how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
1098 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
Reviews:
 ·PHONE POWER
| reply to wtansill
Re: Good Ol' American Capitalism This is a free market economy. No one is forcing google or anyone else to pay for preferred treatment. They can opt in.
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. No one is forcing the warehouse to pay for the speeded up deliveries. You, as the receiver, can pick where you get your product from. If the warehouse passes on the cost for expedited delivery, you can choose a warehouse that has standard delivery for the lower cost. It is a choice you make as a consumer, and a choice the warehouse makes as a business. The package will be delivered regardless of whom you buy the product from.
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? Again, I, as the subscriber to the residential Internet Services, am not going to be charged for the uses you list. Only those who run the bulletin boards, the IM servers, would. And that's only if those content providers choose to be on the toll road. And there is no pressing need to be on the toll road. The "free road" will (must) continue to operate as well as it does today.
Once again, content providers do not need to be on the toll road to reach residential telco subscribers. How many different ways does that need to be said before it is understood?
Those who think otherwise are crafting worst case scenerios out of thin air.
[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
| it only appears that no one is forced. ATT is re-forming into the mega-giant it once was and soon if nothing is done quickly (such as Google building its own network for example) everyone will be using ATT to connect, and therefore the old two tiers will turn into one large tier with pay as you go access. the only thing that can stop this is action from the content providers: they need to refuse to pay up because it will further ATT's mindset that they deserve a cut for every bit transferred over 'their' network.
it will start with 'major sites' but as i said, we're all operating servers, and it will only be a matter of time before a 'hidden charge' is factored into every ISP's billing system because they use ATT's backbone. true this isn't today's news but the path is being paved for ATT to persist if no one takes action right now to stop their greed. i'm sure it's illegal in all but one technical way that the ATT-lawyers have come up with.
--
illegal wars, prisoners with no trials, and state controlled media. welcome to the land of the free! | |
 calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | The biggest point NGO is missing is that the end users will, under the Baby Bell proposal, get different classes of service, but won't have their own choice or cost responsibility for what they choose.
Historically, one of the biggest problems in health care costs has been the fact that patients and doctors made the choices but insurance companies paid for them--so you got people making $150 emergency room visits instead of $25 nurse practitioner visits for an earache.
Now the Bells want to create a similar mess on the Internet. Instead of the cost causer (who makes the choices whether to surf blogs occasionally or to download music and videos 23/7) bearing the cost of additional ISP expenses to handle growing traffic, Ed & Ivan want the "content providers" to subsidize their business, eventually creating a cozy oligarchy of big ISPs and big content providers that will put the cabal of insurance companies, HMOs, and major hospitals to shame.
What's really happening here is that Ed & Ivan, for the first time in their lives, are facing a competitive world they don't control, they are facing escalating costs to continue to make twisted pair copper mimic more naturally "broadband" pipes, and they are scared snotless and desperately looking for a new revenue stream to put off their tough decisions on truly cutting the Baby Bell Bloat.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
Reviews:
·PHONE POWER
1 edit | said by calvoiper:The biggest point NGO is missing is that the end users will, under the Baby Bell proposal, get different classes of service, but won't have their own choice or cost responsibility for what they choose. Intelligent response. This scenario depends upon wholesale penetration of the toll network as Ivan and Ed envision. I don't think there will be wholesale penetration. My assumption is that they wish to entice/extort the top five to 10 percent of bandwidth generating content providers. Really only those who are generating large amounts of bandwidth consumption. I would think that the porn industry (and any other heavy video industry) would be the first targeted.
Instead of the cost causer (who makes the choices whether to surf blogs occasionally or to download music and videos 23/7) bearing the cost of additional ISP expenses to handle growing traffic.... If the dozen or so posts above this one are indicative of the indignation of charging content providers for preferred handling of traffic, can you imagine the uproar/rioting/anarchy that would ensue on BBR if Ed and Ivan suggested charging users on a per byte basis (even if there was a generous bucket before the per byte charge). It would be madness. The content providers are an easier mark. In the final analysis, though as you rightly pointed out, they are not the "right" target.
What's really happening here is that Ed & Ivan, for the first time in their lives, are facing a competitive world they don't control, they are facing escalating costs to continue to make twisted pair copper mimic more naturally "broadband" pipes You are missing the mark here. Ed and Ivan are not talking about what is already there. They are talking about how to fund the next generation CO-to-home connections, e.g., the fiber in the ground. If the telcos build that FTTH/C, they are looking to extract the most bang for their buck from it. And if they feel they can double dip (charge the residential user for the pipe, and the content providers for preferential handling of the bits), they'll do it. I would, too.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | NGO,
I disagree that a "per byte" charge would be madness, especially if the first "bucket" was large enough for 20 or 25 movies per month and that point was made clear. Ed & Ivan need to look to the financial industry (banking and credit cards especially) to learn how to "introduce" fees without too much resistance in a semi-regulated industry.
(Personally, I think Ed's arrogant statements are a PR nightmare that stockholders would hate, but maybe that Missouri/Texas history of his means he has to act like a cowboy....)
Effectively, you pointed out on twisted pair what I meant--that the existing twisted pair copper doesn't have the "native" ability to really compete well with coax and/or wireless options, and that the Bells have much spending to do to be able to hit the higher speeds that these other technologies can already deliver. Although I phrased that in terms of higher speed DSL, you are correct that it should be implemented as fiber overbuilding, not ever faster and more powerful DSLAMS.
It's quite possible that the Bells will, through fiber deployment, "leapfrog" coax by installing an underlying technology that will fairly easily upgrade to speeds beyond what existing cable coax can handle--but that only flips the coin in the future, when (and if) the difference between, say 15 Mbps and 150 Mbps becomes meaningful to the average residential user.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to NGOwner
said by NGOwner: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. OK maybe this will clear it up for you.
I want a new, modern, luxurious house with all the amenities. I will own it, it's mine, and I will occupy and control it.
Oh: One little detail: You're making the payments for me, and you don't have a choice in the matter. Thanks! Bye!
How is that American Capitalism?
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| reply to NGOwner
Based on past performance of the Bells. The I think the real issue is the Bells wish to become THE exclusive CPs themselves. As an example, they are losing each month customers faster and faster to the VOIPs. Now if they are allowed to control the QOS for a price to CPs they can sell their own VIOP for whatever they want while making sure the competition costs (for usable latency) are too high to compete with THEIR offerings. Bingo you pay $40 per line for JUST voip instead of $16 now with the competition.
They ALREADY employ this model with the DSL resellers to make themselves the primary seller and that I feel is the ACTUAL goal for this entire QOS regardless of the pity they feed Congress. Ie: ("I bought sooo much of the market I can't afford to feed my children now. You like your services to keep going right???"). | |
|
