how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
3583 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
approval from:
fAcEtIOUs 
hottboiinnc
thumbs down from:
hottboiinnc
| It's real simple folks..... ...if you want a seat in first class, buy a first class ticket.
Otherwise, park your cheap a$$ in the back of the plane with the rest of the riff-raff. | |
|  ronus
join:2003-02-09
Dallas, GA | Re: It's real simple folks..... You must work for Comcast. Otherwise why would you fear competition for Comcast? On another front, does Comcast count their Video on Demand (VOD) downloads toward their 250 GB bandwith limit? Nooooooooooooo. Do they count the bits used in their Digital Voice (Phone) service towards the 250 GB limit? Noooooooooooo. In my opinion, these are anti-competitive measures meant to horn in on the competition. It looks like they want to make money off the competitions downloads. | |
| |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
1 edit | Re: It's real simple folks..... said by ronus:On another front, does Comcast count their Video on Demand (VOD) downloads toward their 250 GB bandwith limit? Nooooooooooooo. VoD uses completely different frequency space from their HSI data service; they are never in contention.
said by ronus:Do they count the bits used in their Digital Voice (Phone) service towards the 250 GB limit? Noooooooooooo. A 64k G.711 channel will eat approximately 80kbps (with overhead) in each direction of the call. If you made a call and left it nailed up 24x7 for an entire 30 day month, that'd still only amount to 52GB of data. When you break it down to reasonable usage, the amount of data consumed by any VoIP service (CDV or 3rd party) is statistically insignificant with regard to the 250GB cap for all but the most extreme (read: rare) scenarios. | |
| | |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: It's real simple folks..... said by espaeth:said by ronus:On another front, does Comcast count their Video on Demand (VOD) downloads toward their 250 GB bandwith limit? Nooooooooooooo. VoD uses completely different frequency space from their HSI data service; they are never in contention. True for OnDemand.
FanCast is also VoD and does use -- and count against -- the limits and other management.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ... | |
| | | | | | Re: It's real simple folks..... said by funchords:FanCast is also VoD and does use -- and count against -- the limits and other management. So if I use Amazon or Fancast, they both count the same. Seems fair, right? If Fancast was not included or only counted half of the bytes, then that'd be different. | |
|
| |  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | said by espaeth:A 64k G.711 channel will eat approximately 80kbps (with overhead) in each direction of the call. If you made a call and left it nailed up 24x7 for an entire 30 day month, that'd still only amount to 52GB of data. When you break it down to reasonable usage, the amount of data consumed by any VoIP service (CDV or 3rd party) is statistically insignificant with regard to the 250GB cap for all but the most extreme (read: rare) scenarios. We are not talking about how much VoIP calls contribute to the 250GB cap but about their being throttled due to the VoIP user's node CURRENTLY being congested and the user's bandwidth being over 70% of their tier's speed limit. When both conditions exist the bandwidth is throttled which will affect not only the non-VoIP activity but the VoIP Session itself. | |
| | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: It's real simple folks..... said by RARPSL:We are not talking about how much VoIP calls contribute to the 250GB cap but about their being throttled due to the VoIP user's node CURRENTLY being congested and the user's bandwidth being over 70% of their tier's speed limit. When both conditions exist the bandwidth is throttled which will affect not only the non-VoIP activity but the VoIP Session itself. I addressed the quantity argument because the previous poster brought up the cap.
In regards to the prioritization, it's not simply a matter of penalizing VoIP. When the channel is congested connections are going to suffer even if no action is taken. The new prioritization scheme simply limits the amount of impact to fewer people during times of congestion. | |
| | | | | | | Re: It's real simple folks..... said by espaeth:said by RARPSL:We are not talking about how much VoIP calls contribute to the 250GB cap but about their being throttled due to the VoIP user's node CURRENTLY being congested and the user's bandwidth being over 70% of their tier's speed limit. When both conditions exist the bandwidth is throttled which will affect not only the non-VoIP activity but the VoIP Session itself. I addressed the quantity argument because the previous poster brought up the cap. In regards to the prioritization, it's not simply a matter of penalizing VoIP. When the channel is congested connections are going to suffer even if no action is taken. The new prioritization scheme simply limits the amount of impact to fewer people during times of congestion. Hate to say it, but that is fair to other customers that some idiot running 4 Vonage lines and a P2P app gets throttled so all don't suffer. You can always pay for a business account since most running 4 Vonage lines are a business (if not, stupid). | |
|
| | ronus
join:2003-02-09
Dallas, GA | "VoD uses completely different frequency space from their HSI data service; they are never in contention."
