rudnicke
Premium
join:2004-10-23
Rantoul, IL | Kevin Martin
has his head up his arse! |
|
phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD | What benefits are we the consumers reaping?
Maybe I am just ignorant and completely missing something... but exactly what benefits am I supposed to be reaping from this Google/telco spat??? |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| More Spin Control
This is nothing except the reborn evil empire doing their standard spin control. Much to the chagrin of the megacorps, the mainstream press has picked up the news, and people are rightfully outraged. When CNN, MSNBC, Newsweek and Time Magazines next week issue all have big stories about it, it DOESN'T paint a pretty picture of the telcos. Their greed has gotten the better of them, because we as Americans look at the rest of the world, and can see the greed for what it is. Journalists are tapping into a deep mind swell of American culture, when they RIGHTFULLY COMPARE this to racist institutions of the past, a dark chapter in our history the megacorps would love to bring back. It was called 'separate but equal', and the reality is that it was anything but if you were black. Net neutrality isn't just a concept, it's a fundamental RIGHT enjoyed by every other network in the world, and since the public is getting riled up, I look forward to seeing all those executives who publicly supported the idea of raping the consumer humiliated, bankrupted and blackballed from ever working again.
p.s. For all those who said this would never happen, and net neutrality wouldn't pass, I say (in Nelsons best voice) "Ha ha!". Sell your shares now suckers..
--
Sure the internet has lots of porn and piracy, but I'm sure there's a downside to it. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | "now privately employed by industry think-tanks"
Hahaha, thank you, I have no more questions. |
|
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO | reply to G_Poobah
Re: More Spin Control
OK, I'll bite. How can a two tiered network be compared to 'separate but equal'? The whole point of having two tiers is that they're NOT equal. You pay extra for the better tier. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  2 tier won't limit access; only apportion costs
Powell is right. There are no problems with internet access now and there won't be under a 2-tier system.
The only question is who is going to bill the consumers for it under either a 1 tier or 2 tier system - the content providers or the internet access providers. Because the consumer will pay for all these new high bandwidth services. The providers are just fighting over who gets the bigger piece of the pie.
And those who are demanding a single tier system are just throwing their chips down on the side of the content providers winning. And the rest are on the internet providers side. But the consumer WILL pay for the new services one way or the other.
Me. I've spread my chips across both the content providers and the internet providers. Aren't mutual funds wonderful? I win no matter which side prevails.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
Conrail Photo Album |
|
jjcrandall
join:2004-01-01
Salt Lake City, UT | The Consumer will be billed for both. For our access to the network and the priority of our access. Simple as that. The real treat will be 2 bills, 1 from the ISP and 1 from the content. The end user will never benefit from this. |
|
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
 ·epix
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail  :Me. I've spread my chips across both the content providers and the internet providers. Aren't mutual funds wonderful? I win no matter which side prevails. Old_Repub,you by hedging your bets in such a manner.I'm thinking if you invested equal amounts of money into both options and one option gets the toilet bowl flush treatment.At best are you not just breaking even , by just offsetting your lose.?
I ask in all seriousness and honesty, how are you winning, if one of both investments fail.Would that not bring you back to square one.?
--
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. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by guitarzan :said by TKJunkMail :Me. I've spread my chips across both the content providers and the internet providers. Aren't mutual funds wonderful? I win no matter which side prevails. Old_Repub,you by hedging your bets in such a manner.I'm thinking if you invested equal amounts of money into both options and one option gets the toilet bowl flush treatment.At best are you not just breaking even , by just offsetting your lose.? I ask in all seriousness and honesty, how are you winning, if one of both investments fail.Would that not bring you back to square one.? Simply, the profit pie is growing. No matter which side wins and which side loses, the total pie is expanding. Even the losing side in the battle will continue to make money. It's just that the winning side's stock will go up more than the other. If you bet on just one contestant, you may win big or just get by. But if you bet on both you still win, just not win huge. The only way to lose big is if the whole entertainment and internet industries both tank - an unlikely outcome.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
Conrail Photo Album |
|
Varlik
Without Honor You Will Never Be Free
Premium
join:2002-01-06
Anderson, SC | You went away, why won't you stay away Mr. Powell
I think that he must have spent so much time spewing this BS that he's started to actually believe it. |
|
TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: 2 tier won't limit access; only apportion costs
Hmm... both sides would continue to make money under the two-tiered system... interesting.
In 2001, independent ISPs made up more than 55% of the Internet services market with more than 77 million subscribers. This is at a time when the ILECs had just recently entered the Internet services market.
Thanks to the FCC's inability to maintain adequate regulations forcing ILECs to allow wholesale access to DSL service, today, those other ISPs make up only 28.7% of the Internet Services market with less than 27 million subscribers.
Not only have independent ISPs lost over 50 million subscribers to the ILECS predatory pricing schemes, but thousands of people in the industry lost their jobs and businesses. These numbers continue to decline at an alarming rate and soon there will be no alternatives left but between the ILEC and the Cable MSO. When this happens prices will climb again.
In the meantime, access fees will be levied on companies like Google and Vonage and innovation will be stifled more so than it already has been the ILECs ability to leverage it's telephone monopoly to garner a strangle hold on Internet service.
A prime example of ILEC abuses is AT&T who to this day still do not offer a stand alone DSL product and force you to bundle if you want their DSL for 12.99 for six months plus fees, etc. Lack of choice is never good for consumers.
And to Old_repub I would say, being republican and a free market supporters does not mean you are against regulation. On the contrary, we are the very people that should be fore regulation. Regulation that allows small business to foster and grow. Regulation that prevents multi-national corporations from murdering small business. Just like we have a system of laws to protect citizens from murder and theft, so too do we need regulations to insure businesses do not act in ways detrimental to freedom and capitalism.
