sousademiami
join:2003-02-04
Hialeah, FL
 ·Comcast
 ·AT&T Southeast
1 edit |  I don't get it!
Why is network neutrality even still up for debate? Google pays for it's connection to the internet. I pay for mine. Why should they have to pay my provider to communicate with me?
It's as if I have long distance phone service and so do you, but if I want to be able to call you and have decent service I still have to pay your provider too.
HOW DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?!?!
--
OASAASLLS |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Because the ISP expects you and Google to pay 2 and 3 times over to deliver the same data. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | reply to sousademiami
greed and entitlement issues by telcos, mostly. although they will claim it is every other excuse imaginable... |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Guess you didn't get the memo...they're the new Bridge Troll.
But unfortunately for them, Google is the third Billy Goat. |
|
ElJay
join:2004-03-17
1 edit | reply to sousademiami
It's typical in big and old companies like AT&T and the Bells. These companies think they walk on water and THEY will tell the people what they want. If these companies don't wise up then they'll lose customers to something better. |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| reply to sousademiami
The big problem is the "I pay for mine" section- ISPs realize that their payment model is based on an internet connection not always used and for text and pictures, not things like Flash and video.
The problem is that the existing competition makes significantly raising prices or lowering speeds to what can be offered more realistically very difficult, which is what competition is supposed to do. They therefore looked at the website owners as easier targets, as well as things like caps, where they can still advertise higher speeds but make sure the people aren't using them too much. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | reply to Dogfather
Because the ISP's also sell things like TV and voice, and get big bucks for them. When Google/YouTube offer things over IP that cannabalize those services, the ISP's want to be compensated with a cut of the action. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | They have competitors...my violin is playing for them. |
|
MysticGogeta
The Robot Devil
Premium
join:2005-03-14
League City, TX
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to sousademiami
Cause they want to get a buck anyway they can. Frivolous lawsuits are the number one fundraisers in corporations. It would be funny if they cut access to Google to see how the subscribers to the ISP react. I actually kinda wish they would so people would drop them and push back.
--
Team Discovery-Join the fight |
|
DavePR
join:2008-06-04 | reply to ElJay
AT&T is a Baby Bell; Southwestern Bell aka SBC. |
|
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
| reply to EPS
I disagree. I think there is very little actual competition in most markets, and what there seems to be decently addressed with speed increases (why would they want to lower speeds?). Their model works fine as they continue to over-subscribe their connections anyway.
This is all just looking to make more profit, which is fine, but their attempted reasoning is fallacious.
KM |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs: | reply to Dogfather
Don't worry pay per bit is coming and then you can watch all the Google HD you want. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to sousademiami
it doesnt. People on here and Google like to cry Net Neutrality when its not a such thing.
They don't understand that Net Neutrality is charging another company such as Search or video or IM extra to be "faster" on one company's network.
But as stated here many times it is not a problem the US faces. Canada does not face this either. They just face Bell getting tired of letting others use the network they manage each and every day at a price instead of others building out a WISP that could be huge by now but nobody wanted to do it up there really; except the people here on the WISP board.
But there will be a day that we have caps the same as they do and most other countries, a day where we do not have resellers on the Bell or Cable Networks, and if any companies want to still play they'll need to build out their own network or be forced to explain to their customers and their employees that they decide to take things the easy way and use all they could from the Bells and Cable Cos (TWC areas) and that they can not offer services and everyone must be laid off. |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by hottboiinnc  :They don't understand that Net Neutrality is charging another company such as Search or video or IM extra to be "faster" on one company's network. Net Neutrality is different things to different leeches. When a law is passed to let all bits and bytes through the same we will pay per bit just like we pay per kilowatt.
Google had the chance to put up and buy the 700 Mhz spectrum and then open it up the leeches and they didn't do it. Put up or shut up, they didn't put up so shut up. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to EPS
I disagree. They pay for their consumption, so if I connect to say YouTube and watch a ton of videos that means Google has to pay their providers for the bandwidth I consumed.
Which is part of the reason charge by the byte is a pure rip-off for consumers. They want to follow the Cell phone model--- make people pay for both MAKING the call and RECEIVING the call---- IE pay twice. Hell if Net Neutrality fails that could become paying THREE, FOUR, or even more times.
--
"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 batterup
Notice to newbies to the forum. Batterup is a long time, fervent believer in Ma Bell. He believes it goes from God, to Ma Bell, to ... etc etc with you and I at the very bottom. |
|
verolom
join:2002-03-23
Eagleville, PA
·Comcast
| reply to sousademiami
said by sousademiami :It's as if I have long distance phone service and so do you, but if I want to be able to call you and have decent service I still have to pay your provider too. HOW DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?!?! You actually do pay my provider to call me. It's called access fees and it is what killed AT&T, MCI and Sprint LD.
It is what happens when you have phone companies rule the internet access. |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to KrK
said by KrK :Notice to newbies to the forum. Batterup is a long time, fervent believer in Ma Bell. He believes it goes from God, to Ma Bell, to ... etc etc with you and I at the very bottom. Notice KrK has not only his own opinions but his own facts. See;
»Re: Agree 100%
»Re: Agree 100% |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Thanks! |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to batterup
i know this. But it wouldnt be DSLR if it wasn't for the weekly articles on what Google things is right or what they have to say.
Especially when the story about Google being sued never hit the front page. Thanks Karl for censoring the news for us. |
|
