Reviews:
 ·PHONE POWER
| Good Ol' American Capitalism There's nothing inherently wrong with this idea. I just can't understand why so many are getting their panties in a bunch. On its face, this is a good thing.
This is no different to building a toll road right next to a freeway, or widening the freeway to accommodate a few toll lanes.
The telcos are advocating building a parallel high performance toll access network right next to their high performance general access network. Now this new high performance network may be physically distinct or it may just be a logical QOS network overlay, but it is different. Your existing service won't be degraded.
We as consumers will still have our 15Mb/2Mb or 5Mb/384Kb or 10Mb/1Mb or whatever it is that we get. We can still get to and see and acquire any website or torrent or data we want. But if the site responding to your request has decided to pay for preferred access, that data will move along a (presumably) less congested path to you, ONLY AFTER the data reaches your connection provider's network edge.
Aggregate capacity goes up. How is that a bad thing?
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. |
|
|
|
| I don't read the article like that at all, what I read is pay up or your content will be throttled. I don't see any mention of a "parallel" system, Fiber is replacing copper. Verizon has already been allowed Billions of dollars in tax breaks to build this network which they did next to nothing with until last year. Now they are crying foul and trying to get money from wherever they can.
Both users and content providers are already paying for the usage of the network. If the profits aren't enough then they should raise their prices on both of those ends....wait, that would actually be capitalism and competition. Verizon doesn't believe in either. |
|
JonR800Premium
join:2003-08-06
Farmington, MI | I read it the same way. They're not talking about laying a toll road next to the freeway. They're talking about converting the freeway to a toll road, and then putting in a dirt road beside it.
They've really been pushing hard for this. The Bells are obviously very serious about this proposition. Do you think they have heard ANY of the negative feedback? |
|
Reviews:
·PHONE POWER
| reply to jdracer47
The article's author conveniently leaves that piece of information out.
If you take a look at some of the comments that Whitacre has made in the past (the comments that originally created this maelstrom), he specifically speaks to a build out.
No telco would throttle "basic" connectivity. The customer backlash and indignation would be justified. Telcos are talking solely about their next generation (overlay) network. The one they are building to support IPTV.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. |
|
| reply to NGOwner
said by NGOwner:This is no different to building a toll road right next to a freeway, or widening the freeway to accommodate a few toll lanes. The telcos are advocating building a parallel high performance toll access network right next to their high performance general access network. That's where you got it all wrong. They do not want to build a "new" network. They are only building fiber or dsl2 to the home, the rest of the network is not changing, just from CO to the home.
Thus, a better analogy would be that Bell wants to take the two lane road that leads to your neighborhood and push off all traffic to the shoulder that is not theirs or has paid their toll.
The very process of giving QoS to any packet degrades QoS for those not given the priority. Yin and Yang my friend. To give something to someone, you must take it away from someone else.
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com |
|
| reply to NGOwner
It is not bad thing. Someone is going to pay for delivering the enhanced content, either the provider or the deliverer. But in the end the customer will pay for it one way or another.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page
Conrail Photo Album |
|
Reviews:
·PHONE POWER
1 edit | reply to TelecomJunky2
said by TelecomJunky2:
said by NGOwner:That's where you got it all wrong. They do not want to build a "new" network. They are only building fiber or dsl2 to the home, the rest of the network is not changing, just from CO to the home. I don't know enough about the telco's network to know if this is true or not. Frankly, your take doesn't make sense. If the telco upgrades the lines to the homes, to support 30 Mb/s, their backhaul and aggregation points had better be upgraded to handle that level of bandwidth as well.
said by TelecomJunky2:The very process of giving QoS to any packet degrades QoS for those not given the priority. Yin and Yang my friend. To give something to someone, you must take it away from someone else. This is only the case if the link is congested to begin with. If I have an eight lane freeway that is uncongested and moving at 75 MPH, and I take two of those lanes and make them toll, all traffic will still continue to move at 75 MPH. The same is true in the data world. The mere addition of QOS does not create congestion. I think it is fair to say that ATT (old SBC) and Verizon's internal (from the edge in) networks are not congested today.