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
1 edit | Why stop at 2 tiers?
Why dont we just make it an 8, 10, or even 1000 tier network?
We can have one tier for web browsing. One tier for P2P. One tier for video casting. One for actual IPTV. One for IP Phones. One for multi player games, which we can then divide up per game. One for streaming music. One for FTP. One for news groups. One for Windows Updates. One for linux distros. One tier for porn, or maybe just create a whole new "internet" for porn. We can create new internet protocols for every program out there and do away with that pesky TCP/IP along with the simplicity and freedom of packet passing it provides. Then within those tiers we can tier the providers based on how much they want to pay. The backbone providers can then auction off the priority levels of each tier since they interconnect the world. Then the broadband providers can get in a spat with the backbone providers over their "cut" since they connect the consumers. And backbone providers can then start tiering broadband providers. Why should UUNet let SBC/AT&T just use their network for free? They should have to pay UUNet tiering fees to help them upgrade their backbone to support the additional subscribers they are signing up with broadband. If they aren't willing to pay, then they should get lower priority then someone like Comcast that is willing to play.
Point of this is simple. Every single piece of the internet puzzle fits together and without one you do not have the others. You have the backbone providers, the broadband providers, the content providers, and the consumers. ALL of them are just as vital to the survival of the internet and one another. ALL of them fuel the bottom line of the others and are the very reason of their existence (stay on internet here). Content providers attract the consumers. Broadband providers provide the experience. Backbone providers interconnect the broadband providers to the content providers enabling the consumers to ultimately get the information they wanted seamlessly. Every piece of the chain here is interconnected. Every piece of the chain pays their share to survive and maintain the internet. ANYONE saying they don't is simply an idiot. If they didn't then we wouldnt be as far into the internet as we are today as compared to 10 years ago. We didnt get here today because free bandwidth rides were given or because providers (backbone or broadband) were just pulling bandwidth out of their rears. As the need arised and the additional cost were justified, the networks were upgraded. This happens on every end from the content providers all the way to the consumer.
I personally have not seen any content provider requesting higher priority in their packets. I have not seen a single service on the internet require higher priority that was not worked out by the developer. That is the great thing about the internet. One creates a use for it, that use is modified and somewhat perfected over time based on what they have to work with. |
|
TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO
| reply to Varlik
Re: You went away, why won't you stay away Mr. Powell
Actually, if you read the article Mr. Powell is pretty much on Google's side. Stating that access providers need to be more creative in finding ways to pay for the network build outs, like creating their own content not blocking or restricting access to others'.
Yes, he doesn't believe we need preemptive legislation as the situation has not yet occurred, but in one instance and the FCC was quick to act and set an example in the Vonage case.
I am inclined to agree with him in this case, except for the fact that the ILECs are lobbying so heavily to release themselves from franchise agreements while forcing incumbent cable companies to still adhere to them. Just today a bill in Kansas is expected to come out of committee that does just that. One already has in Missouri and Indiana. Texas has already passed the law, and the federal government just help a hearing on the subject.
It's coming, franchise agreements for the ILECs are going to be removed. We need to be sure that when they are, they are removed for all companies, not just ILECs and that anyone rolling out such services does so in a network neutral indiscriminate manner. These are issues we can address now while the ILECs are asking for something. If they want that freedom, than they need to give the competition freedom too.
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com |
|
GigahertZ420
join:2001-10-02
Fairbanks, AK |  reply to Skippy25
Re: Why stop at 2 tiers?
This is really an awesome post! |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: 2 tier won't limit access; only apportion costs
Consumers already pay. None of this will benefit the end user. |
|
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| reply to Skippy25
Re: Why stop at 2 tiers?
How will dial up users figure into this 2 tiered equation.? Will 56k have to be the 3rd tier,how much will dial up users have to pay.?
When this 2 tiered internet becomes reality and I have to pay for viewing web pages over a commodity (DSL) that I already pay for,in advance mind you. I will cancel DSL in a heartbeat and disconnect my modem& router from the net, in doing so I will save myself some $$$ ,because i simply refuse to pay for some hair brained greedy get rich scheme Fsck it, because it won't be worth it.So AT&T or any other ISP put that in your pipe and smoke it.
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. |
|
phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD | reply to Skippy25
all I can say is...
"dang skippy!!!"
For those unfamiliar with that phrase... see this link. |
|
Jigsaw
Stardust We Are
Premium
join:2000-10-21
Cleveland, OH
·Cox HSI
| reply to guitarzan
said by guitarzan :How will dial up users figure into this 2 tiered equation.? Will 56k have to be the 3rd tier,how much will dial up users have to pay.? When this 2 tiered internet becomes reality and I have to pay for viewing web pages over a commodity (DSL) that I already pay for,in advance mind you. I will cancel DSL in a heartbeat and disconnect my modem& router from the net, in doing so I will save myself some $$$ ,because i simply refuse to pay for some hair brained greedy get rich scheme Fsck it, because it won't be worth it.So AT&T or any other ISP put that in your pipe and smoke it. If everyone thought like that we would not even see them say anything.Its a shame thou there would still be sheepeople that will just blindly do whatever.Just up and stop using it for a week or better yet cancel it all together.They could care less about us but hit em were it hurts well they care then.
--
»www.auralmoon.com/html/ When you want some Real Music |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs | reply to guitarzan
Amen.
If I, as a consumer, have to pay both to have internet service, and then pay every web site I go to a chunk to boot, I would cancel my service.
Really, what would be the point... |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to phantom6294
Re: What benefits are we the consumers reaping?
said by phantom6294 :Maybe I am just ignorant and completely missing something... but exactly what benefits am I supposed to be reaping from this Google/telco spat??? yeah. me too. i dont know about anyone else but my cable bill hasn't gone down any.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
