Skype Wants Telcos 'To Get Out Of The Way' > Skype can pony up money and build their own network

Skype can pony up money and build their own network

reply to Z80
They don't have to. They are in Internet services company. That means if you buy Internet access you should be able to access their service.

Unfortunately the people who sell Internet access also sell communications services, and view Skype as a competitor, so they want to sell you access to the Internet, but deny you access to services like Skype.

If you're trying to SAVE money by using the Internet, the Telcos and cable companies are all against that--- they want you to have to spend more and more.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

reply to Z80
Great point: Skype shouldn't expect to make a quick buck by offering a service that effectively avoids the cost of the heavy lifting associated with their service, without paying a fee for the heavy lifting. I do think that the service providers need to switch to a more even-handed approach: Just meter all service above a certain marginal threshold. That should satisfy Skype, for text and voice, and appropriate compensate the folks doing the heavy lifting, for video and other heavy data.

reply to Z80

reply to bicker
Oh the short sightedness.

Why don't we extend this and say that....

Yahoo has to build their own network.
Google has to build their own network.
Blizzard has to build their own network.
Acclaim has to build their own network.
Gotomeeting has to build their own network.

Should I go on or do you already see the shear stupidity in your comment?

reply to jjeffeory
You've outlined the argument against allowing access providers become content/data providers. Thank you.

reply to bicker
"Skype shouldn't expect to make a quick buck by offering a service .... blah blah blah"

I pay the telco already for my data connection. I pay for this. The telco is paid. THE TELCO GETS PAID BY ME FOR THE DATA CONNECTION I USE.

I pay Skype who in turn pays the telco for the exchange termination of my calls. The telco is paid again. THERE IS A PAYMENT TO THE TELCO.

The telcos gets paid. The telcos simply wants to get paid more for nothing of additional value. The telcos need to seriously STFU and deliver data over the data plans that people pay for -- that's what folks want. We want data connectivity to whoever and however we want. That's what we pay for.

The shills need to tone down the whining. We the bill payers see that the telcos get paid ---- monthly.

reply to Skippy25
There is a distinct difference between the capabilities of a mobile and wired network. Just look at the capacity issues and the iPhone. People think you can keep sucking on a finite resource and not have service issues. Some people think that they can beat on a mobile network like you can a wired one.

You can't expect a mobile operator to be able to maintain the quality of basic service if they allow bandwidth heavy applications or applications that cannibalize the core business that is used to pay for the infrastructure.

You really want to see across the board 500MB or 1GB caps because a few people want to beat on a mobile network with streaming audio and video? Because that will be the result. If you have companies like Skype taking from both ends (providing service that consumes bandwidth AND taking other revenues from the telco), there will simply be no money for new expansion.

As for "I pay my bill". This infrastructure is funded by both voice and data revenues. If you slowly but surely kill off the voice revenues and the cash cow messaging, what do you think will have to happen? Service will go to crap and data costs will go up and/or usage capped even lower. It's a simple matter of economics. Termination fees aren't enough to fund a massive wireless infrastructure.

I dont see any validity in your argument.

I will say this.... this "resource" should be able to work itself out through "natural selection".

2 things can cause this and should be the only 2 things allowed by regulation:

1.) If too many people use to much of the network causing poor quality, then people will leave the network freeing up more bandwidth for those that stay.
OR
2.) The company can "manage" this resource by raising their prices causing users to leave and/or improve their network allowing more to stay.

The problem is that the companies don't want to reduce the people or invest in the network at a rate they should because both of those things reduce their revenues. They would rather limit your access to maintain the network or even increase the number of users while still maintaining the same network. Add that to an industry that has very few players and all with the same goal and you really have no true competition encouraging network expansion at a rate that it should be expanding at.

Regardless, Skype does not use that much bandwidth and this truly has nothing to do with bandwidth consumption. This has to do with control of the use of bandwidth and those that provide the bandwidth not wanting to become simply dumbpipes. Unfortunately, that is what they truly are and the sooner they realize that the sooner the entire country will benefit and it doesn't matter if it is wired or wireless.

1. There is no natural selection, no money for adapting. Bandwidth intensive apps are a virus that would kill every mobile network.

