jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
| reply to DataRiker
Re: Stupid Time Warner
No, but the "series of tubes" are. Unfortunately, instead of upgrading the infrastructure some companies choose to try to control it's customer's usage. Of course there is also a conflict of interest with companies that also offer video as new video services are cropping up on the internet.
I say the new bill should either kill caps or have a strict stipulation that companies that offer video and/or voice not be allowed in the internet market. Either or, they should choose.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Metairie, LA
clubs: | Actually upgrading infrastructure has nothing to do with this.
TW has artificially "downgraded" its existing infrastructure, if they used it to capacity we wouldn't have this problem. |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| precisely. TimeWarner Kansas City was advertising how much "dark fiber" they had a couple years ago, saying that all of that dark fiber simply could be lit up when they needed it, and that TWC (unlike local DSL) had a massive supply of bandwidth at the ready.
Funny how stories change...
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to jimbo2150
said by jimbo2150  :I say the new bill should either kill caps or have a strict stipulation that companies that offer video and/or voice not be allowed in the internet market. Either or, they should choose. Great! You just killed all internet access in the United States. Any more great ideas? Emotions won't get you anywhere. The last time anyone checked, the only two providers with an infrustructure to provide internet are the video and voice services. Further, your take on control is, yet again, more government control.
This is a typical example of who NOT to handle something. An emotional response only leads to even more crap down the road. This is not as big of a problem as people are making it out to be. SIMPLE, and I do mean simple, regulation of the industry is all that is needed. It worked well for the phone systems for a century. However, the more politicians try to get involved into the mix, things only get worse, never better.
One thing many people believe is that government can single handedly come in and make rules that have to be followed, with out consequences. If they try to 'control', not regulate, the hands of these providers, they will only take it out in another area.
Further, you try to cut out revenue of the internet from their bottom line, what happens to TV? and Voice? It goes away as they will likely raise the price to survive and they can't compete.
It's posts and views like this that I just don't get. In the name of "better prices", which we all want of course, people say stupid things. Sure, "let the video and phone providers go out of business if they can't compete" right? Just how much do you think that internet service will cost then? The total cost to run a plant to carry internet doesn't get cheaper as time goes on. Wages go up, costs go up, fuel goes up, etc. So how exactly do you suppose that internet services are going to make it to your house? I mean, that's all we'd need in this world is an internet connection becuase everything else will come through that one pipe, right? Wrong.
There IS a fire brewing here with the inet providers, that's for sure. And yes, they are "capitalizing" on a moment that's for damn sure. However, just as competition brings prices down, demand and value can drive them up too! .. you can't have it one sided as that's just not logical and it makes anyone with that type of argument look like they are entitled and there is no way around that. Right now, people are crying out loud how important their internet is to them. In a supply/demand system, prices SHOULD go up.. but how much? Even at $40.00 a month, average for internet, it's still a good deal and still, in my opinion, too low for the overwhelming average user.
I don't agree with control of the internet. I don't agree with caps. I don't agree that they should meter the billing, not the in the case of the internet. I DO believe they should price if fairly and I think they should be honest where they are coming from to their customers. I also believe that if the internet is going to replace phone and video service that prices should rise to MATCH that mode.
I do NOT believe that internet should be the cheapest thing on the plant. I don't believe that the internet should be for shoving every single bit of data down it, speaking mostly regarding illegal matters and believe that those who do SHOULD be pulled off the internet. And I do NOT believe that the government should be making any more damn laws unless it's absolutely necessary! There is a fire brewing here, but all law makers will do is pour gas on it to try to put it out.
Finally, you say that it's a conflict of interest. I STRONGLY disagree with you. These providers were voice/video providers prior to bringing the internet to the home. Somehow you think they should be precluded from carrying competing services?? .. with who? Vonage comes alone and wants to offer a phone service that uses another provider's network? and now that very network is the one that has a conflict? The very content providers for video that SELL their service to a provider now wants to use that providers network and push out free services (hulu) to degrade their other relations and the provider is the one with the conflict?
Please.. enjoy another glass of Kool-aid. By all means, continue on the same slippery slope in destroying something that works in the name of greed and cheaper prices.. just be prepared to pay more for it down the road.
