Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| I think it will discourage investment If I own a building and rent rooms, why would I invest in my building to add more rooms if a law would give all the existing renters access to those rooms, for any purpose they choose?
That's just basic economics. The social upside may outweigh the downside of treading upon the fruits of private investment like that. But, acting like nothing's happening seems unrealistic.
|
|
| said by amigo_boy:If I own a building and rent rooms, why would I invest in my building to add more rooms if a law would give all the existing renters access to those rooms, for any purpose they choose? That's just basic economics. The social upside may outweigh the downside of treading upon the fruits of private investment like that. But, acting like nothing's happening seems unrealistic. You analogy isnt quite right. As people have said plenty of times, google pays for their bandwidth, users pay for their connection to at&t for example, why does someone such as at&t need to be paid again? |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by cooldude9919:You analogy isnt quite right. As people have said plenty of times, google pays for their bandwidth, users pay for their connection to at&t for example, why does someone such as at&t need to be paid again? Who does Google pay? How does my ISP get that money to offset their own infrastructure costs?
It's been my impression that supporters of NN would prevent my ISP from prioritizing traffic. This means my ISP would be in a position to invest in their infrastructure to increase their capacity to meet max demand of all protocols and content.
That would have the effect of my ISP increasing capacity to "rent rooms" to VoIP users. And then faced with an existing customer having more accessibility to things like streaming video, music, etc, taking advantage of the capacity of the size of the room which the VoIP renters didn't need.
It basically forces an ISP to treat all customers as T1 users when not all customers want that. Just because some customers don't want to buy their own T1 line.
Again, there's may be a reason to do this. But, it seems disingenuous to say there isn't an economic impact upon the building owner when they're forced to add rooms that existing tenants will be entitled to use without paying additional rent. |
|
|
|
| I am sure google has tons of paid transit such as cogent, level 3, and hell probably even AT&T at some places. Everybody buys bandwidth from someone unless you own your own backbone, or have settlement free peering.
Why doesnt your monthly cost cover your isps capex for infrastructure? Where is it going? Into the CEO's pockets and not enough left over for capex? |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by cooldude9919:Why doesnt your monthly cost cover your isps capex for infrastructure? If I'm paying for VoIP but my ISP has to build capacity for more than that, and another customer gets the benefit of that extra headroom... why would you expect my monthly bill to cover that? |
|
| said by amigo_boy:said by cooldude9919:Why doesnt your monthly cost cover your isps capex for infrastructure? If I'm paying for VoIP but my ISP has to build capacity for more than that, and another customer gets the benefit of that extra headroom... why would you expect my monthly bill to cover that? Can you clarify a bit? Why would they have to build capacity for more than that unless other customers are paying for more than voip? Are you using your provider cox as an example? Meaning cox telephone? |
|
