| |  calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | 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. 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 What it really is isn't confusion on the part of the whining Baby Bells, but their effort to confuse policymakers.
Additionally, they want to create a payment stream that continues whether or not they lose individual customers.
At the same time, this "under the table kickback" from the content providers enables the Bells to keep their costs to end users artificially low, thereby depriving cheaper broadband technologies (especially small wireless providers) of the cost advantages they would otherwise enjoy.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | 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. | |
| |  kalphearionIn nomine PatriPremium
join:2003-11-08
Broomfield, CO | 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 | |
| | | | Apparently not - but I would love to see the top 10 or 20 content sites hold a conference rebutting these ridiculous claims. Then, I would like to seem them form a pact where they would cut off access from any ISP that tries to extort additional money from them.
Let's see how much "whining" the telcos do when their customers are calling all hours of the day and night bitching about not being able to access Google, Yahoo, eBay, or other sites.
Then, maybe they would realize that they should happy with the ridiculous revenue they earn already. | |
|
 nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | 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) | |
| 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. | |
| | | 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. | |
| | | | Re: Wah Wah Wah... said by G_Poobah: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. Bingo ! G_Poobah nice post to call them on the carpet.I agree with you 100 % Poobah you nailed that one down to a tee. Bows and applause. 
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. | |
|
| | 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!
| |
| | | | Re: Collusion? Price fixing? The mere idea of 'access fees' probably does not break any specific laws. However, the clear absence of inter-baby Bell competition likely is.
We bring anti-trust cases against Microsoft, but continue to leave these real monopoly abusers alone. I just don't get it. Bell was certainly smart in their efforts to spend more on lobbying than on R&D.
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com | |
|
| |  Ohh My God...
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. | |
| | | | Re: Ohh My God... said by millerja01a:I'm at a loss for words!!!! How can these ISP's even think about this silliness!! I This is something I would like to see these commentaries get away from. Calling the monopoly telcos ISPs is an insult to the thousands of small business owners that helped bring the Internet to homes across this country when companies like SBC and Verizon saw no money in it.
Your local independent ISP is not advocating for access tariffs, it is the monopoly phone companies that are. And paying not being specific you help the Bell companies mislead those less knowledgeable into think all ISPs want to rape content providers.
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com | |
| | | | | Re: Ohh My God... I think we're all getting hypersensative. By definition, VZ, ATT, BellSouth are ISP's because they provide Internet to residential and business users. Their business units combine resources to do their jobs.
The smaller ISP is in danger because I'm sure they use the larger telco for their pipes. If VZ decides 'no Google for you but MSN is ok', since they are partners then unless your contract is structured otherwise, your users won't get to Google.
TWISI, if this thing gets traction, we consumers will be hurt. | |
|
| | 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. | |
| | | | Re: Google can fight back! 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 | Re: Google can fight back! 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 | Re: Google can fight back! 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. | |
| | | | |  tapeloopNot bad at all, really.Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
kudos:1 | Re: Google can fight back! said by Shack: 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. Probably not so much that as it is Google's stock price is well over $300 a share even after taking a recent hit.
If you listen closely, you can hear a "ch-ching" sound in your dialtone.
--
Copyright infringement is illegal. Murder is illegal. Therefore, file sharing is murder. | |
|
| |  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
1 edit | 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.
| |
| | | | | | 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 | |
| | | | | | | Re: Google can fight back! said by Jason Levine: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. ) Let's not forget about they who have doors that swing both ways as in,"attractive male lobbyists" for male
legislators and vice versa.
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. | |
|
| | | Didn't you read the study released just yesterday? It showed that consumers were more than willing to put up with poor service and higher costs because the process of switching providers is to cumbersome and time consuming.
Think about how difficult it is to change from the monopolies now, not only do you have DSL contracts to contend with, but you'd have to change your local phone service, and soon your TV. Think about all the setup fees, down time, and other hassles.
These access fees are the perfect example of why you should not bundle and you should diversify your services so you are not wedded to anyone company.