Their VOD doesn't come through as packets of bits? According to this »answers.yahoo.com/question/index···21013336 it does!. They are streamed from a Comcast server. Bits are bits, it doesn't matter which channel they come through, they're still coming through the same Comcast cable and they still don't get counted towards the maximum 250 GB. My point stands uncorrected.
"A 64k G.711 channel will eat approximately 80kbps ..."
Thank you for making my point that Comcast Digital Voice is bits that don't get counted towards their cap. Regardless of the fact that the bit count is low, it is still bits that don't get counted towards the 250 GB max. My point stands uncorrected. In fact it's backed up by your admission that Digital Voice is bits.
Again, I believe that Comcast not counting it's VOD and Digital Voice bits towards its cap, while counting its competitors bits, is anti-competitive. | |
| | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: It's real simple folks..... said by ronus:Bits are bits, it doesn't matter which channel they come through, they're still coming through the same Comcast cable and they still don't get counted towards the maximum 250 GB. My point stands uncorrected. "A 64k G.711 channel will eat approximately 80kbps ..." Thank you for making my point that Comcast Digital Voice is bits that don't get counted towards their cap. Regardless of the fact that the bit count is low, it is still bits that don't get counted towards the 250 GB max. My point stands uncorrected. In fact it's backed up by your admission that Digital Voice is bits. The bits from either set-top box VoD or Comcast Digital Voice never hit the Internet, ergo they wouldn't be counted against your Internet usage. CDV traffic doesn't transverse the Ethernet interface on your cable modem, the eMTA interfaces with the DOCSIS side of the plant only. | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
| We could go back to- Did Comcast build their own network? Yes. Does Comcast support their own network? Yes. Does Hulu/Netflix build their own network? No. Do they piggy back on someone else? Yes. Does Vonage piggy back on someone else? Yes. Okay see all these yeses of course. So we can go back to Ol' Ed's comments and make the Content Providers and others PAY to be on the network.
And like the other person said- why should a Economy ticket get you first class services? you pay for what you get for. You know signing up with Vonage and everyone else that your Internet depends on the Internet provider. It's not Comcast's fault that you took the cheap way out and are wanting the First Class services and products at the Economy priced ticket.
hey Vonage! Go build your own network or start offering your own DSL with Covad in more cities. | |
| | |
1 edit | Re: It's real simple folks..... For the first time ever, i agree with you boy. OMG | |
| | | | | | Re: It's real simple folks..... LOL. TY | |
|
| | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by hottboiinnc:We could go back to- Did Comcast build their own network? Yes. Does Comcast support their own network? Yes. This makes a better argument for whether Comcast should be forced to allow competitive carriers on its network, not whether the content paying subscribers have requested ought to be delivered to them.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ... | |
| | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: It's real simple folks..... No that's not the question. Comcast should NOT be forced to allow anyone else on their network. Vonage did not pay to build the network. Google did not build the network. eBay's Skype did not build the network. NetFlix didn't, Amazon didn't. So WHY should they be allowed a first class ticket if they didn't give anything to build it???
Why should Comcast or anyone else be required to open their network to someone else who just wants to lech off it and whine and cry over something? Comcast built their network off private funds. That network belongs to them. NOT to Vonage, Not to you, not to me. It belongs to Comcast Communications. What they do with that network is up to them.
If you want access to it you pay for it. IF you want your services to be first class over that network well YOU PAY for that first class product. NOT some cheap Economy product that relays on the Internet itself. | |
| | | | | Reviews:
·Comcast
·Charter
1 edit | Re: It's real simple folks..... Because, that is the nature of the Internet. There should always be a "best effort" / "non discriminatory" set of bandwidth.
On the other hand, one should also be able to offer (for a fee) a "better than best effort" / "non discriminatory customer" service.
Unfortunately this is very fuzzy (without the warmth). | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: It's real simple folks..... Comcast does Best of Effort service. Their DV does NOT touch the Internet nor related to the Internet. so why should they be forced to put it on the internet just because a few people want to wine and cry about it.
