Pake
If you can read this.... RUN
join:2001-02-22
Huntersville, NC
 ·AT&T Southeast
| reply to technick
Re: And the Greedy get greedier,....
Why change services just because Bellsouth wants to charge Google for priority? Does this affect my speeds or my bill? No, not really, outside of Google.com itself.
While it's a dirty business to business tactic, you can't sit here and say we should change our service just to tell them their wrong for their business to business relations.
BTW, I find it funny how you talk of communism at the end of your paragraph, while saying "If I could pull the plug on BellSouth existence I would" at the beginning. |
|
technick
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Loganville, GA | So your saying you would be able to get your point across to Bellsouth without canceling and that they will really take you seriously? Pulling the plug on bellsouth has nothing to do with communism. |
|
Pake
If you can read this.... RUN
join:2001-02-22
Huntersville, NC
·AT&T Southeast
| Huh? What I'm saying is I have no need to cancel my service with Bellsouth over what they want to do with another company. When they want to charge the consumer, then it'll be a problem, but reading the article, it sounds more like Bellsouth wants to get some cash from Google or from other internet sites to have those sites load faster.
What they are basically saying is they want to open up a service where internet sites can buy the option for their site to load faster than the competitors site.
Unless they go and slow up the competitors site, while leaving the paying sites speed alone, this affects the consumers so very little.
And lastly, by saying you would pull the plug on Bellsouth, you are basically saying you want total control. So I'll change my wording to totalitarianism. |
|
Zennest
join:2004-08-14 | This is going to against what internet is. Reaching the information.
So what do you think next will be? Then, google will charge access to their page. So will you pay for it or your loveboy Bellsouth? |
|
jp10558
Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY
| reply to Pake
Yeah, but will Bell South just outright block access to sites that don't want to pay?
Plus, as a customer, isn't there an implicit problem here? That your access could be faster with the plan you've got, but they don't make it faster? Isn't that basically hurting you? Don't you expect your ISP to make every effort to make your internet experiance the best it can be?
I mean, why go with someone who not only is intentionally mediocre, but advertises that fact?
--
Opera 8.5(Build 7700); Windows XP Pro SP2;Athlon 64 3400+; 1GB PC3200 DDR; 1M/128k DSL; NOD32(Version 2.5.25); Outpost Pro 3;Proxomitron 4.5j Grypen 11/27/05(Opera mod),GPG ID:0x0A1C6EE3 |
|
Pake
If you can read this.... RUN
join:2001-02-22
Huntersville, NC
·AT&T Southeast
2 edits | said by jp10558  :Yeah, but will Bell South just outright block access to sites that don't want to pay? Plus, as a customer, isn't there an implicit problem here? That your access could be faster with the plan you've got, but they don't make it faster? Isn't that basically hurting you? Don't you expect your ISP to make every effort to make your internet experiance the best it can be? I mean, why go with someone who not only is intentionally mediocre, but advertises that fact? From the article:
quote:
But Smith was quick to say that Internet service providers should not be able to block or discriminate against Web content or services by degrading their performance.
As it stands, the only thing I'm getting from this article is that Bellsouth wants to set up a payment option that internet services could pay to promote their site by giving them faster speeds. They didn't say they would restrict websites, b/c right now, they could if they wanted. They merely are trying to find a way to rack in some cash and what better way than to have companies pay you so their site loads faster than the other.
As it stands though, I see nothing in the article that screams "Bloody murder! I must cancel my service that is working exactly as it says it would!"
quote:
Plus, as a customer, isn't there an implicit problem here? That your access could be faster with the plan you've got, but they don't make it faster? Isn't that basically hurting you? Don't you expect your ISP to make every effort to make your internet experiance the best it can be?
As it stands, all services in the US and many countries don't exactly try to live up to the best they can be. I was at 3.0 spds last year, while they could have given me my current 6.0 spds multiple years ago. It's not some unknown fact, b/c every year there are at least 2 companies upping their speeds and we read about it and argue about it right on these very forums. Do I want the best service possible? Heck yeah, but so does everyone and no one is getting it nor will anyone get it unless everyone in the whole USA decides to cancel their internet service all at once and demand the best service possible. |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to Pake
Google pays for internet connectivity to someone, maybe it is actually BellSouth. I don't know, nor do I care. Point is that whoever it is that Google is paying for connectivity only needs to concern itself with providing the SLA and speed/bandwidth they are contracted by Google to provide. Now if Google comes to the above and says "Hey we want our traffic at a higher priority then any other traffic for companies that you are hosting" then that company is free to charge whatever Google is willing to pay to have their packets routed at a higher priority once it hits the hosting companies network. Provided of course that every other customer of that provider has already agreed (thru a EULA or whatever) to allow them to lower the priority of their packets. Because you can’t raise the priority of one packet without lowering the priority of every other packet.
No connectivity provider (backbone, ISP, Telco, Cable Co) has any right to interfere with any packet coming across the internet. Regardless of the number or the destination of such packets. They should remain transparent packet routers who's only concern should be with the SLA and speed/bandwidth they were contracted to provide. If they want to limit speed and amount of packets that one can send/receive so be it. Let ISP's and hosting companies create the packages for us to review and make an educated decision to buy or not to buy. And US would include user's as well as content providers like Google.
If BS is implying that they should be charging Google or any other company for packets directed to their servers from a BS client on the BS network, they are simply entering waters they have no business being in. They have absolutely no right to interfere with a user’s packet in any way as long as that user is within the scope of the speed/bandwidth that they have contracted for. If the user goes outside of that limit, then and only then does BS have a right to interfere with that specific user’s connection. |
|
