how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to pnh102
Re: Monopolist First of all, they will more than likely never be told that.
Second, if anyone expects to get a true 6 megs down or even half from any web site, they are sadly mistaken. All web sites have caps per user. Get over it. And if Google takes up so much bandwidth, then I am sure its in their right to charge for it (just like toll roads) and people still drive their cars down they every day.
Even if it is filtered at 1.5 down, be lucky that Google even allows you to grab content at 100k sec.
For more reading see this older post.
»arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20···498.html | |
 MizzatWill post for thumbsPremium
join:2003-05-03
Atlanta, GA
kudos:1
 ·AT&T Southeast
| Though most of your post is way off topic and wrong. I pull data from many websites at over 6Mbps...
It sounded to me like the SBC guy in that article was talking about a VoIP provider using his pipes without a subscriber having service through SBC, or at least the VoIP paying a reseller fee to SBC. I can understand that...
As far as this news topic. I doubt what this BellSouth gentleman said will ever get off the ground. It sounds like a pipe dream to me, no pun intended. I doubt consumers will agree with it, or businesses. Since most websites use co-location to run their websites, there are many providers that connect to those co-los, they simply wouldn't choose BellSouth if was going to cost their customers more, or cause latency, IMO. If he is speaking of charging for DSL/DIA users that have BellSouth, I don't know if any customer would want a company that has other companies choose who is more of a priority for them. Sounds like a bad move in my opinion.
I think they should be allowed to prioritize some traffic over their own networks, such as the IP TV channels customers pay for and medical data it suggests in the article, but charging sites for their priority seems like a bad idea to me. | | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to NerdMods
said by NerdMods:First of all, they will more than likely never be told that. You are probably correct. For the sake of argument, let's say the customer calls tech support on multiple occasions and is given varying types of BS responses as to why a website like Google is "slow." How many of these customers are going to just say "screw this" and switch to a new ISP, especially if said ISP won't degrade connectivity to these websites?
Internet access is a tool just like any other. If a tool breaks or doesn't do the job correctly, most people replace the tool. The same goes with Internet access.
said by NerdMods:Second, if anyone expects to get a true 6 megs down or even half from any web site, they are sadly mistaken. All web sites have caps per user. Get over it. That's true for the most part as well, the actual speed that a website loads is dependant on how wide the pipes are between the customer and the website. However, BS plans to increase load times for sites which don't pay up by gunking up the connection at the user's end.
I also don't think such a move by BS would go unnoticed even outside of the tech community. Look at all the problems that SBC ran into when it tried to implement the same thing.
said by NerdMods:And if Google takes up so much bandwidth, then I am sure its in their right to charge for it (just like toll roads) and people still drive their cars down they every day. That's an issue between Google and its hosting providers. Google can always pay them more so more people can access their site. If I were Google, I would put up a different page for BS customers which says something along the lines of "Can't see this page fast enough? It's BS' fault. You should try a new ISP instead" 
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! | |
|