And that QOS you talk about it does exist. Its called buy a T1 or greater with a SLA and set your own set of standards but don't cry after it hits the internet. | |
| | | | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by devnuller:Because, that is the nature of the Internet. There should always be a "best effort" / "non discriminatory" set of bandwidth. On the other hand, one should also be able to offer (for a fee) a "better than best effort" / "non discriminatory customer" service. Unfortunately this is very fuzzy (without the warmth). Well said.
The problem with buying the "better than best effort" treatment is in the nature of how prioritization often works. Imagine an ambulance on a one-lane road, it advances ahead of other traffic because the other traffic is delayed (by law has to pull over and allow the ambulance to pass).
Now on the Internet, this delaying only happens during times of congestion (or approaching times of congestion). Routers with different queuing either advance all the priority traffic first or provide some bias (ex. 3:2 or 5:3). So here's the rub -- by buying "priority service," the priority is done by delaying or dropping my competition's packets at those prime times. My site, walmart.com, is always available because I paid extra. My competition, grannyantiques.com, will perform EVEN MORE slowly because more of her packets are getting dropped to make room for mine. As a result, her customers will get even more aggravated and will likely come to my site.
Now there are other ways of buying priority service that don't delay the competition -- such as CDNs and increased peering and so on and so forth. While I'll still have an edge on granny, my arranging for a CDN or peering with many different partners in many different places does not outright increase the number of her packets that get dropped.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ... | |
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·Comcast
·Charter
| Re: It's real simple folks..... Priority - Precedence, especially established by order of importance or urgency.
By nature, priority is going to the front of the line, and in-turn moving others back. This also happens in dedicated environments where one service / link gets priority upgrades over another. It happens in many ways, but DOES impact something else. Examples:
With Dedicated infrastructure:
•Fastpass at the tolls. Previously allocated "shared" tolls are now dedicated to cars with fastpass. Others without fastpass are not able to use these lanes if they are open.
•PSTN vs DSL dedicated infrastructure. PSTN "pipes" are dedicated to phone calls. DSL to Internet. If capacity is needed for the PSTN it probably gets priority for upgrade vs the DSL. Not a great example, but capacity upgrade priority is a real issue in dedicated infrastructures
•Airline Priority Ticket lanes - Agents dedicated to specific passengers. Sometimes they offer to non-priority if available (but not always)
•Wave based dedicated infrastructure. Traffic dedicated to specific wavelengths. This has the same issue around priority of capacity upgrades.
Generally dedicated infrastructure sounds good, but from a Network Engineering point of view it is highly inefficient (internal fragmentation of capacity * N dedicated pipes). Priority is put around specific traffic/services/pipes when it comes to what gets capital to be upgraded.
When you converge you allow for much more efficient capacity allocation and upgrades benefit all traffic.
With converged infrastructure:
•Disney fast pass. Moving to the front of the line. Everyone gets a turn to do this, but no one can dominate the front all day long.
•FiOS, Uverse, CDV QoS priority on large pipes. These allow for much more efficient allocation of capacity as if the "dedicated element" is available, it is used by all.
•VoIP on backbones with QoS
•etc
Convergence is where networking is going. Many network historians have a hard time moving away from dedicated, TDM based services / pipe, but networks need to evolve. Convergence also allows for services to be much more efficient and seamless around future integration.
Let's try and move forward vs. staying with the "dedicated" TDM world. This is so against what IP is all about. | |
| | | | | | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: It's real simple folks..... I'm not advocating for a distinct infrastructure, I'm saying it's an interesting added nuance to the table. It makes this easy-to-think-about issue a lot more clouded.
•Fastpass -- people pay less and use Fastpass, but one person who doesn't pay anything regardless is the destination. (Some of us here in the west wonder why you eastern folks put up with this toll crap at all.)
•PSTN is circuit switched, it doesn't take away from the Internet. PSTN is also network-controlled, where the Internet is, by design, end-point controlled.
•Airline Priority -- well look whose in those lines, the folks that use that airline the most! Notice on how, on Comcast anyway, the best treatment are the folks who use their network the least? That's not a good sign.
