rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL
| I agree
Project Lightspeed is a JOKE! Even Luke Skywalker agrees.
FIOS isn't going to stay that cheap for long with $100 billion on the line.
Cell and VOIP is killing off the RBOCs.
I'm all for FULL net neutrality. Anything else is ridiculous.
Rachel |
|
NowVOIP
In the beginning there was POTS
join:2006-03-05
Round Lake, IL
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Net Neutrality? Ha! And excatly what does net Neutraility get us? A fast lane we have to pay more for? As people in the slow lane suffer, because they can't get anything faster? Net neutrality doesn't solve anything. If anything it creates more problems.
--
The revolution will be televised! |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| Sounds Like a Whiner
The telegraph companies could be giving away fiber access to poor people for the rest of eternity and this guy will find a way to whine about it. It really gets old after awhile, especially when you see the Bells trying to deploy this service as fast as they can while still running into roadblock after roadblock after roadblock.
The only thing that seems to be standing between the USA and what this guy thinks is "good" broadband is the government itself. Every town that Verizon has to cater to in order to get a franchise agreement is just another roadblock to the deployment of this service. Likewise, any town that decides to get in the way of AT&T's Project Lightspeed deployments is also guilty of holding back progress. Get the government out of the way, and you will see technology progress.
--
Tancredo 2008! |
|
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting
| You drink too much telco Kool-Aid.
quote:
Likewise, any town that decides to get in the way of AT&T's Project Lightspeed deployments is also guilty of holding back progress. Get the people out of the way, and you will see technology progress.
I fixed your quote for you. |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
1 edit | Funny how some people think the telcos are all for "technology progress", yet do nothing to shore up their own lagging internal bandwidth for their current customer base, and game the market against competition. The whole "innovation" argument is transparent. Give it up already. |
|
jdir
join:2001-05-04
Santa Clara, CA | In the good ol days
Do people complaint about running copper cable to everyone ? when a holler or a walk down the store would do just as fine? |
|
chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA | reply to NowVOIP
Re: I agree
What are you talking about!!! There is no two lanes in the Net Neutrality, is all the same,is what we enjoy today.
You are watching to many telecom commercials and getting confused, it seem that their campaing is working! |
|
twoissues
@verizon.net
| reply to NowVOIP
Don't confuse the two issues... you can't make net-neutrality a universal service fund mandate upon telcos. On the other hand, you can't allow telcos to shake-down would-be content resellers for the broadband interconnect (peering). If content providers share costs of interconnect- that is acceptable, however if these arrangement can't be made amicably, well you have issues of fairness arise where a content provider could be shut out of a network (or not be allowed enough bandwidth to run their business), and customers lose faith in the isp as well (affecting both pricing and marketshare, ie 100 megabits to nowhere fast) so it really would be a lose-lose situation.
Content provider NEED to build/rent/lease their own fiber farms to reasonable interconnect as bandwidth transmission still costs "REAL MONEY" and there are NO ARPA-NET national science foundation superfunds supporting the infrastructure anymore, only the framework upon which it was handed over to isps.
If there were billions in investment and we say went through a fiber buildout boom and bust, these facilities could be scooped up for pennies on the dollar out of bankrupcy (hint-hint, cough cough, emm see eye) then there would be plenty of resources to 'go round' as the fibers can do a much better job than your dad's fiber network of 15 years ago. (40-120 gigabits per fibre channel symmetric).
BTW, telcos seem to own too much of the nation's fiber, and we need NEW 3rd party investment in 2007 ipv6 fiber deployments and signaling. Otherwise we will see sub-adequate bottlenecks on parts of the internet which max out and get oversold for the demand on content. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to Minister
Re: Sounds Like a Whiner
said by Minister  :You drink too much telco Kool-Aid. And if we do things Bruce's way, we'd have stayed on dialup. Heck, with all that whining, would we even have phone service to begin with?
Everything in this article is wrong... FIOS does not cost $200 a month, the top speed of DSL is not 768K. He deliberately confuses the issues of 1. ISPs wanting to create avenues for their own premium content and 2. ISPs wanting to charge content providers. He claims that Bells aren't spending any money to build out fiber service when this is not the case... where's all that money? What does he think pays for those companies to install this service? Pixie dust?
--
Tancredo 2008! |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to JakCrow
said by JakCrow :The whole "innovation" argument is transparent. Give it up already. Then why spend the billions needed to build out this service in the first place? Is that not innovation and progress?