2. a. No they won't. Service will get worse and then reach a horrid but semi-stable level of misery; at least until the next mobile killing app comes out.
2. b. Which was exactly my point, providers would have to rape all customers to pay for upgrades so they can support a few people running bandwidth intensive apps or 'leech apps' that cannibalize other core business revenues forcing increases in other services.

If someone wants to use Skype, the natural selection is for those Skype users to go find their own Skype friendly service and if they can't find it, then Skype will be the one who has to adapt.

Skype is nothing more than an application that uses standardized protocols to operate in an IP network. There is no viable reason anything that adheres to those standards should not be allowed on an IP network.

2a. No it wont because that will cause the networks to earn less money so they will have not choice but to upgrade.

2b. You claim providers would have to rape all customers. I get a good laugh out of that because 1. they are raping all customers already 2. they have BILLIONS in PROFITS (not revenue) each QUARTER. Both Verizon and AT&T could update their entire networks and pay cash to do it within 2 years. So don't come here with the sad story of how difficult and hard it would be for them to satisfy the demand.

Go peddle your bag of dong somewhere else. It wont fly here where we are smarter than the average person on these topics.

reply to bicker
Amazing.

They should just shut your Internet access off. After all, every website you go to is just sponging off of the "heavy lifting" of your last mile provider, right? I mean they should all have to build their own networks... or pay twice, three times, 4 times, whatever... And what about online merchants! How dare they make a profit off the backs of the "Heavy lifting" done by the last mile providers. Why, everything on the internet is just looting/stealing/sponging off the work of great companies like AT&T and Comcast!

I have a question for you: What do the last mile providers owe the content providers for them doing all the "heavy lifting" and creating the content people buy Internet access to use?

I haven't heard AT&T running to compensate ebay, or Google, Or BBR, or Myspace, or BoA or anyone else who generates the services people buy Internet access to use. Why should the last mile providers get all the money while the "heavy lifting" is done by everyone else?

That dog doesn't hunt.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

reply to Skippy25
The only stupidity here is your lack of comprehension and critical reasoning. Read what I wrote again, for meaning, and open your itty bitty little mind to the idea that something else might matter other than your own personal wants.

reply to bostonkarl
Why do you fear paying for the amount of service you use? It sounds to me that you're just trying to rationalize your Skype fanboi perspective.

reply to KrK
If you are unable to tell the difference between regular web surfing and video teleconferencing with Skype, then you know nothing about the technology you're making wild-ass assertions about.

reply to Skippy25
2a. Skype would cannibalize voice revenues. Cuts in revenues = No upgrades

2b. Yeah, cause telcos are known for not taking price increases or gouging customers /sarcasm

Go peddle your "upgrades come from thin air" dung somewhere else. It won't fly here because we are smart enough to understand simple economics and differences in wired and wireless network topology.

Your choice is to subscribe or not subscribe. Every other decision belongs to the wireless operator. If your provider doesn't allow Skype, go get another provider, there certainly is no shortage of them.

reply to KrK
Yeah, no difference in network load between a 60kB web page and a constant audio stream. /sarcasm

You must differentiate between the capabilities of wired and wireless networks.

reply to Z80
I would be willing to bet you would argue the MPAA and RIAA need to change their business models to stay relevant and yet you come here and say it is OK for the monopolistic broadband providers not to have to change theirs? I dont think so.

They are dumbpipes trying to still be content providers because that is how it use to be. They need to come to the realization they are dumbpipes and move on. The sooner they do that, the better for EVERYONE.

There WILL be a day that they do nothing more than supply bandwidth. Sure they may have another spin off that does the content, but they will be separate entities and will be competing on the merits of their product and not trying to control the packets to please their stock jockeys. No matter how they try they will not control the internet and AOL is a perfect example of what happens when they do try.

I'm entertained at your ending statement implying that there is so much competition in every market that the industry will regulate itself and will flow toward the wants and needs of the consumer instead of the consumer having to sacrifice their wants and needs at the will of those in control of the network. Nice try, having 3-4 choices which all provide the EXACT same service and make no attempt to truly compete brings no benefit to consumers.

reply to bicker
Personal wants has nothing to do with it, simple common sense does.

The shear stupidity of your comment was clearly illustrated by my examples. What you are stating is that every company that provides a service over the internet should have to help shoulder the cost of the infrastructure these "dumbpipes" provide in addition to paying for the bandwidth they already pay for to reach those customers. OK, take the mask off... your the AT&T CEO arent you?