•Wavelengths -- since that wasn't traffic bandwidth to begin with, it's as irrelevant as the PSTN. See my previous message -- how do we ensure that the open Internet keeps growing instead of suffering the death of a thousand cuts by ISPs who think they have a new and better (and more profitable) purpose for the bandwidth?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ... | |
| | | | | | | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: It's real simple folks..... said by funchords:Airline Priority -- well look whose in those lines, the folks that use that airline the most! Notice on how, on Comcast anyway, the best treatment are the folks who use their network the least? That's not a good sign. Completely different business case -- frequent fliers represent increasing revenue. On a fixed-price shared network like that of a broadband provider, the profitability of a subscriber is inversely proportional to the amount of load they present to the network. | |
| | | | | | | | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: It's real simple folks..... said by espaeth:said by funchords:Airline Priority -- well look whose in those lines, the folks that use that airline the most! Notice on how, on Comcast anyway, the best treatment are the folks who use their network the least? That's not a good sign. Completely different business case -- frequent fliers represent increasing revenue. On a fixed-price shared network like that of a broadband provider, the profitability of a subscriber is inversely proportional to the amount of load they present to the network. Yep, but still not a good sign. Taken it its logical conclusion, such an Internet service is a wind-up toy that gets slower and more limited the more a customer uses it.
But what this illustrates is that it's not about congestion, it's about more money. Congestion is just the excuse for this nonsense.
This is SUPPOSED to someday be too cheap to meter. Most of us (I'm guessing) thought it already was. Moore's Law hasn't died at Cisco or Juniper -- so what's happening? The focus is off of speed and it's in creating scarcity.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ... | |
| | | | | | | | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: It's real simple folks..... said by funchords:Yep, but still not a good sign. Taken it its logical conclusion, such an Internet service is a wind-up toy that gets slower and more limited the more a customer uses it. But what this illustrates is that it's not about congestion, it's about more money. Congestion is just the excuse for this nonsense. Not really -- taken to its full conclusion it means that the Internet is a network with no service guarantees. It's always been that way -- there's no guarantee that you won't run into congestion on the Internet, and the degree to which congestion is avoided is directly proportional to the profitability of the link in question. So of course it's about money! None of the companies responsible for the dramatic growth of the Internet have ever masqueraded as non-profit entities. Capacity gets upgraded when it serves as a means to increase profitability; if you take away that motivation it should come as no surprise that growth is slow.
That VoIP works well over the Internet is not a matter of design or planning -- it's simply a matter of sufficient capacity to support the application as networks have expanded. There are still Internet connections and paths for which VoIP will perform poorly, and there is no corrective recourse to resolve the issues causing that in most cases. Things like 911 over Internet VoIP have been a risk since day one, but that's a function of the design. The reality is the Internet is like investing in the stock market, past performance does not guarantee future results and you may lose money. What you're essentially arguing is you want all of the benefits of a nice safe FDIC insured savings account (ie, DSCP trimmings) with all of the massive gains that can be achieved in the stock market. (max[bandwidth] for min[$]) These positions are incompatible.
Honestly, the biggest issue I have with crap like this is that neither the PR departments of the broadband providers nor the "Consumer Advocate" groups can stay on point. You (the royal you, not just you personally) constantly lambaste companies like Comcast for shifting their positions but the voices of the people you claim to represent are just as shifty. How many times have we redefined the term "Net Neutrality" in the last 12 months alone? Look at the progression of this whole argument:
- Users want ISPs to stop using DPI to look at their traffic and stop throttling when idle capacity is available.
- ISP implements solution where only traffic volume is used, users can consume capacity freely while it is available, and reasonable corrective measures will be taken against heavy users in the event of congestion.
- Users now complain that when capacity is exhausted all traffic is impacted uniformly including their beloved VoIP traffic. Since clearly the user cannot possibly claim any personal responsibility for their traffic utilization, the ISP should make an effort to only throttle their bulk traffic and give priority to applications like VoIP. Of course, to do this would at some point require DPI again for either traffic identification or traffic class enforcement.
said by funchords:This is SUPPOSED to someday be too cheap to meter. Most of us (I'm guessing) thought it already was. Moore's Law hasn't died at Cisco or Juniper -- so what's happening? The focus is off of speed and it's in creating scarcity. It's only too cheap to meter if you don't care about performance metrics. We still pay $60/mbps today for "Gold" glass traffic on carrier MPLS networks between our corporate locations. We do this because it's about as close to dedicated point-to-point circuits as you can get -- that bandwidth is guaranteed and we have SLAs with strict financial penalties for every minute we incur anything higher than 0.0% packet loss and more than 1ms of jitter. You can get guarantees, but expect costs to be involved.
