| I am Starting To See Telo Point. No it is too early to drink. I used to hold that the telcos are greedy but i beginning to see their point as a valid argument. The issue is the behavior of Google and other tech firms stretch the limits of computer power and network speed by their applications. I get the idea that the Google rocket scientist do not give a rat ass about the how their application might overload the Telco’s network and only care about the gee wiz factor.
For example Google buys out Bit torrent and creates Google torrent. Thousands of users start using Google torrent to download the latest Britney Spears Porn video. As a result the telcos get a torrent of calls by angry users wanting to know why my connection is slow. Because it is goggle's application that is causing the problem, then in this case Goggle should pay-up or shut up. |
|
| But all of these people DLin the lovely Brittany have paid for their bandwdith... They should be able to use it however they want. JUST as the host is paying for the bandwidth on the other side.. Be it through BT or not.
If the ISP/Telco can;t keep up .. then I guess they better increase their bandwidth.
Sorry, but that is how it goes. The internet is free.. Getting to it is what we are paying for.. You can't just start arbitrarily prioritizing what traffic you want and screw the person that has paid for the service! |
|
 r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
 ·row44
| reply to richardpor
You are a jackass!
Google already pays for their internet connection, they can do whatever they want with it. If someone is on Bell South with their paid internet connection, they can do whatever they want with it also. If that Bell South customer uses google, then how is it Googles fault. Why would Google pay Bell South for an internet connection that the Bell South customers are using and already paying for?
***I think Bell South needs to find retarted customers so they give them money, but never use their connections. |
|
| reply to richardpor
Actually, it's the provider's fault for having an underdeveloped network.
If their utilization is too high, they need to add capacity. Simple as that. Customers are paying for the service, the provider isn't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.
Lets say you have Telco-A as your landline company. Lets just say American Idol uses Telco-B for their voting lines. You, and everyone else in your town decides they're going to vote for the local Portland, OR American Idol contestant. Telco-A decides because you're calling a Telco-B customer, you as a consumer will have a choice:
1) Wait in a 30 minute queue to even have a chance at getting through to the American Idol lines.
2) Not vote for American Idol.
3) Wait for Telco-B to pay off Telco-A so that Telco-A customers can have 'priority access' to Telco-B's lines.
All because Telco-A decides that connecting calls between their own customers is the priority for them because its cheaper.
quote:
Because it is goggle's application that is causing the problem, then in this case Goggle should pay-up or shut up.
You're only looking at it on one side. The internet as a whole is a two-sided coin. We'll use Google as an example, since you brought them up.
Google incurs a cost every time you hit »google.com. Your provider incurs a cost every time you hit »google.com. Google is getting paid by sponsored search results that pop up every time you search. Your provider is getting paid by your access fees. This is a symbiotic relationship. Access providers do not charge content providers, and content providers do not charge access providers.
Really AT&T/SBC/Whoever are just cutting off their nose to spite their face. Consumers will want to have access to whatever content attracts them. They're only inviting consumers to abandon their current provider who hinders their access to content, for one who doesn't (and there will be such providers). |
|
|
|
| said by mxmumtuna:Really AT&T/SBC/Whoever are just cutting off their nose to spite their face. Consumers will want to have access to whatever content attracts them. They're only inviting consumers to abandon their current provider who hinders their access to content, for one who doesn't (and there will be such providers). I completely agree with your post, but I'm skeptical about that last line. I hope you're right about consumers having options if they don't like their ISPs rules. Unfortunately, I think we're heading to the point where most people only have 2 real options, Cable and FIOS. In that case, customer dissatisfaction won't have any more effect on their business practices than the did on telco pricing before the original Bell breakup. |
|
| reply to richardpor
So under your statement, any software manufacturer who writes an application that COULD potentially use a lot of bandwidth should pay the phone company? What a bunch of crap. I used to work for SBC and if you don't remember, back when Napster was still free and in it's hey-day they used the idea of downloading music and all as a selling point. Now all of the sudden it's bad? C'mon.... THINK!!!!! |
|
| reply to richardpor
They're an ISP - SERVICE PROVIDER. We already pay for them to move traffic. If they can't do that, they should get out of the way.
--
Mikami Vvian, resident Girlfriend of Steel, care of the Tokyo-3 Middle Daughters Club |
|