--
Tancredo 2008! |
|
alchav
join:2002-05-17
Palm Desert, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
|  Key Word is 'Crippled Networks'
Bruce Kushnick hit the nail on the head, especially with AT&T. He also says that Verizon FiOS is inferior, but at least the infrastructure is all Fiber. We are falling way behind in Broadband Services, as a Nation, but maybe that's because of Capitalism. It's very costly to build a State of the Arts Network, who will pay for this? In the rest of the World the Governments subsidize building these Networks. Maybe that's what we need here, is for the Government to step in and control things. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to pnh102
Re: Sounds Like a Whiner
said by pnh102 :... Get the government out of the way, and you will see technology progress. Please remember your statement in a few years when the U.S. is further behind the rest of the world.
My prediction is that the U.S. will progress minimally in the next few years, if at all.
Unfortunately, with the government all but out of the way, we will see exactly what ZERO regulation of the ILECs gets us. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by nasadude :Please remember your statement in a few years when the U.S. is further behind the rest of the world. And just exactly how many countries have surpassed us economically because of great broadband service?
Zero.
It takes a lot more than just good broadband to create a good economy.
said by nasadude :Unfortunately, with the government all but out of the way, we will see exactly what ZERO regulation of the ILECs gets us. Every town that granted Verizon a franchise or allowed AT&T to build now either has or will have some fiber optic service. Every town that put up roadblocks to these companies doesn't have this service. This clearly shows that less regulation leads to more broadband.
We've even seen this example in the DSL world. Why won't telegraph companies expand DSL availability? Because they would have to share it with rivals. Why did they want to deploy fiber? So that they wouldn't be forced to share it. Same goes with cable companies... why did cable take off more than DSL? Because cable could deploy service anywhere it wanted to with no sharing requirements. Time and again, we see the failure of regulation, why do people still insist on trying an approach that will never work?
--
Tancredo 2008! |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs: 
| In fairness to Verizon
They certainly are the ones trying to practice what they've been preaching.
Their delays, if any, are legitimate and caused by their following the existing franchise laws as they exist today.
KUDO's to them..for doing things right.
AT&T..on the other hand...
is a whole different story entirely.
--
The life you help save just might be your own Team Discovery |
|
bamabrad
join:2006-01-27
Port Orange, FL
| reply to alchav
Re: Key Word is 'Crippled Networks'
I really don't know if the word to use is 'control' There definitely needs to SOME type of oversight to hasten things along here-all the corps want to do is crawl with this technology in order to maximize their profits. This data is knowledge-which is power to those who receive it un adulterated and in a timely manner-which is why it needs to be distributed widely and quickly |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | reply to pnh102
Re: Sounds Like a Whiner
Progress, yes. |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| reply to rachelsfx
Re: I agree
said by rachelsfx :Project Lightspeed is a JOKE! Even Luke Skywalker agrees. FIOS isn't going to stay that cheap for long with $100 billion on the line. Cell and VOIP is killing off the RBOCs. I'm all for FULL net neutrality. Anything else is ridiculous. Rachel You might want to hold off on calling Lightspeed a joke. If it becomes available as rapidly as ATT claims, I dont think the cable companies will be laughing at all. I have had the service for about a month now and it is quite competitive package to local cable offerings. It does quite a few things better than cable. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to alchav
Re: Key Word is 'Crippled Networks'
You have to 'take your pick'.
As profit demanding shareholders are out there demanding $$$, there's 2 things.
A) No government restrictions would give us... 'Proxied/filtered' portals to the web full of all you can eat bundled cr@p (spam/advertising, etc). Coporations get rich, people get broadband, but not what they really want... just what companies can make a big profit on.
B) Government restrictions would give us...
unfiltered services, with bandwidth/capacity caps, and pricey a la carte options. You can still have surf and not be force fed, run VPN tunnels across the web, host sites, etc.
Take your pick... this almost starts to sound like the 'a la carte TV programming'
Let business do its job, you will have service, but its not what you want. Let government do its job and regulate, you will get what you want, but its going to take a while and cost a lot more (except muni broadband). |
|
WileEC
mindtaker, macky cat, etc.
join:2002-02-07
Yonkers, NY
·Verizon FIOS
| He says FiOS is crippled...
He says FiOS is crippled. But he makes no argument other than noting the price/transfer rate to back that up (and he completely fails to mention that FiOS 30/5 is available in some markets for $54.95 mo, which is what I pay). He seems like a liberal scaremongering crybaby to me. TeleTruth? yeah, that's a reliable source for information.
--
Experience one of the most beautiful women on earth at PetraCentral! |
|
majortom1981
join:2004-08-26
Lindenhurst, NY | lol
The franchise agreements only affect video.
Why do people keep saying thats what the delay is with verizon ?
They can put up the lines but they wont be able to have video through them. |
|