As far as upgrades are concerned, Moore's law applies to a vast many things, but wholesale technology refresh cycles is not one of them. The cost and complexity increases exponentially with the number of endpoints that need capacity upgrades, especially in the case of consumer broadband because true capacity expansion requires forklift equipment upgrades and complete CPE replacement. It's difficult for someone who hasn't done a large technology refresh to wrap their head around the sheer massive scale of the effort involved with these endeavors. Upgrading capacity at the backbone/infrastructure level is childsplay -- the number of central office/data center locations is infinitely smaller than the number of independent US households and businesses with Internet access. A company like Comcast can increase their backbone capacity 10-fold by converting from 10GigE to 100GigE optics in maybe 25-30 devices nationwide. That scope changes considerably when you factor that a true DOCSIS refresh involves the replacement of 14.4 million devices in customer homes.
With the current regulatory pissing match that is taking place it's only dampening any business incentive to deploy infrastructure. It's a massive undertaking, it's expensive, and more ROI gets leeched out of the system as consumers demonstrate an unwillingness to pay more. I'm sure everyone is looking at Verizon's numbers for FiOS -- they're spending $23 billion to roll out the infrastructure, and yet they're still only getting a 24% adopting rate on their Internet service and 21% on TV services across their deployments. At $760 (or less by now) per home passed, that's a hell of a lot of investment in infrastructure that's going unused (76%!). The worst part is many of those customers were already paying customers of Verizon to start with.
I'm not saying that the FiOS deployment isn't cool, or good, or even the right thing to do. It's all of those things. Still, picture it being your pocketbook as an MSO: You can already do video, phone, and Internet on your existing plant. Are you going to roll new infrastructure to the tune of 11 figures just so you can keep the the customers you already have today who likely won't leave anyway? Keep in mind that you can't really charge more as a reward for deploying the infrastructure because you still face an unsurmountable number of fickle consumers who will shop on price alone and choose satellite TV and DSL-based HSI if you dare try and set a fee schedule that has any hope of showing profitability after you spend the money on technology deployments. | |
|
| | | | | | said by hottboiinnc:No that's not the question. Comcast should NOT be forced to allow anyone else on their network. Vonage did not pay to build the network. Google did not build the network. eBay's Skype did not build the network. NetFlix didn't, Amazon didn't. So WHY should they be allowed a first class ticket if they didn't give anything to build it??? Why should Comcast or anyone else be required to open their network to someone else who just wants to lech off it and whine and cry over something? Comcast built their network off private funds. That network belongs to them. NOT to Vonage, Not to you, not to me. It belongs to Comcast Communications. What they do with that network is up to them. If you want access to it you pay for it. IF you want your services to be first class over that network well YOU PAY for that first class product. NOT some cheap Economy product that relays on the Internet itself. This is asinine for the very reason that some of the companies you mention do actually own their own networks. Google, for example, owns much of its own fiber, and owns tons more dark fiber that has yet to be lit up.
So in effect, Google owns a lot of the internet. It is essentially providing a FREE search service to most ISPs. Which ISP owns their own search engine that is as even remotely as good as Google's?
The argument for the "walled garden" is bogus, because the very reason people get internet access is to get access to the INTERNET, and a wide variety of open, unfiltered content and services. If it wasn't for the internet, and every website or service over IP that is available, Comcast et al probably wouldn't sell that much internet access, now would it? The days of content only from one provider such as AOL, Compuserve, Playnet, or even your local BBS were pretty much over once the internet took off. Most local BBSes have died off as a result of the internet.
So none of this nonsense about Comcast being able to cripple the internet and boost its services, because without the internet at large, most people would simply skip comcast and run to the nearest provider that offered them what they want. | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: It's real simple folks..... You don't have to own a search engine as good as google's to have one. MSN owns Live and people use it. So that doesn't make Google any different from them just because they have their own dark fiber. Owning dark fiber doesn't mean anything when you connect to the ISP's network. Once it hits that mark it the data becomes their data. Not the customers or the destinations. We've seen that with ATT a couple years ago.