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com | |
| | |  roamer1sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA | Re: Google can fight back! said by TelecomJunky2:Think about how difficult it is to change from the monopolies now, not only do you have DSL contracts to contend with, but you'd have to change your local phone service, and soon your TV. ...if you bundle, which the unwashed masses often do but knowledgeable folks (who can't tolerate "lowest common denominator" services) don't. There's a reason I get POTS from one company, and DSL from another, and TV from another, and VoIP from several companies...
To me, the whole "one bill" idea is silly to begin with since ultimately I do write one check for all of the above services, and my cell phones, and even other things like utility bills and toll road usage -- it just goes to Citibank instead of BellSouth or Comcast.
-SC
--
"it seems like all you ever buy is Abercrombie and cell phones" --a friend | |
|
|  MysticGogetaThe Robot DevilPremium
join:2005-03-14
League City, TX | I don't think google will block a ISP there advertisers stock holders etc might not be happy imagine if they blocked comcast or some one large it wouldn't be fair to people who can only get one high speed ISP *like me* I would just simply write a letter contained the words "Don't like me then block me." | |
| | | | | Re: Google can fight back! Their other option is to put a header on all of their pages when accessed through one of the offending Telecos: "Does this site look slow? It's your ISPs fault. Click here to find out why." (With a link to a detailed explanation on the whole tiered Internet money grab and instructions on how to complain to your ISP and congressional representative.
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com | |
|
 nunyaWho is John Galt?Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:5
·Charter
 ·voip.ms
| 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 | |
| | | | Re: WTF? This is exactly why they should have blocked the mergers of Verizon with MCI and SBC with At&t. They both now think they own the backbone too.
Thank god for alternatives like sprint and level 3. Lets just hope independent access providers and content providers have the smarts to discontinue their circuit contracts with At&t and MCI and the next available opportunity.
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com | |
| | | | | Re: WTF? said by TelecomJunky2:This is exactly why they should have blocked the mergers of Verizon with MCI and SBC with At&t. They both now think they own the backbone too. Thank god for alternatives like sprint and level 3. Lets just hope independent access providers and content providers have the smarts to discontinue their circuit contracts with At&t and MCI and the next available opportunity. Don't thank God too soon. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Verizon, AT&T, BS buy up the likes of Sprint & Level3, etc. And then there won't be any independent internet backbone providers.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page
Conrail Photo Album | |
| | | | | | Re: WTF? said by fAcEtIOUs:said by TelecomJunky2:This is exactly why they should have blocked the mergers of Verizon with MCI and SBC with At&t. They both now think they own the backbone too. Thank god for alternatives like sprint and level 3. Lets just hope independent access providers and content providers have the smarts to discontinue their circuit contracts with At&t and MCI and the next available opportunity. Don't thank God too soon. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Verizon, AT&T, BS buy up the likes of Sprint & Level3, etc. And then there won't be any independent internet backbone providers. Well New_Repub I agree with you.You mentioned a very valid point there ^^^^.Any attempt to move in that direction success most likely being the outcome.
Certainly would prove those with the deepest pockets,will stop at nothing to aquire untold power from the bottomless pit of greed.All at taxpayer expense of course.Like pawns in a chess game so are the days of our lives.
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. | |
| | | | roamer1sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA | said by fAcEtIOUs:Don't thank God too soon. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Verizon, AT&T, BS buy up the likes of Sprint & Level3, etc. And then there won't be any independent internet backbone providers. Doubtful. Sprint's wireless operations (Sprint PCS/Nextel) make it impossible for VZ and AT&T/SBC to buy all of the company and extremely impractical for BLS to do so (because they'd have to do something with the 40% of Cingular they own), and while Sprint could sell off or spin off their wireline LD/data business like they're doing with wireline local (Embarq), doing so wouldn't make a lot of sense given the wireless business. Level 3's huge debt load seems to scare possible suitors away.
At this point, I see BellSouth, who has been notably absent from the M&A activity of the past few years, either merging with Qwest or letting AT&T/SBC eat them. Personally, I'd much rather have the former...
