 nekoAll Hail CanadaPremium
join:2006-08-11
Canada
 ·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to KrK
Re: Not Capacity issue... Unless you mean profit capacity.... said by KrK:"There's others who think that AT&T's plan to cap users is a pre-emptive, anti-competitive shot at Internet video providers dressed up as a bogus fix for non-existent capacity strain."Isn't that the truth. Notice the most restrictive of caps on the lowest tiers. It's definitely not about capacity strain. It's about relieving the strain of having competitors services available via the Net, when at&t wants consumers to "choose" them. Hey, you should see things up north, buddy; we have Bell Canada throttling it's own customers, the customers of their wholesalers & to 'cap' it all, they are going to implement capped Internet on it's wholesalers too: To the tune of 40-60GB per month, IIRC.
They use DPI boxes to peek into the content of your packets. I've heard a few people mention if you try running a service on non standard ports, such as SSH for example, it gets throttled too: They can't look into encrypted streams, so they throttle them too!
Bell Canada has ambitions of running an online movie service, funny how it all came to pass after they started this throttling & bandwidth apocalypse nonsense.
It's not just Bell Canada, however. It's just about every major ISP up here in the great white north - Competition between ISP's is supposed to be here, now, in Canada; & we have choices - Well it's either throttled capped service from:
•Cogeco cable versus Bell DSL
•Videotron Cable versus Bell DSL
•Rogers cable versus Bell DSL
There are some other services, such as wireless in a few places, or perhaps you could go for fapped/capped SAT Internet.
You hit the nail right on the head, buddy. They want control of the Internet as a delivery medium for their services - Not guys like Apple, Microsoft, Google, legal torrent movie sites.
Perhaps Bell don't even like their sterling competitors; like Teksavvy, for example:
Gold rated right here on DSLR: »User reviews - TekSavvy DSL |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T DSL Service
| Yeah. They want to be ISP's *AND* Content providers, and they want that content to be profitable. They don't want you using competitors services instead of theirs... or if you do, they want to be able to charge extra on top of it so they can profit off of everyone else's content too.
The sad reality is that the extra charges would cause consumers to begin avoiding the competition, and thus, crippling or forcing the competition out of business... if you think about it, the ability to "surf" the 'Net and just read would be severely impacted too.
It would surely screw up the entire internet as we know it.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
mrvid
join:2007-06-19
Levittown, NY | not true competitors, chance companies that took a shot .. My feelings on this, strictly what I feel; voip, iptv providers that don't pay anything to the ISP's for passage over the net are not really competitors, they are providers of like services that offer it as long as it is financially feasable to offer it. A true competitor does not use the competition's network and give them nothing for it, if I understand the terms going on correctly. |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | What are you talking about...
VoIP/IPTV/Netflix etc. ALL have to have some form of connection to the Internet so that people can actually use it.
The Internet connection is not intended to be a 'we own the last mile, therefore pay us toll fees' for access.
Customers pay for the use - ISPs are making profit off of that. ISPs want more profit (why not) and would like to make the Internet a walled garden where information flow is
a) Controlled (well they do have to manage the network)
b) Paid for (duh) - problem is that it ISPs want payment from both customers (who use the Internet) and content providers. If there were no content providers, there would be no customers.
c) Make money off of every piece (it is a capital society) - resell your point-click data, data mining, demographics, NebuAd... where does it end.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
 ieolusSupport The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | reply to mrvid
The problem with that view is that the last mile into people's homes is dominated by 1 or (if lucky) 2 to 3 "service providers".
Do you not see a problem with the service provider also providing (and charging for) the content, when there are probably better content providers out there on the 'net?
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
1 edit | reply to mrvid
Last mile is a government controlled oligopoly. You can't have competition there without blackening the sky with overhead cables, or constantly digging up all our roads.
However you're getting at the root problem which provides the obvious answer. Content/Service providers NEED to be separate from network owners. Like it used to be. It's a quick and dirty fix where the network owners would be required spinoffs of the service providers. Shares issued of both to all shareholders, no one is getting robbed, no injustice done. Maybe the senior managers take a pay cut because of empire shrinkage (which is why this doesn't happen) but, too bad so sad. |
|
| reply to KrK
Re: Not Capacity issue... Unless you mean profit capacity.... if they profit from someone elses work, aint this in a way copyright infringement, be like me buying blank dvds and selling movies on ebay? It's not leagle, or ethical. |
|