But, for the short minded, let me close and remind that what TWC is doing right now is egregious and WAY over the top for the amount of metering they want to put on customers. There should never be caps and limits.. they should sell the appropriate speed and price it accordingly. (The comcast 50/5 service is priced a bit too high and FiOS comparable service is too low for what it is. IF anyone thinks that Verizon will stay where they are at on those speeds and prices, give them time.. when they gain market share, they, too, will start uttering the same gripes as the rest of them. Remember this day, becuase it WILL happen) |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
 ·AT&T Southwest
| uh, you had me until this line.
said by fiberguy :SIMPLE, and I do mean simple, regulation of the industry is all that is needed. It worked well for the phone systems for a century. i'm not sure that the monstrosity known as AT&T monopoly was such a good thing for consumers. |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy :Finally, you say that it's a conflict of interest. I STRONGLY disagree with you. These providers were voice/video providers prior to bringing the internet to the home. Somehow you think they should be precluded from carrying competing services?? .. with who? Vonage comes alone and wants to offer a phone service that uses another provider's network? and now that very network is the one that has a conflict? The very content providers for video that SELL their service to a provider now wants to use that providers network and push out free services (hulu) to degrade their other relations and the provider is the one with the conflict? Way too long buddy. But this is the dumbest paragraph ever. You are literally claiming that because the cable company is providing the internet they get full control of what goes over the connection and should be allowed to stifle competing services. An action they only want to take because of the conflict of interest when you have the cable company also be the ISP.
Eventually video services will probably have to be separated from ISPs. Metered billing is not about data costs. It's all about stifling competition. If cable companies never tried to leverage their ISP side to protect their cable side, there would be no talk of splitting these companies up. They had a chance to be fair and clearly they demonstrated they cannot. The guise of profits they don't deserve are too great for them to resist.
And to claim data hurts a network more because it's video instead of webpage traffic or program downloads is a joke. Data is data. From an ISP standpoint data needs to be treated as one thing and not classified into separate types of data. |
|
psx_defector
join:2001-06-09
Allen, TX
| said by insomniac84 :[Metered billing is not about data costs. It's all about stifling competition. People quote this as truth when I've not seen a shred of evidence that this is the case. Did Comcast started doing this years ago for the eventual arrival of then non-existent Hulu? There is no tobacco memo from TWC et. al. saying they are doing this because of video stuff. It's hearsay and conjecture.
Video is just the latest thing to latch on to as a talking point. Everyone is ignoring the vastly larger and much more bandwidth intensive app, piracy. For every one person on Hulu watching Family Guy, there are three or five more downloading the same video via BitTorrent. And the BitTorrent people don't stop there, they then seed it sucking down more bandwidth.
Yeah, TWC could upgrade, but why should they? Is anyone out there really going to stand up for the pirate who downloads crap 24x7? Don't act like it's big bad TWC trying to stifle competition in the online video arena. Piracy and stupidity with bandwidth brought this upon ourselves. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| said by psx_defector :said by insomniac84 :[Metered billing is not about data costs. It's all about stifling competition. People quote this as truth when I've not seen a shred of evidence that this is the case. Did Comcast started doing this years ago for the eventual arrival of then non-existent Hulu? No, but Comcast's actual cap (as it were) is well above 250 GB, too (the actual cap is being one of the top 1,000 users systemwide twice in six months).
Clearly Comcast's cap is not about stifling anything except for the heaviest users. You can watch TV all day on Comcast HSI and not hit the real cap.
Can't say that about these sub 100GB caps.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- World Traveller -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ... |
|
goldy
join:2000-11-14
Augusta, GA
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to psx_defector
I am amazed that Microsoft hasn't said anything. After all
a 1 gig cap could mean an end to their updates. Imagine trying to reistall xp or vista with a 1 gig cap. Are you going to spend the $75 bucks to upgrade on top of what you already paid?
--
Never chase a dragon with a butterfly net. It annoys the dragon and will probably get you burnt! |
|
ComWhat
@embarqhsd.net | reply to psx_defector
Want a shred of proof? Take a look at their bottom line! Are they taking massive losses? NO! They are posting record profits! |
|
Eek2121
Lovin Verizon FIOS
join:2002-10-12
Flanders, NJ
| reply to fiberguy
I'm sorry, but your lengthy post shows that you clearly do not know what you are talking about. If we were talking about a bunch of ISPs that were losing money hand over fist that'd be one thing, but almost ALL of these companies are posting record profits.
The thing that's scaring the cable companies is the threat of netflix, hulu, etc. The fact that their video revenue may one day go away scares the shit out of them. Rather than trying to compete they choose to hit below the belt. If they had competition that would be fine, people could vote with their wallet. The trouble is, most people DON'T have competition.
You don't have to take my word for it, LOOK IT UP! |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to morbo
said by morbo :uh, you had me until this line. said by fiberguy :SIMPLE, and I do mean simple, regulation of the industry is all that is needed. It worked well for the phone systems for a century. i'm not sure that the monstrosity known as AT&T monopoly was such a good thing for consumers. Voluntary rural wiring (self socialism), leased equipment (guaranteed to work), very short repair turnaround time, skilled workers, no call centers, decent technology upgrades (self-dialing, touch tones, speaker phone, dial your own long distance), and high but very slowly increasing prices caused by rate of return regulation which prevented stockholder and executive management windfalls. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | reply to goldy
Get your updates on CD like in the old days. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to morbo
said by morbo :uh, you had me until this line. said by fiberguy :SIMPLE, and I do mean simple, regulation of the industry is all that is needed. It worked well for the phone systems for a century. i'm not sure that the monstrosity known as AT&T monopoly was such a good thing for consumers. I did?? I'll mark this day down .. sweet! lol
No, when I mean "simple regulation" I'm talking about setting basic operating rules, and rates (tariffs) and POST the break up of the bells. Trust me, too, I've been beat up enough by the phone companies in the 90's.. I'm not a huge fan of theirs, but under the days they were regulated, there was one thing that was great about them.. that was that when you called them up, you could talk to 20 representatives and you were dang near certain to get the same answer from each one. I'll give them credit for that. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to ComWhat
said by ComWhat :
Want a shred of proof? Take a look at their bottom line! Are they taking massive losses? NO! They are posting record profits!
