TelecomJunky2 Premium join:2005-12-12 Kansas City, MO
The Talking Points
1. The Internet is already being paid for on both ends. Customers pay access providers for unrestricted broadband pipe. Content providers pay backbone providers for huge pipes to deliver content.
2. In order to provide any packet preferential treatment or QoS you can do 2 things. First, you can build a whole other network that only those people who pay can gain access to. Second, you can give priority to those packets that pay and when they come down the pipe every other packet gets out of the way temporarily.
3. Next-gen broadband services will need to be paid for. Who should pay for them. The end user by buying a fairly priced service from an access provider or the end user by paying much higher rates for every service on the net or by being forced to use on Bell company content? In either case you have two facts: the end user will end up footing the bill and the telco ends up with the money. The only question is will you force the telco to absorb the negative PR of the increased costs or will you let them dump it on unrelated content providers?
I hereby state that if and when access fees are charged by the telcos to content companies, I support content companies ability to list a separate line item charge on the customers bills labeled '[Insert regional Bell monopoly here] Internet Access Tax' and assign a few.
Example Vonage bill:
Vonage Services:
Unlimited Phone Service $24.95 ------------------------------ Subtotal: $24.95
Other Items and Fees
At&t Internet Access Tax $4.93 ------------------------------ Subtotal: $4.93
Total Due upon receipt: $29.88
Content companies can feel justified doing such a misleading thing because those Bell monopolies have been doing the same thing in the guise of FCC fees for decades. -- -----»hotcarl.diaryland.com
