how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
350 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
3 edits | If you can't join 'em, beat 'em I'm a wireless ISP. I make money by BUILDING the last mile, not by providing "me too" service over someone else's last mile infrastructure, on which I have little or no ability to differentiate my service from that of any other ISP who does the same thing.
If I'm on a shared last mile network, I can't offer greater reliability (if it goes down -- and I don't run it, so I can't control that -- my customer is down), greater throughput, or service to any area that other ISPs on that network can't serve. And, of course, if Google gets its way, tehre will be "network neutrality" regulations that will prevent providers from competing on the basis of traffic management, etc. So, what happens? The lowball bidder wins the customer. And to be the low bidder, you need to be a big company with lots of bargaining power on the wholesale level. Small or local businesses like mine need not apply.
Who would want to be in a strictly commodity business where value added and innovation simply aren't appreciated?
And why would I ever want to pay rent to Google, which is seeking to impose onerous regulations upon all ISPs?
I'd much rather go up against their network with one that offers things that they can't -- at lower prices (because I'm not paying rent to Google) -- and win. | | |
|
 GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| said by SuperWISP:Who would want to be in a strictly commodity business where value added and innovation simply aren't appreciated? Well, when current ISPs are adding restrictions (like Comcast's caps) and taking away newsgroups (AT&T, Comcast, Cox, et al.), it doesn't seem like ISPs are competing on "value added" products. Looks like more profit for them instead.
said by SuperWISP:And why would I ever want to pay rent to Google, which is seeking to impose onerous regulations upon all ISPs? Which is? All traffic is treated fairly?
--
My Blog 2.0 | |
WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | If you have an unused bedroom would you like the government to make you rent it out to anyone that showed up at your door and had the money for the room at a price the government set. | |
| reply to Gbcue
"Network neutrality" regulations are no means "neutral" or fair. It is, in fact, the agenda of a corporation: Google. Google has monopolies on Internet search, Internet banner advertising, and Internet video and wants to keep them. The regulations would prevent startups from being able to buy the prioritized Web access they need to challenge Google (which has its own fiber network just to speed up its own traffic), preserving Google's monopoly. The regulations would also prevent Internet service providers from being able to influence the future development of the Net, leaving Google totally in the driver's seat.The FCC should not have the power to boost the interests of a favored corporation over those of other companies and of the people. (Google has given millions to the Obama administration and has secured a senior position for one of its executives — Andrew McLaughlin — on the White House staff.) To get onto Google's network would be to support this agenda. | |
GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by SuperWISP:"Network neutrality" regulations are no means "neutral" or fair. It is, in fact, the agenda of a corporation: Google. Google has monopolies on Internet search, Internet banner advertising, and Internet video and wants to keep them. The regulations would prevent startups from being able to buy the prioritized Web access they need to challenge Google (which has its own fiber network just to speed up its own traffic), preserving Google's monopoly. The regulations would also prevent Internet service providers from being able to influence the future development of the Net, leaving Google totally in the driver's seat.The FCC should not have the power to boost the interests of a favored corporation over those of other companies and of the people. (Google has given millions to the Obama administration and has secured a senior position for one of its executives — Andrew McLaughlin — on the White House staff.) To get onto Google's network would be to support this agenda. Interesting.
--
My Blog 2.0 | |
 dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | reply to SuperWISP
said by SuperWISP:I'm a wireless ISP. I make money by BUILDING the last mile, not by providing "me too" service over someone else's last mile infrastructure, on which I have little or no ability to differentiate my service from that of any other ISP who does the same thing. If I'm on a shared last mile network, I can't offer greater reliability (if it goes down -- and I don't run it, so I can't control that -- my customer is down), greater throughput, or service to any area that other ISPs on that network can't serve. And, of course, if Google gets its way, tehre will be "network neutrality" regulations that will prevent providers from competing on the basis of traffic management, etc. So, what happens? The lowball bidder wins the customer. And to be the low bidder, you need to be a big company with lots of bargaining power on the wholesale level. Small or local businesses like mine need not apply. Who would want to be in a strictly commodity business where value added and innovation simply aren't appreciated? And why would I ever want to pay rent to Google, which is seeking to impose onerous regulations upon all ISPs? I'd much rather go up against their network with one that offers things that they can't -- at lower prices (because I'm not paying rent to Google) -- and win. and if you have caps and port blocks, what makes you any different from ABC isp or XYZ isp?
--
The shortest distance between 2 points adds 1.5 stars to T. want $50? solve »coord.info/GC20A37 for me | |
| said by dvd536:said by SuperWISP:I'm a wireless ISP. I make money by BUILDING the last mile, not by providing "me too" service over someone else's last mile infrastructure, on which I have little or no ability to differentiate my service from that of any other ISP who does the same thing. If I'm on a shared last mile network, I can't offer greater reliability (if it goes down -- and I don't run it, so I can't control that -- my customer is down), greater throughput, or service to any area that other ISPs on that network can't serve. And, of course, if Google gets its way, tehre will be "network neutrality" regulations that will prevent providers from competing on the basis of traffic management, etc. So, what happens? The lowball bidder wins the customer. And to be the low bidder, you need to be a big company with lots of bargaining power on the wholesale level. Small or local businesses like mine need not apply. Who would want to be in a strictly commodity business where value added and innovation simply aren't appreciated? And why would I ever want to pay rent to Google, which is seeking to impose onerous regulations upon all ISPs? I'd much rather go up against their network with one that offers things that they can't -- at lower prices (because I'm not paying rent to Google) -- and win. and if you have caps and port blocks, what makes you any different from ABC isp or XYZ isp? Where in ANY of his post do you see him say he has caps or port blocks?
 | |
| Actually, we do block some ports. Some examples: Windows file sharing. SQL Slammer. Pop-up spam. | |
|
