packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs: | Monopolist
I did say this would be coming!
Damn trolls Wouldn't Listen!
--
Who do you want to pay off today? |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Any way for a company to 'legally' make money for its shareholders.
If they are at a profit cap on their current product, start extorting money. What good would a 6000/608 product be, if a filter the size of a T1 was put on a main portal. I'm sure that it Bell South had its VoIP product out, there wouldn't b e a traffic issue, and they would be the first to cry foul if someone filtered their traffic. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to packetscan
said by packetscan  :I did say this would be coming! Damn trolls Wouldn't Listen! So you switch ISPs. What's the big deal?
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs: | What's the big deal?
If Bellsouth does this and gets away with it.
I fear EVERY ISP would then be willing try it..
They are in business to make money.
--
Who do you want to pay off today? |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by packetscan :If Bellsouth does this and gets away with it. If people cancel this ISP because of this stupid idea, then by definition BS won't be getting away with it. When people call BS and complain that Google doesn't load fast enough (especially since there is almost nothing in terms of HTML on their pages) and the CSR tells them that Google didn't pay the BS bribery fee, those customers will most likely cancel BS and switch to another ISP.
Other ISPs will see this and the smart ones won't repeat this mistake. You would have thought though that BS would have learned from SBC when they made this statement and then had to retract it.
BTW - BS can either mean BellSouth or Bull$#!+ in this post. I trust you will be able to decide the proper context 
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! |
|
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou | People are not that smart to understand that. |
|
rahlquist
Redeye
join:2001-10-30
Villa Rica, GA
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :If people cancel this ISP because of this stupid idea, then by definition BS won't be getting away with it. Thats fine, and what happens when the backbone provider do the same thing? Say Level3 decides google can have 2 terrabytes over their portion of the backbone per month. Anything beyond that they throttle back to 3Kbps, unless Google pays their extorion... --
Got a new podcast to share? Looking for a podcast?
Pcsites.com |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by rahlquist :Thats fine, and what happens when the backbone provider do the same thing? Say Level3 decides google can have 2 terrabytes over their portion of the backbone per month. Anything beyond that they throttle back to 3Kbps, unless Google pays their extorion... But again, people will complain to their ISPs about not being able to access their websites. Customers won't care about backbone providers and such; they just want to access Google and they will happily switch from an ISP which doesn't provide them with access to Google to one that does. Of course, ISPs have more than one choice in backbone providers and they could also dump a provider if it pulled this kind of a stunt.
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! |
|
WMLGuy
join:2000-06-05
Rockaway, NJ
| reply to rahlquist
That's the best thing that can happen. Then Google won't index their pages and won't send any emails to servers that go through their networks. And no one will know of level3 or bellsouth that doesn't live in their territories.
What all these companies aren't realizing is that they use the services of these other companies as well. I'm sure there are people who call long distance from BellSouth land lines to vonage users and pay bell south for the phone call. |
|
googleisgood
| reply to rahlquist
Google will buy L3 or anyone else that gets in their way. |
|
NerdMods
join:2004-07-20
Atlanta, GA
| reply to pnh102
First of all, they will more than likely never be told that.
Second, if anyone expects to get a true 6 megs down or even half from any web site, they are sadly mistaken. All web sites have caps per user. Get over it. And if Google takes up so much bandwidth, then I am sure its in their right to charge for it (just like toll roads) and people still drive their cars down they every day.
Even if it is filtered at 1.5 down, be lucky that Google even allows you to grab content at 100k sec.
For more reading see this older post.
»arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20···498.html |
|
dru
join:2000-09-14
Corona, CA
| reply to pnh102
Switch if you can?
The problem is, the FCC recently issued decisions that release the Bell companies from having to lease their lines to other ISPs. Your only choice beside the cable company (and no ISP choice there)is the Bell's own ISP.
It is unclear whether the Bells will continue to lease access to their networks will continue after the FCC mandated term and long-term contracts run out. Currently, those of us in the industry speculate they will, but will impose terms and conditions that will make continuing a moot point. Verizon quickly yanked access to FIOS lines for independent ISPs within a week of the FCC ruling. ISPs can resell Verizon Online Internet FIOS under a branding agreement at retail prices, which is pointless for any ISP to do so.
In a couple of years, you may not have the choice to switch to another DSL based ISP. It will be Bell(South) or your cable company. You might, or might not have a third wireless option. Oh yeah, never mind, that's Verizon or Cingular owned by the same people, and the FCC is allowing them to snap up or otherwise tie-up new and available licensed frequencies for Wimax and other forthcoming technologies.
The FCC thinks that the "Duopoly" between cable and DSL is good for consumers and the market competition between them is sufficient to keep the internet free and open. Yeah, right.
Take one look at who owns the largest cable network after the mega mergers and Adelphia acquisition, and only a fool would bet that they will be above "content management" or other euphemisms that will be created to justify turning their pipelines into a content cash-cow.
Now look at the combined SBC/AT&T backbone, and Verizon/MCI ("uunet")backbone. Together they currently provide the majority of the World's backbone! Even if independent ISPs thrive and cable companies don't impose fees to content providers or play QOS games, what is to stop the two Bell companies from de-peering content companies or "optimizing" bandwidth to favor their services and offerings.
