how-to block ads
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| Re: Give Me A Break said by devnuller  :said by Karl Bode :But are carriers like AT&T and Comcast really struggling so badly under the current pricing model, that they can afford multi-million-dollar CEO bonuses and fantastic profits but can't upgrade their infrastructure? The above statement is nothing more than agenda based rhetoric. .... you don't appear to actually understand the statement you are characterizing.
Karl's point is simple:
various entities with vested interests have been warning of the coming "bandwidth crunch" for well over a year now - h/w vendors hype it to sell network management gear; investors and ISPs hype it as an excuse to charge more or get regulatory relief (these definitely sound like agenda based rhetoric). One sure-fire way to solve the "bandwidth crunch" IS TO ADD MORE BANDWIDTH. If these companies profits are above normal and they are paying their CEOs and other executives tens of millions of $$, one would certainly think they could afford to ADD MORE BANDWIDTH.
unfortunately, their agenda is to scare politicians and regulators into giving them more power to milk consumers of even more money. | |
|  Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
 ·SONIC.NET
| Re: Give Me A Break said by nasadude :you don't appear to actually understand the statement you are characterizing. Karl's point is simple: various entities with vested interests have been warning of the coming "bandwidth crunch" for well over a year now - h/w vendors hype it to sell network management gear; investors and ISPs hype it as an excuse to charge more or get regulatory relief (these definitely sound like agenda based rhetoric). One sure-fire way to solve the "bandwidth crunch" IS TO ADD MORE BANDWIDTH. If these companies profits are above normal and they are paying their CEOs and other executives tens of millions of $$, one would certainly think they could afford to ADD MORE BANDWIDTH. unfortunately, their agenda is to scare politicians and regulators into giving them more power to milk consumers of even more money. Sorry I didn't have time to edit my quote of you, but I think you characterized the good parts that I agree with Karl about correctly, except for the wild prediction that they have enough money in all cases to meet any bandwidth demand -- I'd personally temper that a bit, but certainly not much (since lack of supply is acceptable within small ranges of lack). I still disagree with him (Karl) on the point of the ability of usage-based billing to work correctly depending upon implementation. That it is used as a scare tactic is not surprising, since there aren't ample examples of it being properly implemented (i.e., not slanted to favor some people, by heavily shifting resources from some users to others, overcharging (gouging) many, etc.. ... i.e., close-to-cost-based would be best). I said that in my other post. | |
| | | |
|
