 tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
1 edit | Silliness. Incumbent execs keep looking at the money being pulled in by outfits like Google, and want a slice of those profits to help subsidize upgrades.
Whereas we keep wondering how these execs keep pulling in their multimillion dollar paychecks, and where all of our money is really going, if not to help upgrade networks (in part).
And if those monies aren't enough, why we're expected to pay by someone other than the ones actually charging us.
--
"You do not secure the liberty of our country and value of our democracy by undermining them, that's the road to hell." - Lord Phillips of Sudbury. |
|
|
|
| Problem with cable is they already have an environment where they pay for video content and then mark it up and pass it on to their subscribers. They certainly don't want the tables flipped where the most popular content destinations start charging the ISPs for access. It's not a terribly large jump for a Google to start demanding a royalty for ad-free content (for example).
This is more of a defensive 'offense' than anything. Doesn't make it any less silly though... |
|
| That's a pretty long stretch to say sites like Google will start charging ISP's. The whole business model for Google is to provide free content paid for by advertising. Much like broadcast television, which has been around for over 50 years and not once have they resorted to charging anybody access even when they see cable companies showing the same content for a fee. |
|
Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH | Cable companies pay the local network stations for the rights to carry their content. |
|
| reply to SRFireside
You missed the key part of that comment: "Ad free". Google is a restless beast. At some point they'll get into charging for "premium content" just like they've done with Google Earth.
Back to the issue at hand...I'm quite sure that broadcast TV stations never ever imagined they'd be forced to pay to be on cable, but that happened to a certain extent with paid channel placement. It is a very short walk from that to charging high-profile websites for "premium placement" via unencumbered network QoS through an ISPs (or backbone's) data paths. If they don't want to be on the Internet equivalent of channel 73 instead of 7, they'll have to pay.
Don't kid yourself. The cable companies are drooling into their morel encrusted Kobe beef fillets at the prospect. |
|
| I thought you were saying the cable companies are trying to be proactive and start charging before content providers like Google do. I am in complete agreement that the incumbent data carriers (cable and telco) want to double dip the revenue pot, and that they shouldn't be given a chance to.
In regards to Google I have no issues with them charging for premium content as long as they continue to keep the current free services free. Heck, Google has been expanding their free services for quite some time now so if they continue to add free content I would even be more satisfied even if they charged for the top shelf stuff. |
|
| reply to tsu9
Pay per bit solves all The solution that should be implemented to address all bandwidth hog issues - a pay per bit pricing model. With that model, those who consume the most bandwidth pay the most money. This does 2 things:
It puts the burden of upgrading infrastructure on those causing the need for an upgrade. And it puts a self-limit on those biggest bandwidth hogs - how much are they willing to pay to consume huge amounts of bandwidth. At some point they will cut their usage to match their available funds.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
| reply to tsu9
Re: Silliness. said by tsu9:Whereas we keep wondering how these execs keep pulling in their multimillion dollar paychecks, and where all of our money is really going, if not to help upgrade networks (in part). Even if the CEOs of the telcos gave up their paychecks entirely it wouldn't begin to cover the costs of upgrading their gigantic networks.
--
What's certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1) - Ann Coulter |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: Pay per bit solves all Per bit pricing was done away with years ago. The problem isn't bandwidth saturation, which last I heard hasn't nearly tapped the potential of all that dark fiber yet. The problem is these companies want more money. They want that money from other companies that have very successful online business models. They are envious because other companies found a way to make a lot of money while they are still placating to stockholders and playing with their own budget numbers.
The solution is for the incumbent telcos and cablecos to simply shut up. If they want more revenue they need to work on a revenue stream that actually offers their customers something more instead of restricting customers of what they currently enjoy. |
|
| reply to Nuts
Re: Silliness. You are wrong. Local stations are carried free under must-carry rules. No money trades hands for the OTA signal. If the local station wants to broadcast another channel (like a subchannel of the HD signal), then that's a separate negotiation that may require payment to the cable operator. |
|
Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH | Your right. I was confusing local stations with ones from other cities that want to be carried in other areas. Channel 10 in columbus, is carried by TW in areas that they can not be gotten via an antenna. |
|
| reply to Nuts
said by Nuts:Cable companies pay the local network stations for the rights to carry their content. Uh, no. They are required to carry local stations, and the TV station can't charge for that. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to tsu9
said by tsu9:Incumbent execs keep looking at the money being pulled in by outfits like Google, and want a slice of those profits to help subsidize upgrades. Such stupidity. Hey I know....
Consumer broadband users keep looking at the money being pulled in by outfits like AT&T, Time Warner Cable etc, and want a slice of those profits to help subsidize Internet expenses.
Hey, if they wanna "sell" "access" to me to companies like Google, ebay, etc then I think it's only fair I charge them for "Access" to me!
Yeah! that's it! I should send AT&T a notice that starting Oct. 1st they will pay me $9.95 a month for the right to provide Internet service to me!
LOL
--
"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!) |
|
sjr
join:2006-08-27
Osseo, MN | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: Pay per bit solves all That sounds exactly like traditional landline pricing for long distance service of old. But cell phones and now voip are largely killing off that pricing model. Why would one go back to it for something else?
If one was to price that way are the isp's going to guarantee that you will not get things like spam with attachment of large files and for that matter are the isp's not going to send their own buy more of our stuff emails with lots of images and such in them? I certainly don't want to pay for crap I don't want or didn't request to get. I already don't use Comcast's portal page and I sure wouldn't with all the crap they have going on there if I was paying by the byte.
The only way I could see that plan working anywhere in the customers favor is if you start at a bandwidth amount for the month then go per byte rate when you go over that amount. But it needs to start at some reasonable number like 100gb/month. |
|
 roamer1sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA
1 edit | reply to clickie
Re: Silliness. said by clickie:You are wrong. Local stations are carried free under must-carry rules. Local stations can elect must-carry or can demand payment from cable companies (aka retransmission consent.) In general, most major network affiliates take the latter option but some take the former; PBS stations and religious stations are always must-carry. See »www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/cblbdcst.html
-SC
--
"it seems like all you ever buy is Abercrombie and cell phones" --a friend |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: Pay per bit solves all Honestly TK, if "bandwitch hogs" are draining that much money, the ISPs are doing something seriously, grossly, negligent. |
|
| reply to tsu9
Re: Silliness. Honestly, I'd happily pay for GMAIL. I won't pay for Google. Maybe Google should start charging ISPs since Google is a popular site as well as MySpace, YouTube, etc.
"Our customers can't access Google even from our website powered by Google. They are ticked!"
"When you wanted $$$ from us, we blocked ALL AT&T customers including your employees."
"What?"
"If you want Google back, we want royalties!"
"Yer kidding! It's our pipes!"
"Pretty useless pipes when people can't get anywhere." |
|
 Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA | reply to Not You
they are required to carry the channels, and yes the channels can charge the cable provider |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: Pay per bit solves all Pay per bit.. Are you Bill Gates.?
This mess needs to be stopped before they're deciding what websites you can have and on what tier of service. I'm sorry, that site isn't available with standard expanded internet.
Would you like to Biggie Size that.? |
|
| reply to tsu9
Re: Silliness. One way of addressing the interesting policies of the those in CEO and other high paying positions is to pass a law that the highest paid person in the company can make no more than 20 times what the lowest paid person working for the company is compensated. This would include consultants, temps and those mowing the grass. Pay is defined as total compensation.
Another way of improving the country is to force any politician who received money from a company that found itself in a ENRON position to pay back the amount plus interest at credit card rates. |
|
