batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to calvoiper
Re: More Whining Baby Bell Hogwash !!!
said by calvoiper  :More Whining Baby Bell Hogwash! Well you and Teletruth better get busy and build the last mile so you can control it all. The Telecom act of 1996 forces the right of way open to you people. When are you going to build it? Or are you slopping more Hogwash? |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to TKJunkMail
One small part bought and paid for by some of their larger clients--without doubt.
Consulting is like any other advocacy business--where you stand depends on where you sit.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
asdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: chip in some change?
Where does Schmidt say the government should pay "his" costs? Google pays for it's transport now and it isn't asking for government to subsidize its transport costs.
Schmidt says that the problem is last mile access and that the government should be involved in making sure that all citizens have broadband access. This isn't a request for the government to pay "his" costs. Google doesn't own or control the last mile. They are not in the last mile access business. The cablecos and telcos control the last mile.
"The Deloitte report asserts there can't be a free ride"
Google does NOT get a free ride. You and I don't get a free ride. They pay for their transport needs, as do you and I, just like every other user and business does. If google needs more transport for it's growth it will spend the money it needs to buy the transport that it requires.
As for return on investment I think it is bogus to continue to insinuate that these companies aren't making a return on their infrastructure investments. Whether they are or not, however, is not google's problem. Capitalism doesn't guarantee a return. Google does not own and control the infrastructure and they are not under any obligation to guarantee that the ATTs of the world make a certain return on their investment. The investments that ATT and verizon are making are investments to get them into the video business. Why is google obligated to shoulder the costs of telco video content dreams? Why shouldn't the telco's video customers be shouldering that cost? If the costs of getting into the video business are so large that ATT can not recoup its costs through its video customers then it has a failed business model and shouldn't be in the video business.
Google video, unlike telco video, isn't demanding special privilege or transport on the network. It is treated as other traffic is treated so it is nonsense to claim that anyone who uses internet transport for video should be paying for the infrastructure upgrades of the telcos, who intend to use their upgrades to provide privileged transport for their own telco video. Again, their own telco video customers should be bearing the cost of upgrades for their telco video business. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to SSidlov
Re: Internet2 is gov't funded & gov't should lease network
said by SSidlov :The highway system in the US is falling apart and is always short of funds because it's based on trucking fees and gasoline taxes. While the non-toll road highways are only funded by these sources, the problem is that the funds collected by these taxes are treated as a slush fund due to not being DEDICATED to maintaining the highways (the same also may apply to Toll-Road revenues). In most cases, the majority of the funds collected gets diverted to the State's "General Fund" for uses having nothing to do with highway maintenance or building (I'll include maintenance of the Highway Police as a legitimate usage here). If the funds collected from the taxes were ONLY used for the highway uses (and the states were forced to return the embezzled funds to the Highway Fund) there were be enough money for the needed Highway Maintenance and Construction. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| reply to TScheisskopf
Re: More Whining Baby Bell Hogwash !!!
said by TScheisskopf :Exactly. The $64000 Question: Who paid D-T for this report? No one bought this report. It is a generic annual technology prediction by the consulting firm. And the internet section was one small part.
»www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/con···1606.pdf
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
SSidlov
Other Things On My Mind
Premium
join:2000-03-03
Pompton Lakes, NJ
·Optimum Online
·Cingular Wireless
| reply to TKJunkMail
Internet2 is gov't funded & gov't should lease network
said by SteveLV702 :Schmidt thinks the government should pay more of the rising infrastructure costs. "We didn't ask for private citizens to pay for the highway system up front," he said. He said it would be "great" if the U.S. government recognized the advanced position other countries have in providing greater broadband access to their citizens as a competitive threat leading to further investment here. This is a fine concept. But two warnings. One, state owned systems have a tendency to be censored, like those in the China, the middle east and elsewhere -- even the US internet is heavily regulated for content »www.isoc.org/inet97/proceedings/B1/B1_3.HTM and »www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens3.html . Let's do it like Korea. The government builds it to allow for 90% in excess capacity. They use 10% for their own purpose, and lease the excess on bids for $$ to recoup the initial investment, pay for maintenance and upgrades. Leases should not be for more than 10 years to make sure that the government is able to do the upgrades and that there is a possibility of change in management. Companies like Verizon and Quest who are building or already have fiber networks can sell them to the government for tax breaks or preferential bids but not 'sweetheart bids' (say they have to offer 90% of the highest bid) for the first 10 years, that will give us a start, and allow the phone companies and other carriers to 'come on board.'