Lastly, I've found a few links from DSLReports stories that reference a build out:
»www.businessweek.com/technology/···rss_tech
»Google Won't Pay Baby Bells For Priority Traffic
»AT&T: 2 Tier Web 'Beneficial' to Customers
»Will FCC Stop Telco Two Tiered Internet Plan?
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. |
|
yabos
join:2003-02-16
London, ON | reply to NGOwner
Your example would work if one company owned both roads and then put tar on the non toll road so everyone goes slower on that road. So then they'd have to get on the toll road if they wanted to go the speed they used to. |
|
| reply to NGOwner
[BQUOTE=NGOwnerI don't know enough about the telco's network to know if this is true or not. Frankly, your take doesn't make sense. If the telco upgrades the lines to the homes, to support 30 Mb/s, their back haul and aggregation points had better be upgraded to handle that level of bandwidth as well.[/BQUOTE
That's just it. Their network itself already has in place things like OC-42 and OC-198's. These deployments are to the neighborhood and to the home deployments. You need to read further into the articles.
These telcos are not building a new backbone, their are upgrading their network to serve their customers with their IPTV and VoIP services. Since they are using the Internet to do this, they want to be able to block the Internet from getting access.
They always could build their own IP network that does not connect to the net to provide these services and not have any QoS problems with competing content providers. But then they know they can't do so with out charging a lot more for their services because they won't have the opportunity to subsidize it with access fees.
So to be competitive, they have to build a network that has access to the Internet so they can claim they need content providers to help pay the costs.
I say, if they don't want google and other guys to have a free ride, build a closed system and the arguments stop.
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com |
|
Reviews:
·PHONE POWER
| said by TelecomJunky2:These telcos are not building a new backbone, their are upgrading their network to serve their customers with their IPTV and VoIP services. Since they are using the Internet to do this, they want to be able to block the Internet from getting access. They always could build their own IP network that does not connect to the net to provide these services and not have any QoS problems with competing content providers. But then they know they can't do so with out charging a lot more for their services because they won't have the opportunity to subsidize it with access fees. So to be competitive, they have to build a network that has access to the Internet so they can claim they need content providers to help pay the costs. That's my take as well, with one major clarification. The IPTV network will pay for itself over time. But the telcos are overscaling the IPTV network such that there is sufficient headroom to offer content providers guaranteed QOS slices to the telco's subscribers on that more efficient network.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. |
|
 Michieru2zzz zzz zzzPremium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | reply to NGOwner
You are forgetting something, a new road or expansion of a highway needs to be passed. So people of that state need to vote if there willing to pay for the expansion of that highway and if there is a real need for it.
In this situation your not allowed to vote, you are passed a paper in the mail saying you need to pay more wether you like it or not.
There is no need to create a parallel high performance toll access network. We are just fine modifying and using the current access network we have. Everyone is already paying for there access, there is no reason we need to pay more for something we did not approve of in the first place.
They can upgrade the current network, they got the money for it. |
|
Reviews:
·PHONE POWER
1 edit | said by Michieru2:In this situation your not allowed to vote, you are passed a paper in the mail saying you need to pay more wether you like it or not. As a subscriber I don't have to pay squat beyond what I pay for the connection to begin with (and that's not changing). The content providers are the ones who have to decide which freeway they want to ride on.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. |
|
wtansillNcc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA | reply to NGOwner
said by NGOwner:Aggregate capacity goes up. How is that a bad thing? [NG]Owner Ummm -- because we all already pay a toll? Do you get your phone service for free? Do you get free ISP services? Do you think Google gets any of this for free? I don't know about you, but I'm already paying the "toll" for access. Surely you are not implying that you are a cable thief or that you surf using someone else's wireless access point?