-SC
--
"it seems like all you ever buy is Abercrombie and cell phones" --a friend | |
|
| | roamer1sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA | said by TelecomJunky2:This is exactly why they should have blocked the mergers of Verizon with MCI and SBC with At&t. They both now think they own the backbone too. Thank god for alternatives like sprint and level 3. Lets just hope independent access providers and content providers have the smarts to discontinue their circuit contracts with At&t and MCI and the next available opportunity. You didn't mention BellSouth, but I suspect the main reason they've been louder than even AT&T/SBC is that they don't own a backbone and pretty much have no network outside the Southeast (meaning no settlement-free peering, etc.)
-SC
--
"it seems like all you ever buy is Abercrombie and cell phones" --a friend | |
|
 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 | |
| Reviews:
·PHONE POWER
| 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. | |
| |
See 26 replies to this post | |
 AmeritecTechChange we can believe in, 1922Premium
join:2002-09-06
Houston, TX
kudos:6 | Dumb bastards I see it the reverse. The providers want to charge 15 bucks for DSL and they want Google to subsidize the rest. Any provider that two tier's the internet can expect my cancellation.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."-John Callari | |
| |  cob_1310nm Of GoodnessPremium
join:2003-07-08
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Dumb bastards Agreed. They're crying wolf right now in an attempt to get this idea implanted, so they can try to make it sound logical, or propose something slightly less ridiculous, which might actually sound *good* by that time.
Google already pays for staff, hardware, and premium bandwidth.
We already pay for consumer-level bandwidth.
Hopefully the very simple paradigm of Internet access isn't destroyed by these idiot's greed. I mean, where the hell did this big campaign come from anyway, and whose brainchild was it? | |
|
| | Googlenet there will be a 2 tiered internet
The Googlenet and those old internets..... | |
| | | This is why This is exactly why I chose and independent ISP to provide my service over Verizon's FIOS. Why are these telcos so bent on destroying their own companies.
It is becoming increasingly attractive to bring up a WISP.
--
The Light Pipe is the Right Pipe !!! | |
|  oliphantI Have 8 BoobiesPremium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | Customers you asswipes... WE'RE THE ONES PAYING. Unless you telco dumbasses want to stop sending me these F-ing bills every month, no one is getting free anything.
--
WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, except ending slavery, facism, communism, Nazism.... | |
| haertig
join:2000-12-31
Broomfield, CO | Four valves for a two-ended pipe? I don't understand how these ISP's are saying Google is using their pipes to send content to me. Last time I checked, it was ME that typed www.google.com into my address bar and requested the info. On the connection that I am paying for. Google doesn't just send that stuff to me out of the blue. So am I supposed to pay to send my request, but not expect to get any reply unless Google pays additional money? What about Google's end of the pipe? The provider charges Google to upload the content I asked for, but will they want to charge ME additional funds to pass my initial request on to Google in the first place?
I sure hope nobody tells these folks that they should be charging more to transmit 1's than 0's. After all, a transistor draws more current in the ON state then when it's OFF, so it only makes sense to charge more for the 1's. | |
|  kba4
join:2001-10-23
Canton, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T U-Verse
| i like john dvorak's idea ...for Google to light up a majority if not all of the dark fiber in this country, bring the US to at least the top-ten worldwide in broadband and undercut the telcos' monopolistic practices. GoogleNet anyone? the article is in the new PCWorld but i can't find it online yet...
--
illegal wars, prisoners with no trials, and state controlled media. welcome to the land of the free! | |
|  CCTVTechPremium
join:2003-04-23
Phoenix, AZ | GoogleNet GoogleNet may very well happen, Google is buying a lot of dark fiber for their backbone, it would't take much for them to become an ISP. | |
| | | Google? Why do the phone companies keep complaining about Google?
The real bandwidth hog and freeloader is Microsoft and their never ending multi megabyte updates for Windows.
By taking on Google they look like crazy fools. Maybe Ed is crazy. Crazy Ed. That has a nice ring to it! | |
|
| |
|