If Content Providers, any of them, do not like whats going on. they can either; #1- Pay to access the customers by paying the ISPs, #2 start their own ISP, or #3 be treated just like the rest of them. Since they did NOT build the last mile and pay to support it they do NOT have a say on how their traffic should be handled over that wire. You don't get a First Class Ticket to anywhere by paying Economy rates. And that's just what Google, Vonage, P8, Skype and all the rest of the content providers want. | |
| | | | | | | Talis
join:2001-06-21
Houston, TX | Re: It's real simple folks..... said by hottboiinnc:Since they did NOT build the last mile and pay to support it they do NOT have a say on how their traffic should be handled over that wire. You don't get a First Class Ticket to anywhere by paying Economy rates. And that's just what Google, Vonage, P8, Skype and all the rest of the content providers want. Take this argument to its logical end. What you are saying is Google, Vonage, P8, Skypet, etal, would have to run their own wire to my house in order to allow me to use that service without incurring an additional charge. That's simply a ridiculous thing to expect or want. You're basicially allowing the owner of the last mile to rape - well - everyone with big enough pockets to feed their greed. | |
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: It's real simple folks..... If their service depends on the PUBLIC internet they either deal with the PUBLIC Internet or they run you a wire from the Colo.
You then can take that or leave it. If you don't like it you'll leave it; they will to.
It's UNFAIR to ask any company that built their own network to share it with another company because the 3rd provider relies on something that is PUBLIC when the actual builder does NOT.
Also why don't we see U-Voice being talked about? that's run over the Internet. But instead it uses their OWN network that have set for that. But guess what? ITS IP TOO!!
But never mind thats AT$T NOT Comcast. | |
| | | | | | | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: It's real simple folks..... said by hottboiinnc:Also why don't we see U-Voice being talked about? that's run over the Internet. But instead it uses their OWN network that have set for that. But guess what? ITS IP TOO!! There -- you brought it up -- twice today, in fact. I actually was talking about it only yesterday, but you're so fixated on attacking me on Comcast that the facts don't matter that I had moved well beyond Comcast. I'm talking about it now, why? Because this thread is about Comcast!
Meanwhile, to recap your message -- it's their network, they can run it like they want to, it's unfair! unless it's AT&T.
Hypocrite!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ... | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: It's real simple folks..... I never said that it would be fair for ATT and i never said anything about you. now did i? NO! You can't read.
But while you're on it. ATT does do the same thing. But we don't see them being talked about.
And i'm not a Hypocrite. You are. You're the one that attacks Comcast but allows the other providers to get away with it. Talk about being Hypocrite. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | You better do a little research and actually learn about the subject matters you speak of. Because it is apparent you don't know anything about the history of how "the network" and the internet was created.
Regardless, your view is quite flawed from a common sense, consumer sense and a business sense. | |
| | | | | | | | | Talis
join:2001-06-21
Houston, TX | said by hottboiinnc:It's UNFAIR to ask any company that built their own network to share it with another company because the 3rd provider relies on something that is PUBLIC when the actual builder does NOT. It's incredibly inaccurate to say that Comcast "the builder" doesn't rely on the PUBLIC internet. If the public internet didn't exist, Comcast would have no cable internet product to sell.
Don't you see the hypocrisy in your statement? They make money on the existence of network infrastructure that they didn't build. Sure they may have laid that last mile of coax to your house but they sure didn't put in place the network backbone and all the routers, switches, and cabling that it comprises. Don't you think its UNFAIR for Comcast to make money by sharing that infrastructure that isn't theirs?
Comcast wants to leech off the backbone - built by others, for profit-making endeavors - so they can sell a product and make money, but says its UNFAIR to let others use their network in the same way.
If they REALLY think it's unfair they can easily fix it. Just remove the network interconnects, become an island unto themselves if they want. All they achieve by doing that is to kill their cable internet business, but hey, now their network isn't being used by UNFAIRLY.
This is a ludicrous argument. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: It's real simple folks..... Comcast's Voice Product that is the product at hand does NOT rely on the public Internet. Stop changing my words around. You know what I said. Vonage and Skype and P8 and Nuvio and all the others rely on the public Internet. They should have to deal with the way the Internet is treated. Why should a company that built out their own network and their own voice product to be more reliable and made to compete with the others especially the LECs be treated as some regular sub-standard Vonage service?
Comcast build the voice network they use on their network, they maintain that network every minute of the day, they send a truck if something goes down, they maintain battery backups, they also provide local support. I don't see Vonage or Magic Jack or P8 or anyone else doing that who relies on transporting their calls over the public internet.