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. |
|
Reviews:
·PHONE POWER
1 edit | said by wtansill  Ummm -- because we all already pay a toll? Do you get your phone service for free? Do you get free ISP services? Do you think Google gets any of this for free? I don't know about you, but I'm already paying the "toll" for access. Surely you are not implying that you are a cable thief or that you surf using someone else's wireless access point?
You are missing the point. I, as a subscriber, wouldn't be paying any more than I am now. The telcos are going to the content providers for money. Why should I care? If anything, it is going to stabilize (or even reduce) what I pay.
Think of it this way:
UPS/FedEx/DHL all only have ground shipping, except that I (as the one receiving the package) have to pay a monthly fee to UPS/FedEx/DHL to service my house. On the flipside, the warehouses also have to pay a fee to UPS/FedEx/DHL to service their warehouses. Everyone is happy, everyone pays a fee. The warehouses sell their things to me and use UPS/FedEx/DHL to get it to me. And it takes on average 5 days to get there. It could take 3, it could take 7. But on average, it takes 5.
UPS/FedEx/DHL each come up with the idea that they can guarantee the arrival of the packages to each and every address it serves. No more variability. But I, as the receiver, am not willing to pay more to eliminate variability. It's really not that important to me. My pockets aren't deep enough, and it'd be a very hard sell for UPS/FedEx/DHL to go to the "many" in the equation; the homeowners.
So UPS/FedEx/DHL go to the "few". The warehouses. UPS/FedEx/DHL say if you pay us a little extra per month on top of your monthly fee for servicing your warehouse, we'll guarantee your customers get their packages in four days, rather than in the 3 to 7 days if you don't pay.
Why shouldn't UPS/FedEx/DHL do that? And why shouldn't the telcos do the same thing?
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. |
|
 kba4
join:2001-10-23
Canton, OH
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| do you have any idea how many differences there with your analogy of the internet/servers and trucks/freight? for one thing, neither you nor the shipping companies have to pay outright for the roads/paths between; and if you did, your analogy still wouldn't work because that more resembles socialist economies like EU's. are you sure you want to pay more for each activity you do online? cause that's where this is headed: if they can get major sites to pay up, they won't stop until every single port has a price tag and you're paying $0.05/instant message, $1/mo for each unique website you pull up or even ping, and even worse- this means they have a vested interest in logging your activities now- as if their current NSA scandal wasn't bad enough. please think about the direction you're so willingly following, it's for all our own good and the good of the free Net as we know it.
--
illegal wars, prisoners with no trials, and state controlled media. welcome to the land of the free! |
|
Reviews:
·PHONE POWER
2 edits | How many different ways can I say it.
Telcos are not asking the individual residential subscriber to pay any more than what the individual residential subscriber pays today. No way. No how.
Any other take is wild conjecture at best, and "chicken-little-the-sky-is-falling"-esque, at worst. Besides, if you can predict the future, go play Powerball.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. |
|
wtansillNcc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA | reply to NGOwner
said by NGOwner:You are missing the point. I, as a subscriber, wouldn't be paying any more than I am now. The telcos are going to the content providers for money. Why should I care? If anything, it is going to stabilize (or even reduce) what I pay.[NG]Owner Yep, you'll pay less all right. Just like the price of beer has gone down now that Budweiser pays how many millions for Super Bowl ads?
Google derives its revenue from ads. The people who place ads with Google will have to pay more to cover Google's increased expenses. Who do you think will cover the increased expenses incurred by the advertisers? Do you think it likely that the people who purchase these goods and services will not see a price increase? You are not saving money at all -- you are simply reallocating your expenses to pay for the greed of the Bells. This is not a "Good Thing" (tm).