Unfortunately, our current administration and congress has been bought and paid for by the Bell and cable lobbyists.
To cement the propriety of the mega-mergers, the Bells hired union and charitable organization shills to stack state PUC hearings. They now have big money to lobby, advertise, and reinforce their monopoly position using legal, political, and even questionable ethics, like hiding behind organizations claiming to be "consumer groups" against government abuse and unfair competition.
Cities and local governments who have seen the handwriting on the wall with the current efforts for "national franchises" are expressing interest in establishing open broadband or wi-fi networks for all their citizens. Before you can say "unfair government competition" the Bells and cable companies descend upon City Hall with referendums, lawsuits, and attacks from shill "consumer groups" along with every other method to frustrate any meaningful attempt to establish an alternative to the entrenched incumbents.
The justification and reason for all this is that the directors of these mega-companies are responsible to their shareholders for a return on investment. Well, if that is where the buck finally stops, then any AT&T, Verizon, Time-Warner, etc shareholder should be aware that they are all a sharing the end of a free, open internet as we now know it.
--
I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe. |
|
Mizzat
Will post for thumbs
Premium
join:2003-05-03
Atlanta, GA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to NerdMods
Re: Monopolist
Though most of your post is way off topic and wrong. I pull data from many websites at over 6Mbps...
It sounded to me like the SBC guy in that article was talking about a VoIP provider using his pipes without a subscriber having service through SBC, or at least the VoIP paying a reseller fee to SBC. I can understand that...
As far as this news topic. I doubt what this BellSouth gentleman said will ever get off the ground. It sounds like a pipe dream to me, no pun intended. I doubt consumers will agree with it, or businesses. Since most websites use co-location to run their websites, there are many providers that connect to those co-los, they simply wouldn't choose BellSouth if was going to cost their customers more, or cause latency, IMO. If he is speaking of charging for DSL/DIA users that have BellSouth, I don't know if any customer would want a company that has other companies choose who is more of a priority for them. Sounds like a bad move in my opinion.
I think they should be allowed to prioritize some traffic over their own networks, such as the IP TV channels customers pay for and medical data it suggests in the article, but charging sites for their priority seems like a bad idea to me. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to NerdMods
said by NerdMods :First of all, they will more than likely never be told that. You are probably correct. For the sake of argument, let's say the customer calls tech support on multiple occasions and is given varying types of BS responses as to why a website like Google is "slow." How many of these customers are going to just say "screw this" and switch to a new ISP, especially if said ISP won't degrade connectivity to these websites?
Internet access is a tool just like any other. If a tool breaks or doesn't do the job correctly, most people replace the tool. The same goes with Internet access.
said by NerdMods :Second, if anyone expects to get a true 6 megs down or even half from any web site, they are sadly mistaken. All web sites have caps per user. Get over it. That's true for the most part as well, the actual speed that a website loads is dependant on how wide the pipes are between the customer and the website. However, BS plans to increase load times for sites which don't pay up by gunking up the connection at the user's end.
I also don't think such a move by BS would go unnoticed even outside of the tech community. Look at all the problems that SBC ran into when it tried to implement the same thing.
said by NerdMods :And if Google takes up so much bandwidth, then I am sure its in their right to charge for it (just like toll roads) and people still drive their cars down they every day. That's an issue between Google and its hosting providers. Google can always pay them more so more people can access their site. If I were Google, I would put up a different page for BS customers which says something along the lines of "Can't see this page fast enough? It's BS' fault. You should try a new ISP instead"
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! |
|
npyoung
join:2002-09-23
Jacksonville, OR | reply to pnh102
You assume that there's someone to switch to for broadband. In most markets, if you are lucky, there are two: cableco and telco. Ben and Ben Dover. |
|
quetwo
That VoIP Guy
Premium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :said by packetscan :I did say this would be coming! Damn trolls Wouldn't Listen! So you switch ISPs. What's the big deal? Not everybody has the option of switching to another ISP. If there are no other CLECS that have DSL in your CO, then you are pooched, and have to put up with their BS. (Assuming you won't consider going back to Dialup) |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to npyoung
said by npyoung :You assume that there's someone to switch to for broadband. In most markets, if you are lucky, there are two: cableco and telco. Ben and Ben Dover. This goes back to the issue of usability. If both choices of ISP block access to the content that a customer wants, why would the customer bother using either choice? In the end it still hurts the ISPs if they do this.
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs:
·Optimum Online
| reply to pnh102
Just up an Cancel..
Well you know what not everyone has that ability.. Why?
The Current Monopolist Regional telco system is Not built for Competition and if people want to compete they have to pay say SBC so there profits goto shit because they are forced to lease equipment / lines from the telco..
How many people can not get broadband period?
Thanks end of discussion.
--
Who do you want to pay off today? |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | reply to pnh102
Dude cut down to half doses and come back to earth. |
|
dot-bomb v2
@sonnet.com | reply to googleisgood
No, google will not. As soon as stock speculators realize google is at the mercy of the ISPs, their stock will collapse. |
|
