Mchart
Super Joe
join:2004-01-21
Gurnee, IL | No
No |
|
SteveLV702
Premium
join:2004-04-22
Henderson, NV | chip in some change?
I'll through in a dime maybe... let the government pay for it they can finally contribute something to this country  |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| said by SteveLV702  :I'll through in a dime maybe... let the government pay for it they can finally contribute something to this country Google CEO Eric Schmidt agrees with you. I guess Google isn't making enough money, he thinks the gov't and the taxpayers should help cover his costs.
»itmanagement.earthweb.com/netsys···/3671896
The Deloitte report asserts there can't be a free ride.
"For the Internet to continue operating to everyone's benefit, all companies whose livelihood depends on the Web need both to contribute and gain," the Deloitte report stated. "This means that organizations that build, operate, maintain and expand the underlying infrastructure need a return on their investment; everyone involved may end up paying more, including consumers."
Schmidt thinks the government should pay more of the rising infrastructure costs.
"We didn't ask for private citizens to pay for the highway system up front," he said. He said it would be "great" if the U.S. government recognized the advanced position other countries have in providing greater broadband access to their citizens as a competitive threat leading to further investment here.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
ShadezeRO
join:2006-04-24
Fort Lauderdale, FL | ^_^
I doubt it, but even if it were true.
I wouldn't be contributing much.
I say we get rid of all those damn FiOS users and their fancy connections....showoffs!!!!! |
|
GlennAllen
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Little by little...
What are my ISP fees for if not to contribute to the continued maintenance and improvement of "my" little part of the Internet? Bandwidth will increase in due course because it's in the best (business) interest of those who provide it to make it do so. There are already technologies available to increase the backbone speed many times over; it'll just take the time and some money to implement them. We'll also need some new and improved protocols. ("...and then SkyNet became active")
--
Wherever you go, there you are. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to SteveLV702
Re: chip in some change?
said by SteveLV702 :let the government pay for it they can finally contribute something to this country I'll agree with you that the government doesn't really contribute much of anything good to this country... but who always foots the bill for the government?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to TKJunkMail
More Whining Baby Bell Hogwash !!!
More Whining Baby Bell Hogwash!
You didn't hear this kind of cr@p when competitive LD companies had the biggest chunks of the Internet backbone, and you still don't hear it from Level 3. You only hear it from the monopolists and their paid lackeys, like Deloitte out-of-Touche.
First, the facilities layer of the Internet is not some "top-down" computer network that can be "managed", "planned", or "controlled". It was deliberately designed to be independent of such factors.
Second, the Whining Baby Bells don't understand such a concept. They are incapable of grasping any role for themselves in communications that does not place them in a position of "control".
The Whining Baby Bells are seeking not only government sponsored "investment", but overall "control". They seek the ability to have government sponsored investment, with enough government sponsored "control" to shut out competitors--either through inequitable access to the investment funds, irrational regulatory standards that only the Baby Bells can meet, or similar exclusionary tactics. They know they lack the competitive skills to win in a competitive backbone market, they fear that backbone will be "just a commodity" (as it SHOULD BE), and they will try anything to avoid those situations.
They are trying to change the face of the Internet, and we must not allow that to happen--because while they might be able to control some of the US backbone, the end result would be a crippled US Internet while the world plays in a truly competitive, open space.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | reply to pnh102
Re: chip in some change?
How soon we forget!
Uh, the Internet was a government (DARPA) project. Without it, we might all currently be hostage to ISDN protocols.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
flankspeed8
join:2001-07-20
Saint Paul, MN
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to GlennAllen
Re: Little by little...
I agree. Keep the government out of it. This is why I pay my ISP $40 a month and my wireless provider $50 a month for net access. They are the ones who need to pay. Along with the VOIP providers, content delivery people (IP VOD, streaming TV, etc.). |
|
Mchart
Super Joe
join:2004-01-21
Gurnee, IL
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to calvoiper
Re: chip in some change?
said by calvoiper :How soon we forget! Uh, the Internet was a government (DARPA) project. Without it, we might all currently be hostage to ISDN protocols. calvoiper Uh, we are currently still hostage to POTS. I'd rather have ISDN be a standard to every house, then POTS. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Keep the Government Out
Schmidt thinks the government should pay more of the rising infrastructure costs. We don't want the government responsible for the networks in the US. The bureaucracy and bloat that will be paid for by the taxpayers will not benefit the users.Moran likened the current situation to a "Tragedy of the Commons" where there's a reluctance to invest more in the Internet because no one owns it. That's not true. The backbone owners invest in their infrastructure and will continue to do so as the need arises. |
|
nfixit2004
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Brooklyn, NY | reply to flankspeed8
Re: Little by little...
let the government finally spend some money in this country! we pay taxes on everything |
|
Fronkman
Macs Do It Better
Premium
join:2003-06-23
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: chip in some change?
that is a bunch of garbage. this is google's fault? why is it that the cell phone companies actually charge LESS than they did 10 years ago when they are enormously more users using huge amounts of service? do the people who sell those stupid annoying ringtones owe money to cell phone companies because their crap is popular?
look at it this way, parts of the internet are like toll roads. google already pays to get on the road at their end, and we all pay to get on the road at our end. we just happen to meet at one of the rest stops somewhere in the middle to exchange our data. however, since the ISPs and backbones have so much control over the road, they want to charge successful companies (like google) again to access the road.
it is within their rights to do that, but the US government should be aware that this will stifle innovation and growth in one of the last parts of the US economy which still has strong growth. if they want to do that go ahead.
all this amounts to is a punishment for being successful. the ISPs never want to double bill the guy with a blog about his cat. they only want to double bill the huge successes. good luck greedy guys. your customers will certainly love this tactic.