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. |
|
kba4
join:2001-10-23
Canton, OH Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to NGOwner
dude
learn what it is to be online. you're operating a server or sorts simply by posting to this site. checking your email. sending IM's. downloading security patches (how else would MS for example know your system was up to date if you didn't send a summary report). sending=serving. please spare us your twisted logic that you share with the telco's. it's not capatalism; it's extortion. you're telling me that all you do online is watch someone else's 'broadcast use'- you're not participating one bit? no? you did post here didn't you- that'll cost you $.50 next time. see where it's headed yet?
--
illegal wars, prisoners with no trials, and state controlled media. welcome to the land of the free! |
|
wtansillNcc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
1 edit | reply to NGOwner
said by NGOwner:You are missing the point. I, as a subscriber, wouldn't be paying any more than I am now. The telcos are going to the content providers for money. Why should I care? If anything, it is going to stabilize (or even reduce) what I pay. Think of it this way: UPS/FedEx/DHL all only have ground shipping, except that I (as the one receiving the package) have to pay a monthly fee to UPS/FedEx/DHL to service my house. On the flipside, the warehouses also have to pay a fee to UPS/FedEx/DHL to service their warehouses. Everyone is happy, everyone pays a fee. The warehouses sell their things to me and use UPS/FedEx/DHL to get it to me. And it takes on average 5 days to get there. It could take 3, it could take 7. But on average, it takes 5. UPS/FedEx/DHL each come up with the idea that they can guarantee the arrival of the packages to each and every address it serves. No more variability. But I, as the receiver, am not willing to pay more to eliminate variability. It's really not that important to me. My pockets aren't deep enough, and it'd be a very hard sell for UPS/FedEx/DHL to go to the "many" in the equation; the homeowners. So UPS/FedEx/DHL go to the "few". The warehouses. UPS/FedEx/DHL say if you pay us a little extra per month on top of your monthly fee for servicing your warehouse, we'll guarantee your customers get their packages in four days, rather than in the 3 to 7 days if you don't pay. Why shouldn't UPS/FedEx/DHL do that? And why shouldn't the telcos do the same thing? [NG]Owner I see. And why, do you think, would the warehouse have any particular interest in paying more to FedEx, UPS and the like to speed up deliveries that (according to you) I am already happy with? Assuming that they in fact felt such a need, do you not think that they would then seek to recover their increased costs by charging more for their products to cover the increased shipping fees? In fact, I would still pay for the increased shipping costs just as if the carriers charged me a higher rate outright. In fact, I'll likely pay more due to the overhead of the warehouse in administering the "Standard" vs. "Expedited Delivery" paperwork and associated tracking. No thank you.
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. |
|
Reviews:
·PHONE POWER
| reply to wtansill
said by wtansill:Yep, you'll pay less all right. Just like the price of beer has gone down now that Budweiser pays how many millions for Super Bowl ads? You are actually getting it. Congratulations!
The beer industry overall shares Anheuser's strong fundamentals. The pricing environment remains favorable. Unlike most industries in this weak economy, brewers have been able to hike prices without impairing volume growth. We believe this is a result of the moderate level of increases, and we point out that the real (inflation-adjusted) price of beer is lower today than it was 10 years ago. Source: »www.businessweek.com/investor/co···8294.htm
In fact, the relative cost of beer has declined dramatically in the past 50 years. Even with a Federal tax increase in 1991, the average price of beer has fallen by more than 25 percent relative to the Consumer Price Index. Source: »www.cspinet.org/booze/taxguide/P···rint.htm
said by wtansill:Google derives its revenue from ads. The people who place ads with Google will have to pay more to cover Google's increased expenses. Who do you think will cover the increased expenses incurred by the advertisers? Do you think it likely that the people who purchase these goods and services will not see a price increase? You are not saving money at all -- you are simply reallocating your expenses to pay for the greed of the Bells. This is not a "Good Thing" (tm). Actually it is. There are far more options companies can use to allocate costs. Just because the cost of something increases (by small amounts or small percentages) doesn't mean that those increases are passed along to consumers. Many such increases are absorbed by the manufacturers, or recaptured elsewhere in the cost equation.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. |
|
