| reply to axess_denied
Re: The Internet use to be fun Do you think Wal-Mart would increase prices due to something like this? No, they'd chalk it up under marketing expenses and figure it was making them more money since they were making a better impression on the consumer than the small company. |
|
|
|
| reply to axess_denied
Both services might be free, but ad supported. Or free but with a paid version to get more features. For example, suppose Yahoo was the big company that my small company was competing against. They have plenty of money to buy "fast pipe" access and still keep their service free. I wouldn't have the money to buy fast pipe access. So even if my service was better than Yahoo's, users would see my service as slow and Yahoo's as quick. They wouldn't care whether Yahoo paid someone to speed up their application. All they would care about is the speed of the application. And my service would suffer because I wasn't a big enough business to pay for preferential treatment.
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com |
|
| reply to johnh123
From the article:
quote:
The companies could also charge websites a premium to offer their video to consumers on the higher-speed Internet. That could mean that a company like Yahoo might have to pay AT&T to send high-quality video to AT&T subscribers.
Maybe this is just an example of a writer mixing up the tech company itself with "the website", but it sounds like content from the Yahoo website would go over the premium tier whereas stuff from non-member sites would be over the regular link. So it sounds like internet traffic would be coming over this premium connection, which is the important point. It's not just serving up video inside their own network but providing a higher speed QoS pipe to the rest of the net.
But I wasn't really talking about browsing anyway. I'm talking about, I dunno, maybe FPS gaming on a level the size of a planet, or realtime file-sharing across the net or whatever the "next big thing" is that someone hits on to take advantage of a 50mpbs or bigger pipe. The "next big thing" part is where the real tragedy will lie. Where will the next great innovative net products come from when Verizon & Comcast get to decide what gets access to a fat pipe and what doesn't? Anything that could threaten their hegemony would be turned down. If you were Verizon and managed to get a law passed that said you could effectively shut Vonage out of FIOS, wouldn't you do so? It sounds like that's where all this is heading. |
|
| reply to asdfdfdf
said by asdfdfdf :
" Do you complain about the fact that much of the potential bandwidth of your cable internet connection is being used exclusively by the cable company to feed you 200 channels? That is all we are talking about here."
No, that is not at all what is being talked about.
That is a completely different and prior service. The comparison would be more accurately with the fact that dsl and a traditional voice service coexist on a copper line.
You can't compare that to rhetoric implying that google is a free riding leech on the bells networks.
If Google wants to offer their own cable tv service over the segregated section of SBC's Lightspeed network without paying for it, then they would be a free-riding leech. That is all the ilecs are saying here. |
|
| reply to robscullion
Reread that quote- they would charge a premium to offer video over the higher quality net. Video. Video. And we are not talking about video to your computer- we are talking video to your TV. That is what this is about- not web content. |
|
 calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | reply to johnh123
No, that's not all the ILECs are saying here. Whitacre and others have clearly implied that they want to charge the content providers for "access" to their ISP customers.
This comes from the legacy world of telecom, where the local companies have historically charged the long distance companies for "access" to the customers of the local company. It's a proprietary, "ownership" of the customer concept that is both offensive and unsustainable in a market more open than local telecom.
Big Ed just hasn't been forced to realize that yet.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
 ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to johnh123
said by johnh123:Reread that quote- they would charge a premium to offer video over the higher quality net. Video. Video. And we are not talking about video to your computer- we are talking video to your TV. That is what this is about- not web content. If that's the case, then why is it the TelCos' examples mainly consist of Google "using their lines for free"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Google a web site, not a TV station? |
|
| reply to johnh123
john123, I have to disagree with your interpretation. NGOwner's (I think it was him/her) explanation elsewhere in this thread seemed closer to the actual plan. That interpretation was that, where a consumer had both standard broadband and IPTV service, they'd be selling excess bandwidth from the IPTV side for QoS guaranteed internet-based traffic. Once you have two pipes, both serving internet content, it'd only be natural for that bigger, better pipe to become the defacto primary connection and get all the speed/quality upgrades. Especially when you can squeeze $'s out of Yahoo/Google etc to transit that pipe.
It's not something I think will happen right away. But if the telecom act is re-written to allow them to sell access to internet content providers to that better pipe, it won't take more than a few years for us to arrive at the nightmare scenario everyone is discussing. |
|
 csspaa
join:2004-12-08
Belleville, MI | reply to robscullion
Qos is NOT AN IDEA it is a protocol, go to network properties. Quality of Service Packet, Oos Packets. |
|