And there is no hypocrisy in my post. you and robb fail to realize that Comcast maintains their own product and network and does not put their calls on the public internet. they stay separate. you and only a few others on here (including Robb) fail to see that. He thinks they're on the Internet and are not treated part of the Cap. You think that they should have to share their network.
Well why don't you and him get together and build your own network and then go up against Comcast. Maybe you can use the "if you give us what we want the cable rates will be cheaper" mumbo-jumbo to get what you want.
And then when others come to you bitching about something isn't being treated right or someone runs the network in the ground and you go bankrupt because you have some asshole thats downloading P2P or Torrent all day long killing the network and the bandwidth is costing more than what it's worth on that single residential connection. | |
|
| | | | | The real question is can I use a competing voice service, and the answer is yes. Seems instead like an attempt to add more taxes for intercarrier compensation. Seems like great timing to add taxes and increase people's bills in this economy. | |
| | | | | | | Re: It's real simple folks..... very true. | |
| | | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by trentboyea:The real question is can I use a competing voice service, and the answer is yes. Seems instead like an attempt to add more taxes for intercarrier compensation. Seems like great timing to add taxes and increase people's bills in this economy. Good and different contribution. Thanks!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ... | |
|
| | | | said by hottboiinnc:We could go back to- Did Comcast build their own network? Yes. Does Comcast support their own network? Yes. Does Hulu/Netflix build their own network? No. Do they piggy back on someone else? Yes. Does Vonage piggy back on someone else? Yes. Okay see all these yeses of course. So we can go back to Ol' Ed's comments and make the Content Providers and others PAY to be on the network. And like the other person said- why should a Economy ticket get you first class services? you pay for what you get for. You know signing up with Vonage and everyone else that your Internet depends on the Internet provider. It's not Comcast's fault that you took the cheap way out and are wanting the First Class services and products at the Economy priced ticket. hey Vonage! Go build your own network or start offering your own DSL with Covad in more cities. You would be right only when referring to the last mile.
Otherwise you don't even begin to have a clue about the internet or telecom in general, and concepts such as peering or even how the internet works (or is supposed to work). | |
| | | | | | Re: It's real simple folks..... meh thats your opinion and others that don't agree with the matter.
But like i said if you don't like how Comcast is treating people that piggy back on THEIR network start your own. Stop sueing and asking for the Feds to step in. | |
| | | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: It's real simple folks..... said by hottboiinnc:meh thats your opinion and others that don't agree with the matter. But like i said if you don't like how Comcast is treating people that piggy back on THEIR network start your own. Stop sueing and asking for the Feds to step in. If Comcast doesn't like the way that the Internet works, then stop offering Internet plans and they can start their own corporate-controlled worldwide network and see how many people want on.
(Hint -- CompuServe, America Online, Prodigy -- all were tremendously successful until the Internet came along and smashed them.)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ... | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: It's real simple folks..... How about if YOU don't like the way Comcast runs their network STOP USING THEM! Nobody is telling you to use them and then try and change their polices and business to meet YOUR needs and then when they CHANGE them you want them changed again because YOU still don't think its fair?
Well guess what? Comcast is NOT in business to please you. Their in business to please the rest of the customers that are happy with their service. If you're not then do as said and LEAVE. You can use VZ for Internet or some other provider. | |
|
| |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| said by hottboiinnc:Does Hulu/Netflix build their own network? No. Do they piggy back on someone else? Yes. Does Vonage piggy back on someone else? Yes. Okay see all these yeses of course. So we can go back to Ol' Ed's comments and make the Content Providers and others PAY to be on the network. And like the other person said- why should a Economy ticket get you first class services? So what you're saying is if you pay for HBO, Cinemax, and Showtime, you really shouldn't get them anyway unless you build your own network and stop "piggybacking" on your Service provider's network?
Internet sites and services DO PAY for their usages, thank you very much, just like you do. Man why is this idea so hard to get across? THEY AREN'T GETTING A FREE RIDE. It's not like you can just bang your server "On the Internet" and from then on everything is free while you "Piggyback" on ISP's networks. SheesH!!!
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
| | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: It's real simple folks..... HBO and others are separate and are not offered on the Internet. So why should they be treated as a Content provider on the 'Net.
And no its not hard to get around. Just because someone pays to access the backbone does not give that company the right to say how their data should be handled on another providers network.
What would give you the right to say your data should be given QOS over your neighbors just because you own a business and pay for your usage. You don't get that. Your data is the same as theirs.