"Record profits"... are adjusted for the current time? Competition also costs money. It takes money to compete and it also takes money to reinvest into the network. Right now, there is a massive rebuild going on to deliver DOCSIS 3.0 speeds to people that want and demand it. It's not cheap.
Besides, it's still not a crime to post profits in this country. Posting profits are a good thing.. when there is no profit, they're either losing money or posting no growth which isn't good for the economy.
So what would you rather have? |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
1 edit | reply to Eek2121
said by Eek2121 :I'm sorry, but your lengthy post shows that you clearly do not know what you are talking about. Wow.. you came to that conclusion based on the length of my post? Simply.. wow.
If we were talking about a bunch of ISPs that were losing money hand over fist that'd be one thing, but almost ALL of these companies are posting record profits. Again, record profits is a bad thing? What IS a record profit? Let me clear this up for you. If they posted a profit of just $10 this quarter and next quarter they posted a profit of $11, and the next quarter it's $12.. got news for you, that's record profits. Simplicity doesn't work in a conversation of this nature.
The thing that's scaring the cable companies is the threat of netflix, hulu, etc. The fact that their video revenue may one day go away scares the shit out of them. Rather than trying to compete they choose to hit below the belt. I think I covered that..
If they had competition that would be fine, people could vote with their wallet. The trouble is, most people DON'T have competition. And who's fault is that? The provider that came in and built? The phone company that won't extend their plant in fear of losing money? The politicians that allowed a monopoly to begin with? or the consumer that often makes competition not worth it to others to even TRY to come in to a market place? You have to remember, if another provider is going to serve a market, one of the places they look to for statistics is the books of the current provider if they are public.
Government getting involved is not always a good thing. In fact, they OFTEN screw things up when they meddle. Government isn't supposed to control businesses, like Obama seems to think.. rather, they SHOULD spend more time doing the job they are SUPPOSED to be doing which is fostering an environment FOR competition. IN fact, when they try doing that, they often fail. They USUALLY hold the current provider down and hostage while they give the next guy all the breaks. I think you're anger is misplaced.
You don't have to take my word for it, LOOK IT UP!
Trust me.. I won't.  So far, to be honest, nothing you said made much sense to begin with. It was mostly emotional and not very much fact based or even well explained. In short, I read this as "You're wrong, there's no competition, that's the problem, look it up".. |
|
psx_defector
join:2001-06-09
Allen, TX
| reply to funchords
said by funchords :No, but Comcast's actual cap (as it were) is well above 250 GB, too (the actual cap is being one of the top 1,000 users systemwide twice in six months). Clearly Comcast's cap is not about stifling anything except for the heaviest users. You can watch TV all day on Comcast HSI and not hit the real cap. Can't say that about these sub 100GB caps. When I was with August Associates, a local ISP here in Dallas, we had metered billing. I had an 80GB cap that I never hit, even with a lot of piracy being done. Only time I ever went over is when my roommate decided that the internet was for pr0n, and downloaded 100GB in a matter of days.
I paid a lot more for the privilege of metered billing. Probably because of the fact that the backbone to the internet was through Internap, the lowest latency/high class backbone. Almost no one got anything less than 30ms across the network.
Are the caps reasonable? I don't know, at first blush I would say no. I would prefer a higher cap like Comcast. But if Time Warner parlays that with a high class backbone, it might be worth it. As it stands, that is not the case. |
|
Phreaky
join:2002-03-02
Round Rock, TX | reply to DataRiker
Really... |
|
jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
| reply to morbo
said by morbo :i'm not sure that the monstrosity known as AT&T monopoly was such a good thing for consumers. I agree with morbo , but I also don't think that some regulation is going to eqate to the death of the Internet. I think you have to agree that there is some level of conflict with companies that are offering video as well wanting to prevent video sent over the internet. I support the whole idea and believe that if the companies want to keep their customers they need to keep up with the time, not stifle innovation by trying to prevent users from getting their episodes of LOST over the internet whenever they want instead of being forced to tune in at the time it is on or set to record.
Also, there are plenty of small companies that do not offer video who would be more than willing to step into areas that were once dominated by one or a two large providers. So the death of the internet? no.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
