dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


how-to block ads

Search Topic:
share rss forum feed


Old Bridge, NJ
reply to Mr Matt

Re: YES!

Well thanks for the resume but your argument still does not hold any water.

You are essentially saying that because your company undersold its lines to stay competitive and did not invest sufficiently for the future that content providers should pay you an extra tax on top of what you already charge other providers?

They pay your company to send and receive X amount of traffic or your company charges a connecting carrier for that. The end users pay your company to send and receive X amount of traffic. So on top of that, you want more money because it costs your Company money to route that traffic?

You being a Manager for X years and citing Dial-up business models has absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand.

Mr Matt

Eustis, FL
·Embarq Now Centu..
When I was Telecommunication Manager in 2003, Dial-Up was basically dead and the incumbent broadband ISP's (Cable and Telephone Companies), essentially shut out the competition by not allowing access to their subscribers. When the ISP I worked for was invited to offer DSL service by one Local Exchange Carrier, the pricing model indicated that our net profit would be less for a DSL Subscriber then the net profit earned from a dial-up subscriber.

There is a significant difference between carrying typical TCP/IP traffic and continuous high volume downloads.

The only thing that is a fact, other then our government any for profit organization that does not make a profit will not be in business for long, consider General Motors. The difference in price between an OC3 and OC12 in 2003 was not linear. Many Dial-Up ISP's sold out to larger companies because they did not have the capital or revenue to subscribe to circuit capacity support a large customer base. They could not afford to pay the difference between a DS-1 1.544Mbps and even a fractional DS-3 at less than 45Mbps.