Network providers and owners control that network they own. they built it out of private money it is their network It does not belong to Vonage, Google. or any other company or PERSON to say how it should be used and how people should be treated. If you don't like what they're providing you can vote with your check and CHANGE providers or here's a wild idea- START YOUR OWN ISP and COMPETE instead of asking the FCC and the Feds to step in. | |
| | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: It's real simple folks..... You missed my point on the example of HBO.
It's a service you pay for. According to your point of view however, they would be "piggybacking" on Cable companies TV infrastructure.
And no its not hard to get around. Just because someone pays to access the backbone does not give that company the right to say how their data should be handled on another providers network. And that is the problem. They've paid already to be on the internet, they pay for their usage.... ISP's should not be able to hold their content hostage, discriminate or degrade their content in order to promote or benefit or profit more from someone else's. This is why Net Neutrality is absolutely needed.
Look at it this way: Would you be happy if your Cell Phone provider decided who you could call or who could call you? IE you call someone on someone else's network, and so they block your call? Or what if they allow the call, but make the connection quality so low you can't understand them and the call drops constantly?
That's not allowed.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: It's real simple folks..... how do you figure its not allowed? There is nothing in writing that Comcast agreed to that says that they HAVE to allow you to use any service on their network. There is nothing in writing that says what they have to do or don't do.
You are free to decide to use them or not. And if your not happy with them then don't use them.
Also HBO agreed to be on the cable system. Vonage didn't. P8 didnt. They're just simply hoping that they're allowed on and people will use them.
Until they pay for that First Class ticket they should be stuck right where they're at. If they don't like it. Then they need to cough up some more money and get that Ticket. There is no such thing as free upgrades. | |
| | | | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: It's real simple folks..... You still don't get it.
They'd paid for their "ticket." The customer has paid for their "ticket." Now you have greedy third parties wanting to charge EXTRA tolls.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | | So by your flawed view: Vonage, Skype, NetFlix, Google, Microsoft, DSLReports, IRS.Gov should all have to build their own network to your home in order to get you packets?
Or are you going to say that it is OK for non competing companies to use their lines, but they can do what they want with competing companies?
You are under the false assumption they built their own networks all by themselves. Sure they "built" them, but just as the phone companies did a century ago they were given incentives to do so. They benefited, profited, and were pretty much given a monopoly/duopoly to do so. This has given them the ability to become what they are now. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: It's real simple folks..... and cable did not get those incentives that telcos got. So why should cable be the only one attacked? answer that?
Also if you build something that relies on the public internet you get what you developed and or paid for.
If you build your network out private then its yours. Not anyone else's network.
You rely on the airlines but are those yours? no. They belong to the company. If you don't like something they do; do you go complain to the Feds and have them change it for you? No you change airlines. | |
| | | | | | | Re: It's real simple folks..... They did to get those incentives. You better do a little research before you start spouting off. | |
|
| | ronus
join:2003-02-09
Dallas, GA | When I signed up with Vonage, Comcast had no bandwidth caps.
As far as Vonage being economy class compared to Comcast Digital Voice, well, apparently you've never used Vonage. It has features that Comcast doesn't have, such as the ability to carry your phone number with you no matter where you are in the country. You can even use your phone number in hotels that have broadband. All you need is your adapter. I'm not even sure Comcast allows you to live in one state and have a phone number from another state. Vonage does. So your opinion of who is first class and who isn't differs from mine.
As far as your point about who owns the cable and who supports it, so what? Bell South owns and supports the phone lines here, yet we have CLECs such as Earthlink delivering DSL service on Bell Souths network. Where I live, Atlanta Gas Light owns and supports the gas lines but other natural gas providers such as Scanna provides the service.
Read this article to see how the FCC doesn't think that Comcast is being straight up with us »www.tgdaily.com/content/view/41111/103/ .
I had Comcast HD service with DVR, but couldn't tolerate the breakups and pixelations I was constantly getting in the picture. They were never able to fix this problem so I switched to DirecTV. Comcast told me that they had a problem with "Ingress" on the cable lines in my area. After TWO tickets were turned in to send a Comcast Maintenance tech out to check the lines, nothing happened. Apparently not enough people were complaining to make it worth the expense to fix the ingress problem. The cable lines in my area are over 20 years old.
So much for "first class" Comcast. | |
|
| |
|
