Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| We already pay for it?
Why should we pay twice for something we already have? Because some ass is greedy? GO AWAY, LEAVE US ALONE!  |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| Article Makes The Wrong Argument
The telecom Stock blog article appears to argue that end users should be provided with different tiers of access, not that content providers should pay for access to customers. Aside from the token "The NY Times Sucks" blurb in the first paragraph, there's nothing in the article that supports the idea that content providers be punished.
I am wondering why the Bells are trying to confuse the two issues of dealing with high end users and charging content providers. <sarcasm>My guess is that they want to convince the public that high end users are evil so that the rest of the people will support charging content providers.</sarcasm> But what do I know? 
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! |
|
brooklynman4
join:2004-09-07
Brooklyn, NY | Thats why the stocks aint doing that great cause of crap like that |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to pnh102
It has to be a talking point, being circulated via think tank. I've seen it a handful of times in the past two weeks, and you're right. These are different issues.
At first I thought the confusion was accidental, and the authors were mis-reading the whole debate. I'm starting to think it's an intentional obfuscation campaign so the real debate (charging all IP service providers a new, previously un-billed tariff for priority service) is muddied.... |
|
Djinnmage
join:2004-03-14
Fairfax, VA
| don't tiers already exist?
Last time I checked, most broadband providers offer a couple different piers of bandwidth to subscribe to. I don't see a problem with that. Now charging EXTRA because you choose to use that bandwidth more than the guy next to you, now that's just plain wrong. |
|
TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO
| That's exactly right
There is no debate about making bandwidth hogs pay, its about leaving small independent content providers with sub par network access to the customer.
I guess this editorial guy wants AT&T to not drop its ads with his employer.
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com |
|
jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
| reply to Cheese
Re: We already pay for it?
I can see it now:
"G$$gle-it!"
Google has released a new version of it's site, similar to Yahoo!'s portal, in which you can get the latest news and information. The new site boasts a new charge though, charging users $0.50 per page view due to the new tiered internet pricing imposed by telcos. An average user pays upwards of $40 per month for Google's service.
Does anyone want that?
Granted that is probably worse-case scenario, but could happen.
We (the consumer) pay for the pipe from our house to the internet. Companies such as Google pay intermediaries who own the routers, lines, etc for the pipe between their companies and the internet.
What else needs to be charged for?
If Google is charged for using SBC's lines, that means Verizon, MCI, BellSouth, Level 3, and a host of other companies could charge them as well. You can then say bye-bye to most of the internet's main websites like Google, Yahoo!, Amazon, etc. because they would almost surely go into debt from being charged by everyone; Even though everyone is already being payed by some degree by both consumers and businesses. The money filters through from one company or consumer to another in some way shape or form. |
|
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| said by jimbo2150  :I can see it now: "G$$gle-it!"
Google has released a new version of it's site, similar to Yahoo!'s portal, in which you can get the latest news and information. The new site boasts a new charge though, charging users $0.50 per page view due to the new tiered internet pricing imposed by telcos. An average user pays upwards of $40 per month for Google's service.
Does anyone want that? Granted that is probably worse-case scenario, but could happen. We (the consumer) pay for the pipe from our house to the internet. Companies such as Google pay intermediaries who own the routers, lines, etc for the pipe between their companies and the internet. What else needs to be charged for? If Google is charged for using SBC's lines, that means Verizon, MCI, BellSouth, Level 3, and a host of other companies could charge them as well. You can then say bye-bye to most of the internet's main websites like Google, Yahoo!, Amazon, etc. because they would almost surely go into debt from being charged by everyone; Even though everyone is already being payed by some degree by both consumers and businesses. The money filters through from one company or consumer to another in some way shape or form. Exactly, someone, somewhere is getting paid, and they want more now. USA, land of the Greedy Corps. |
|
JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| reply to pnh102
Re: Article Makes The Wrong Argument
said by pnh102 :My guess is that they want to convince the public that high end users are evil so that the rest of the people will support charging content providers.</sarcasm> But what do I know? It is a word game. Kind of like "tax cuts for the rich". You know the person saying it is full of it but it still sounds good. Once RBOCs convince the public that these big bad media companies are getting a free ride, it is game over.
