| reply to en102
Re: Cry Cry Cry Like I said. The law is only needed when this is an issue. Other wise there is nothing to stop. Just a bunch of major companies shooting the breeze. |
|
|
|
RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | said by hottboiinnc:Like I said. The law is only needed when this is an issue. Other wise there is nothing to stop. Just a bunch of major companies shooting the breeze. Is your name Edward Whitacre, Jr. or does he sign your paycheck?
See
»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···211.html
for what the head of SBC seems to have said he wants to do.
You are right, it is not a KNOWN issue at this time, however the people (providers) who *own* the customers do currently have the right to screw with or charge extra for data streams that we are paying for if they do not come from the best money making (for the provider) location (read the article, I have summarized drastically). So says the Boss of SBC.
As I read what the Golden Boy of Telecom had to say in 2005, the fact that Google (example) pays whomever for internet access and that I pay SBC (assuming I have SBC as an ISP/connection) for Internet access does not mean that SBC has to allow me to access Google without Google paying SBC extra for data from Google to traverse SBC into my house.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
| Actually no I don't have anything to do with AT&T I don't even use their services. I use Time Warner and Sprint. And someone from Lowe's Companies, Inc signs my paycheck since you asked 
But what Ed had to say back when he said this does not have anything to do with now. It did not happen. Nobody is charging content providers anything extra to access the end-user and Ed is not even working for AT&T any longer so whats the big deal?
And again why create a law when one is not needed? When this changes, if it ever does, then we may need a bill/law protecting the customers. |
|
RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | said by hottboiinnc:Actually no I don't have anything to do with AT&T I don't even use their services. I use Time Warner and Sprint. And someone from Lowe's Companies, Inc signs my paycheck since you asked But what Ed had to say back when he said this does not have anything to do with now. It did not happen. Nobody is charging content providers anything extra to access the end-user and Ed is not even working for AT&T any longer so whats the big deal? And again why create a law when one is not needed? When this changes, if it ever does, then we may need a bill/law protecting the customers. Did not happen. Wonder what would have happened if the fuss did not occur? And from what I have read in various trade journals, I doubt if the thought of more money into the coffers will go away unless something is done. History has proven that corporations, especially big ones that many people depend on, do not care about anything except the executive bonus levels.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
