| 2 tier won't limit access; only apportion costs Powell is right. There are no problems with internet access now and there won't be under a 2-tier system.
The only question is who is going to bill the consumers for it under either a 1 tier or 2 tier system - the content providers or the internet access providers. Because the consumer will pay for all these new high bandwidth services. The providers are just fighting over who gets the bigger piece of the pie.
And those who are demanding a single tier system are just throwing their chips down on the side of the content providers winning. And the rest are on the internet providers side. But the consumer WILL pay for the new services one way or the other.
Me. I've spread my chips across both the content providers and the internet providers. Aren't mutual funds wonderful? I win no matter which side prevails.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
Conrail Photo Album |
|
| The Consumer will be billed for both. For our access to the network and the priority of our access. Simple as that. The real treat will be 2 bills, 1 from the ISP and 1 from the content. The end user will never benefit from this. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:Me. I've spread my chips across both the content providers and the internet providers. Aren't mutual funds wonderful? I win no matter which side prevails. Old_Repub,you by hedging your bets in such a manner.I'm thinking if you invested equal amounts of money into both options and one option gets the toilet bowl flush treatment.At best are you not just breaking even , by just offsetting your lose.?
I ask in all seriousness and honesty, how are you winning, if one of both investments fail.Would that not bring you back to square one.?
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. |
|
| said by guitarzan:said by fAcEtIOUs:Me. I've spread my chips across both the content providers and the internet providers. Aren't mutual funds wonderful? I win no matter which side prevails. Old_Repub,you by hedging your bets in such a manner.I'm thinking if you invested equal amounts of money into both options and one option gets the toilet bowl flush treatment.At best are you not just breaking even , by just offsetting your lose.? I ask in all seriousness and honesty, how are you winning, if one of both investments fail.Would that not bring you back to square one.? Simply, the profit pie is growing. No matter which side wins and which side loses, the total pie is expanding. Even the losing side in the battle will continue to make money. It's just that the winning side's stock will go up more than the other. If you bet on just one contestant, you may win big or just get by. But if you bet on both you still win, just not win huge. The only way to lose big is if the whole entertainment and internet industries both tank - an unlikely outcome.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
Conrail Photo Album |
|
| Hmm... both sides would continue to make money under the two-tiered system... interesting.
In 2001, independent ISPs made up more than 55% of the Internet services market with more than 77 million subscribers. This is at a time when the ILECs had just recently entered the Internet services market.
Thanks to the FCC's inability to maintain adequate regulations forcing ILECs to allow wholesale access to DSL service, today, those other ISPs make up only 28.7% of the Internet Services market with less than 27 million subscribers.
Not only have independent ISPs lost over 50 million subscribers to the ILECS predatory pricing schemes, but thousands of people in the industry lost their jobs and businesses. These numbers continue to decline at an alarming rate and soon there will be no alternatives left but between the ILEC and the Cable MSO. When this happens prices will climb again.
In the meantime, access fees will be levied on companies like Google and Vonage and innovation will be stifled more so than it already has been the ILECs ability to leverage it's telephone monopoly to garner a strangle hold on Internet service.
A prime example of ILEC abuses is AT&T who to this day still do not offer a stand alone DSL product and force you to bundle if you want their DSL for 12.99 for six months plus fees, etc. Lack of choice is never good for consumers.
And to Old_repub I would say, being republican and a free market supporters does not mean you are against regulation. On the contrary, we are the very people that should be fore regulation. Regulation that allows small business to foster and grow. Regulation that prevents multi-national corporations from murdering small business. Just like we have a system of laws to protect citizens from murder and theft, so too do we need regulations to insure businesses do not act in ways detrimental to freedom and capitalism.
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com |
|
 JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Consumers already pay. None of this will benefit the end user. |
|
audiog
join:2004-08-09
Detroit, MI | reply to TelecomJunky2
As of December of 2006 DSL will be unbundled as per the California ruling and FCC stipulation for the merger approvals.
Verizon and the New AT&T have until the end of the year to offer naked DSL ( un-bundling the DSL from voice in the provisioning system) per a case brought against SBC and Verizon by AT&T on the same issue.
I followed the case over the last 2 and 1/2 years. SBC and Verizon in a closed meeting with the California Commission showed that in for their systems to provision a DSL you need a phone number. a Naked DSL is not an option; Per the commission's order SBC and Verizon has until the end of this year to make naked DSL work and the FCC made that apart of the merger approval for The NEW AT&T and Verizon/MCI.
What was lost was two of the biggest CLECs that was suing the RBOCs for a competitive market place and now it is gone.
The American way: If a competitor is always suing you for your illegal practices then buy them.
The First statement from the head of AT&T( CEO of SBC) GOOGLE should pay us for access to our customers. Double dipping; Google is paying to access and we (DSL, cable and dialup customers) are paying for access to the internet. |
|
| The problem with SBC naked DSL claims is that we are offering Naked DSL in SBC and have no problem doing so without a DID.
And since you follow the issue, I am sure you are aware they only have to offer naked DSL for 2 years and there is no stipulation as to what they have to charge. Meaning, don't expect to pay $12.99 for naked DSL from SBC.
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com |
|