The market will sort itself out, if it doesn't, subs will find other avenues to get their information/entertainment fix. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
|  reply to pnh102
Bring on the "charge by byte" model
We can solve the whole problem. Start charging users by the byte transferred. With upload bytes costing about 10 times what a download byte costs. That way you kill 2 birds with 1 stone: make the hogs pay a higher price; and kill off the P2P users with high fees. Hollywood(RIAA, MPAA, etc) will be happy; the internet providers will be happy; and the content providers who push info will get a discounted byte rate for pushing downloads. The only people that will be unhappy will be the music and video thieves serving up copyrighted material.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
Conrail Photo Album |
|
pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
Premium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
clubs:
·Comcast
| two teirs..
one for the rich, mega deep pocket site and one for everyone else..
not a good idea.. what's gonna happen to the little guy.. the independant web hosting providers? do we suffer with crap connections to the telco customers or will we be forced to pay twice for out bandwidth? i sure hope this get dropped like a hot rock and those with the power (congress?) stop this attemtp dead in it's tracks.
--
Webmaster Steve
- - - - - - - - - - - -
»ppnhosting.com
»sphenterprizes.com
»pokemonpalace.net |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
1 edit | reply to Karl Bode
Re: Article Makes The Wrong Argument
pnh102 and Karl have it precisely right.
Much of the recent argument here has been whether or not there is justification for charging "power users" more than light users for more intense use of the same bandwidth. If there is a justification (and I'm firmly in the camp that believes there is) then the real question becomes "how big is that justification".
IF the "increased charge" is placed on the end user (where I believe it belongs) then ISPs can fairly compete for users, both "light" and "power" users, by tailoring their networks and peering arrangements to suit the traffic they expect. Some ISPs may choose to seek out "light users" and some may seek the "power users". Most importantly, competition will be direct and pricing will be a big factor. Meanwhile, content providers (including new content providers) will be free to offer content supporting only their direct costs--their own servers and their own connections to peering points. Whatever difference exists between the costs of "power use" and "light use" will be accurately reflected in the marketplace (and even the possibility of "zero" increased cost will be reflected as well.)
IF, on the other hand, the "increased charge" is diverted to the content provider space, then all of the competition is made much more fuzzy, and much more pricing power is placed in the hands of the big telcos. Competition will be much more devious, with a new ISP or a new content provider needing not just to cover its own costs, but to figure out a way to participate in the great slush fund of kickbacks that the whining Baby Bells control. In this case the Bells win because they can shift prices around as much as needed to temporarily underprice whichever market segment is seeing competition. Additionally, since they are only paying themselves, even if they "charge" their own content divisions for "access", they have a tremendous subsidy potential which will enable them to eventually dominate content as well.
Realistically, while there is some increased cost for "power" usage, it shouldn't be all that much--but if we let the big ISPs charge somebody else for it, then we'll never really know what that cost is--just like we didn't know long distance was cheap until the breakup of Ma Bell forced the baby Bells to allow competition in the LD space and not use it as a cash cow to be milked.
There you have it--the real reason that the Baby Bells are deliberately confusing these two issues is that this is how they can prevent vigorous competition at the end user level. Looking for the first time at a major revenue source that they cannot control outright, they are desperate to prevent real competition because they know they are too fat and lazy to really compete.
calvoiper |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to Djinnmage
Re: don't tiers already exist?
Actually, it's not "just plain wrong".
All ISPs have some shared facilities--no ISP builds a full, dedicated pipe to every peering point for every end user.
As bandwidth usage per customer goes up, these "shared facilities" have to be augmented. Since usage patterns vary among users, the light user who only uses his bandwidth for relatively infrequent "bursts" of data (e.g., to load webpages with lots of pictures that he looks at for a minute or two before loading the next) ends up using a lot less of the peering facilities than the "power" user who downloads videos 23/7 or constantly plays interactive games.
Some people think these increased costs are trivial--but we'll only find out if ISPs can compete directly for different types of users. If the pricing schemes are confused by content provider kickback schemes like the Bells are proposing, we'll never know how big this differential really is--or even if it exists at all in a meaningful sense.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
vinnie97
join:2003-12-05
Mesquite, TX
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Bring on the "charge by byte" model
Those won't be the only unhappy ones. I think you forgot about legitimate bandwitdh usage and menial things like instant messaging and other software that requires network connectivity just to function. Thoes bytes will add up and quickly escalate beyond the prices of broadband service today.