This is the only way the government should be allowed to do this. The highway system in the US is falling apart and is always short of funds because it's based on trucking fees and gasoline taxes. While Trucking Fees are usage based, gasoline taxes are not since not everyone uses all the gallons of gas to drive on highways. Raising the gas tax is considered a political liability. All US highways should be toll roads, and the Federal Gas Tax repealed. Highways to no-other-state like those in Alaska and Hawaii could then be justified and alloted maintenance based on the actual usage.
"In April[2006], representatives of the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Congressional Budget Office testified before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure’s Highways, Transit, and Pipelines Subcommittee about the fund’s financial status. Current estimates indicate that the fund will probably become insolvent in 2009 or 2010, the witnesses said." »www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonl···eat.html
--
»www.Warpstock.org |
|
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ | reply to calvoiper
Re: More Whining Baby Bell Hogwash !!!
Exactly. The $64000 Question:
Who paid D-T for this report? |
|
Fronkman
Macs Do It Better
Premium
join:2003-06-23
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: chip in some change?
that is a bunch of garbage. this is google's fault? why is it that the cell phone companies actually charge LESS than they did 10 years ago when they are enormously more users using huge amounts of service? do the people who sell those stupid annoying ringtones owe money to cell phone companies because their crap is popular?
look at it this way, parts of the internet are like toll roads. google already pays to get on the road at their end, and we all pay to get on the road at our end. we just happen to meet at one of the rest stops somewhere in the middle to exchange our data. however, since the ISPs and backbones have so much control over the road, they want to charge successful companies (like google) again to access the road.
it is within their rights to do that, but the US government should be aware that this will stifle innovation and growth in one of the last parts of the US economy which still has strong growth. if they want to do that go ahead.
all this amounts to is a punishment for being successful. the ISPs never want to double bill the guy with a blog about his cat. they only want to double bill the huge successes. good luck greedy guys. your customers will certainly love this tactic.
--
Everyone should own a G4 cube or an iBook or the Mac mini! |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to TKJunkMail
More Whining Baby Bell Hogwash !!!
More Whining Baby Bell Hogwash!
You didn't hear this kind of cr@p when competitive LD companies had the biggest chunks of the Internet backbone, and you still don't hear it from Level 3. You only hear it from the monopolists and their paid lackeys, like Deloitte out-of-Touche.
First, the facilities layer of the Internet is not some "top-down" computer network that can be "managed", "planned", or "controlled". It was deliberately designed to be independent of such factors.
Second, the Whining Baby Bells don't understand such a concept. They are incapable of grasping any role for themselves in communications that does not place them in a position of "control".
The Whining Baby Bells are seeking not only government sponsored "investment", but overall "control". They seek the ability to have government sponsored investment, with enough government sponsored "control" to shut out competitors--either through inequitable access to the investment funds, irrational regulatory standards that only the Baby Bells can meet, or similar exclusionary tactics. They know they lack the competitive skills to win in a competitive backbone market, they fear that backbone will be "just a commodity" (as it SHOULD BE), and they will try anything to avoid those situations.
They are trying to change the face of the Internet, and we must not allow that to happen--because while they might be able to control some of the US backbone, the end result would be a crippled US Internet while the world plays in a truly competitive, open space.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to SteveLV702
Re: chip in some change?
said by SteveLV702 :I'll through in a dime maybe... let the government pay for it they can finally contribute something to this country  Google CEO Eric Schmidt agrees with you. I guess Google isn't making enough money, he thinks the gov't and the taxpayers should help cover his costs.
»itmanagement.earthweb.com/netsys···/3671896
The Deloitte report asserts there can't be a free ride.
"For the Internet to continue operating to everyone's benefit, all companies whose livelihood depends on the Web need both to contribute and gain," the Deloitte report stated. "This means that organizations that build, operate, maintain and expand the underlying infrastructure need a return on their investment; everyone involved may end up paying more, including consumers."
Schmidt thinks the government should pay more of the rising infrastructure costs.
"We didn't ask for private citizens to pay for the highway system up front," he said. He said it would be "great" if the U.S. government recognized the advanced position other countries have in providing greater broadband access to their citizens as a competitive threat leading to further investment here.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