--
Everyone should own a G4 cube or an iBook or the Mac mini! |
|
dslwanter
Why would I want DSL? I have FTTH
Premium
join:2002-12-16
Lowellville, OH
·Armstrong Zoom In..
·AT&T Midwest
| It could be
Just like everything else the internet is constantly being added upon. Just remember the black out in August of 2003 that left many places dark for several hours. It wasn't until after that we heard of ideas of "re-drawing" the power grid, sadly we don't hear anything else about that now and probably won't until it happens again. We keep adding and adding and do nothing to ease the burden of addition.
But no action will be taken until it actually happens.
--
"You're as worthless as a screen door on a submarine!" Check out my Internet Radio Station & DJ Service, »www.thebomb102.com. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to Mchart
Re: chip in some change?
Thanks, but no thanks. ISDN at megabit levels would be in the hundreds of dollars per connection, without the alternative of the Internet driving digital prices down.
Think of it this way. The world wanted stripped-down pick-up trucks to haul data around. The Bells created ISDN as the fully loaded, all option Rolls-Royce vehicle--and then told people, reluctantly, that if you really want to haul data, you can use a cutting torch to turn the trunk into a truck bed--but it will still cost you Rolls-Royce prices.
Guess what? The Bells didn't sell much ISDN, and they are STILL smarting about it.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ | reply to calvoiper
Re: More Whining Baby Bell Hogwash !!!
Exactly. The $64000 Question:
Who paid D-T for this report? |
|
Bassistguy
Alrighty Then
Premium
join:2001-07-14
Ballwin, MO
clubs:
| reply to Mchart
Re: chip in some change?
said by Mchart :said by calvoiper :How soon we forget! Uh, the Internet was a government (DARPA) project. Without it, we might all currently be hostage to ISDN protocols. calvoiper Uh, we are currently still hostage to POTS. I'd rather have ISDN be a standard to every house, then POTS. ISDN and POTS are 2 totally different things, but ISDN does use POTS. ISDN is a dial-up service (2 dial-up connections, that runs over a POTS line), and POTS is what you use when you pick up your standard land phone (that is, if you are using the old baby bell/new AT&T monopoly service...I guess a cable phone can be considered POTS, as it is just a plain old telephone service). If you don't want POTS, get rid of your land line and get a cell phone  .
--
If you miss 1 day, you notice; you miss 2 days, your band notices; 3 days, the crowd notices.... |
|
JazzJRabbit
join:2003-09-27
Wheaton, IL | Oh no...
A consulting and outsourcing company says we need to rebuild something that already works perfectly. Who could have seen that coming? |
|
raye
Premium
join:2000-08-14
Orange, CA
| It will depend on your provider
Those cable companies that have not been diligent in upgrading their networks to support more downstream AND upstream (that means you Roadadelphia in soCal). will suffer IMHO, as at&t and Verizon expand. Both bells own two of the largest IP backbones in the world, so they should have little trouble allocating bandwidth. The cable cos lease bandwidth from companies such as theirs, although some cable cos like Time Warner and Cox have their own extensive fiber networks.
But the customer hubs are key. If they become oversubscribed, then the Internet will slow down for some. But their is PLENTY of excess bandwidth/fiber avaiable at the backbone level. |
|
SSidlov
Other Things On My Mind
Premium
join:2000-03-03
Pompton Lakes, NJ
·Optimum Online
·Cingular Wireless
| reply to TKJunkMail
Internet2 is gov't funded & gov't should lease network
said by SteveLV702 :Schmidt thinks the government should pay more of the rising infrastructure costs. "We didn't ask for private citizens to pay for the highway system up front," he said. He said it would be "great" if the U.S. government recognized the advanced position other countries have in providing greater broadband access to their citizens as a competitive threat leading to further investment here. This is a fine concept. But two warnings. One, state owned systems have a tendency to be censored, like those in the China, the middle east and elsewhere -- even the US internet is heavily regulated for content »www.isoc.org/inet97/proceedings/B1/B1_3.HTM and »www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens3.html . Let's do it like Korea. The government builds it to allow for 90% in excess capacity. They use 10% for their own purpose, and lease the excess on bids for $$ to recoup the initial investment, pay for maintenance and upgrades. Leases should not be for more than 10 years to make sure that the government is able to do the upgrades and that there is a possibility of change in management. Companies like Verizon and Quest who are building or already have fiber networks can sell them to the government for tax breaks or preferential bids but not 'sweetheart bids' (say they have to offer 90% of the highest bid) for the first 10 years, that will give us a start, and allow the phone companies and other carriers to 'come on board.'
This is the only way the government should be allowed to do this. The highway system in the US is falling apart and is always short of funds because it's based on trucking fees and gasoline taxes. While Trucking Fees are usage based, gasoline taxes are not since not everyone uses all the gallons of gas to drive on highways. Raising the gas tax is considered a political liability. All US highways should be toll roads, and the Federal Gas Tax repealed. Highways to no-other-state like those in Alaska and Hawaii could then be justified and alloted maintenance based on the actual usage.
"In April[2006], representatives of the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Congressional Budget Office testified before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure’s Highways, Transit, and Pipelines Subcommittee about the fund’s financial status. Current estimates indicate that the fund will probably become insolvent in 2009 or 2010, the witnesses said." »www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonl···eat.html
--
»www.Warpstock.org |
|
