 DaSneaky1Done wall to block them allPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
 ·Charter
| reply to hottboiinnc
Re: Cry Cry Cry said by hottboiinnc:I'm a RR customer as well and have never been sent anything from RR regarding the network being de-prioritize anything on their network. And why would RR contact you? You wouldn't be the one charged. What you don't seem to understand, though, is that (for the sake of arguement)...in RR's eyes, they own you as a customer. They own where you visit on line and the right to control your enjoyment of the services you use via the Internet.
You say "they" should just go and build their own networks...But, what that translates in to is "Google" should go and build their own network. And Microsoft, and Youtube, and Flickr, and DSL Reports.
Net Neutrality is about your ISP saying, "if you want to reach my customers, then pay me". This isn't like a toll booth on a highway or turn pike. Companies pay huge amounts to not only build their network, but also peering and access charges to upstream providers so others can reach them.
You have a 1and1 review under your name tag. How would you feel about their "fast servers" if RR decided to tell them, "if you want your hosting services to reach my customers with any sort of reliable quality...pay me!"
Net neutrality protection is about making what is already working, stay working. It's never been about you...but you'll benefit from these efforts.
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: |
|
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| I would be contacted if they're de-prioritizing the customer side of the network like some customers of RR's has said. And i clearly understand what is going on; simply a bunch of people complaining about what a company can and can not do. They built it and own it. If you don't like it don't use it and build your own. I mean they as in the customers; at least on here. If you don't like your ISP build a network to compete. MSN already has their own of Dial-up and are partnered with Qwest for DSL.
Well as with 1and1 and their reliable quality its the Internet. Nothing has quality its only best of effort now.
I don't see the point of making a law that is not needed. When it's needed then make the law otherwise its just wasting time being bitched about in DC when other bills that are needed just sit there.
and for the Record TWC, Comcast and every other cable company already does prioritize their network with their Digital Phone- it has priority access on their network on a different channel then anything else. |
|
|
|
Cogdis
join:2007-03-26
Floral Park, NY | said by hottboiinnc:...I don't see the point of making a law that is not needed. When it's needed then make the law ... ...and for the Record TWC, Comcast and every other cable company already does prioritize their network... Dude...
In many areas cable companies have exclusive rights to have infrastructure. Therefore they are the ONLY HSI available.
We both have Road runner who has already de-prioritized certain kinds of traffic (call them and ask- I did).
Many of these companies have already made their intentions clear, that they will prioritize their own internet traffic, or that of companies that will pay them for it (meaning competition- won't be competition at all if it can't get to you reliably). |
|
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| AT&T has exclusive use of their backbone as well. TWC/Comcast on the other hand has built their entire network with their own money. I mean the entire back bone is what i meant by network.
But like i said- It's only the NYC people saying they're not giving fair access. Thats where the "letters" were email from to their customers. |
|
| reply to hottboiinnc
quote:
I would be contacted if they're de-prioritizing
Oh my, don't we feel important?
Net Neutrality is about keeping the status quo: best effort delivery and all. Double dipping the parties who already pay for access is ludicrous.
quote:
They built it and own it. If you don't like it don't use it and build your own.
This argument gets used here an awful lot. Applied to any other commerce arrangement, it would seem illogical and ill advised at best. I suppose if you don't like WalMart, you should build your own store? That's hardly feasible. Luckily, most other commerce arrangements have other choices in the marketplace-there are competitors to WalMart. Building ones own ISP is hardly a feasible proposition for a majority of people. Possible? Yes, but so is building my own doctor's office, or football stadium, or ocean liner. None of those things are feasible from a cost/skill/time/effort/energy perspective for just about anyone. I don't see how an ISP is any different than those examples. Sure, a one man, one location, two pipes for redundancy ISP is possible, but who amongst the peasants of the world could afford/want to do so, when there are clearly behemoth giants already squatting on that space? Could a one man ISP compete with say Time Warner, pricewise? Absolutely not. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | There is an important difference. The ISP's network is sitting on public land in public ROW's. Therefore the government (supposedly the people) does get a say, especially since they won't let unlimited competing networks be built on the same ROW's. The government provides the wireline monopoly that creates their billion dollar profits. What are ISP's? Maintenance companies. They don't create content (any good content), they don't provide any reason for a customer to want to connect to the internet except for the fact that they own the lease on the last link between you, and what you want. The government has a responsibility to ensure that the network wireline monopoly on public land remains neutral. |
|
| Actually now the state PUCs are taking over the ROWs and they get to say who builds and who doesn't. Will that eliminate over-builders, most likely not. But most people won't over build, instead they'd just rather complain about something. |
|
| reply to Ahrenl
Re: Cry Cry Cry - major error said by Ahrenl:There is an important difference. The ISP's network is sitting on public land in public ROW's. ISPs do not generally build infrastructure. The last time I checked, albeit a year ago at least, earthlink does not have ROWs. Telcos, CableCos, Wireless and SatCos use ROWs.
said by Ahrenl:Therefore the government (supposedly the people) does get a say, especially since they won't let unlimited competing networks be built on the same ROW's. The government provides the wireline monopoly that creates their billion dollar profits. What are ISP's? Maintenance companies. They don't create content (any good content), they don't provide any reason for a customer to want to connect to the internet except for the fact that they own the lease on the last link between you, and what you want. The government has a responsibility to ensure that the network wireline monopoly on public land remains neutral. My only point is that you seem to be confused about what an internet service provider and an infrastructure provider is.
(not that the lines didn't get blurred once the real ISPs were either bankrupted or absorbed into existing regulated entities)
It ain't much different than the wal-mart model. We all complain about local jobs lost, yet we shop there because of low prices, which are caused by labor that is less than local jobs provide.
We sorta killed the ISP industry and handed it to the telcos and cablecos. It reminds me of that original small check we all received from Bush when he was first elected...face it, us americans are whores...
Just food for thought. |
|
