guardfrog
join:2004-08-27
Dallas, TX
| Giving Google a free pass
quote:
By this I meant that the big U.S. telephone companies' failure to offer faster broadband is hindering the emergence of a whole new wave of innovative, connected devices, and applications--things like telemedicine apps, advanced teleconferencing and 3D interactive TV.
So, big U.S. telephone companies should spend billions to upgrade their networks...but not be able to recoup some of those costs by charging application providers who make money off of the phone companies' investments?
That's not anti-tech...it's anti-common sense. |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| I don't understand. The customer is paying for X amount of bandwidth. The big bad application provider is paying for X amount of bandwidth.
THAT is common sense.
If big bad application provider only has 100mb of upstream, and 200 customers using 1mb/sec to use it, well then, it won't work well. The big bad application provider will need to BUY MORE BANDWIDTH.
I think what you are complaining about is people using the product they paid for, right? I mean, if comcrap sold me 10mb/sec, then I EXPECT TO GET 10mb/sec. If comcrap sold 100 people 10mb/sec, and they only had a 100mb pipe, then just like the BIG BAD application provider, they need to buy more bandwidth (upgrade). However, if comcast only SOLD 1mb/sec, and had 100 people, with a 100mb pipe, it wouldn't be a problem, EVER.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA | reply to guardfrog
They got billions of dollars to upgrade their networks via the USF. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
| reply to guardfrog
said by guardfrog  :So, big U.S. telephone companies should spend billions to upgrade their networks...but not be able to recoup some of those costs by charging application providers who make money off of the phone companies' investments? Newsflash. They do charge application providers, service providers, or anyone else. They charge them for their bandwidth. If you're saying "They should charge them for their bandwidth, and also force them to pay for us to upgrade our networks, too!" then the answer is Yes, that would be Anti-Tech.
--
"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!) |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to guardfrog
Explain how Google gets a free pass.
Are you saying Google isn't charged anything for their connection and usage? Because you sure sound like that's your claim.
"Free pass" indeed. |
|
common sense
@swbell.net
| reply to guardfrog
You want common sense? Put all that undeserved money that the telco corporate execs and CEOs get for sitting there doing nothing but blowing smoke up peoples' arses and put it into upgrading their equipment/network.
They'd also save a bit of money if they bribed a few less government officials too.
They'll recoup their losses over time as customers pay for their service naturally.. That and the Universal Slush Fund needs to be taken away.. it's not supposed to be the CEO's play money. |
|