Sickening idea. |
|
TheSaint
join:2002-01-25
Hanover Park, IL
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·Comcast
| reply to pokesph
Re: two teirs..
This is just yet another attempt at the telcos trying to cash in instead of building out. Google provides what people want, SBC and others just can't seem to fathom that. There has yet to be a legit argument in favor of two-tier that actually helps the consumer. Once again, this is just think tank speak through and through.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. --- Edmund Burke
www.saintlink.com |
|
navalpatel
join:2003-07-28
Lubbock, TX
| The Real Drawback We Face
I am not against telecom companies from charging companies for preferentail treatment. From the way I understand it is that companies that do pay up will receive priority. However, what needs to be clarified is whether the telecom companies will be giving priority on the user-to-user basis or on their network as a whole. If it is the latter, then I retract my previous statement and do not support the idea because I do not want some grubber encroaching on my bandwidth, but I am pretty sure it is the former.
All that being said, the thing that is probably more important with this issue is the backlash on the telcos (and cable) companies and in turn us, the consumers. What is going to happen if all of these companies just decide they have had enough? There are of course three possibilities:
1. The internet companies make us pay for access to their service.
2. Providers finally lower raters. This one is probably the most unlikely.
3. Internet companies may cut off service in protest. Example: What if Comcast (or Time Warner, Adelphia, Cox, AT&T, Verizon, or whoever) recruit both Google and MSN to pay fees for priority service? Obviously, the company that pays more will receive priority above the other. These contracts are not going to be public and so companies will have to pay for exclusivity because there would be no sense in paying for a second tier of service (i.e. MSN to Google). Thus, companies will have to pay a hefty load. |
|
CT42
@bridgeband.net
| it is called Lost leader pricing for marketshare
These big guys are crying foul and they are the ones to blame. If Wal-Mart starting selling TV's below cost and then tried to get the Networks to pay them for selling the TV's we would all laugh. Now that these guys have dropped there price to $9.99 DSL they are crying. Simple raise your price if it cost more to provide. This is a Marketing issue not Googles |
|
TheSaint
join:2002-01-25
Hanover Park, IL
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·Comcast
| reply to navalpatel
Re: The Real Drawback We Face
Exactly how did this whole internet thingy work before this brilliant plan was made public? Suddenly a decade old business model is no longer viable? It still stinks of double-dipping and who's to say that sites that don't pay won't have at least a decent QoS? Google already loads fast for us, exactly why do we need another tier? There are a lot of questions that are going unanswered by the telcos (and the FCC) to make us doubters quiet.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
www.saintlink.com |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to calvoiper
Re: Article Makes The Wrong Argument
I would agree with you 100%. I firmly believe that it should be the ISP that the customer has direct contact with imposing restrictions and that customer can make the decision based on those factors whether or not they do business with that company.
ISP's pay for their connection to the internet just like the rest of us. Their bottom line depends on the amount of bandwidth every user on their network uses. The more they use, the more they have to pay to get them where they want to go. Therefore, I feel they are well within their rights to shape their user's usage anyway they want; be it throttling (recommended), termination, caps (charges for exceeding) or "tiering". As long as the consumer has a choice in doing business with them AND as long as the consumer if fully aware of the 'limits' imposed by the ISP before hand. I would even go so far as to say EVERY agreement is grandfathered. In other words, they just can't pull the 'ol legal bait and switch by giving you the world today, but them taking it all away tomorrow with a new TOS. |
|
dc_analyst
join:2006-02-21
Washington, DC
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Bring on the "charge by byte" model
The promise of the Internet is based in the fact that it gives equal media power to all.
In this medium, citizen journalism can thrive. This (hopefully) provides a counterbalance to the anti-democratic tendencies of the corporate media.
Charging a premium for upload bytes destroys this potential. It will shift the balance of power to those who have the most money - allowing them to use media to gain political favors and generate even more money and power.
I agree that heavy users should be charged a premium for "fatter pipes", but there should be equity between upload and download bytes.
Ultimately, creating a disincentive against uploading hurts innovation. For example, users wanting to send video-mail will balk at the additional cost, and this (and other potential new) technology will never take-off. |
|
