Jafo232
You Can't Spell Democrat Without Rat.
Premium
join:2002-10-17
Boonville, NY
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Ok..
Whenever a company like this says "beneficial to customers", you have to be worried. That is usually a code for "We are about to screw the customer when he/she is not looking"..
--
Design, Hosting, Programming At MediaFlavor.com. |
|
valuepac0
join:2001-05-30
Santa Monica, CA | Where my fiber to the curb... |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
 ·AT&T Southwest
4 edits | Great...by this logic AT&T should share some of their extra profits thus obtained with the local electric companies -- without whom they could not function as well (or maybe a 2 tier electricity grid...)
AT&T is damm lucky that Google is out-there -- inducing us to rent DSL lines -- at no cost to AT&T! This plan is blantantly anti-competitive unless they also charge their YAHOO partners as well. |
|
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
|  reply to Jafo232
Here is the reality and not the fantasy
It is really a simple idea:
AT&T besides being a distributor of content is ALSO going to be a provider of content.
And when they are the provider, they are going to make sure that content is delivered with the BEST quality of service possible. Even if they have to spend extra money on infrastructure to make that possible.
And other providers will get the standard old best effort internet non-optimized delivery vehicle. UNLESS ... they also pay extra to get on the optimized path too.
It is a purely economic decision to spend their investment dollars to enhance their own ROI. If government steps in and tries to forbid the so-called 2 tier system, then 1 of 2 things would happen:
1) the ISPs will not spend their money to upgrade infrastructure to handle the new products(video, etc.) at all. So everyone suffers. OR
2) the ISPs will upgrade the infrastructure to support all comers and the PRICE to their customers goes up accordingly.
The option everyone wants can NOT happen. And that is an enhanced infrastructure paid for only by the ISPs with no increase in costs to the customer. Investors of the ISPs will not support that option.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page |
|
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| AT&T besides being a distributor of content is ALSO going to be a provider of content.
And when they are the provider, they are going to make sure that content is delivered with the BEST quality of service possible. Even if they have to spend extra money on infrastructure to make that possible.
And other providers will get the standard old best effort internet non-optimized delivery vehicle. UNLESS ... they also pay extra to get on the optimized path too.
Maybe you should tell the AT&T CEO about your plan, because he didn't specify any "non-optimized" outlet for google. He said "since people use our bandwidth for you instead of us because you have a superior service, we'd like to charge you money rather than beat your service."
And can you explain the engineering behind such "optimized" information delivery. Whatever would that mean? |
|
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| reply to ronpin
Re: Ok..
said by ronpin  :Great...by this logic AT&T should share some of their extra profits thus obtained with the local electric companies -- without whom they could not function as well (or maybe a 2 tier electricity grid...) Bad example. You pay for how much electricity you use by the watt. You pay a flat fee for internet access, regardless of how much you use it. |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to GOLFnSUN
Re: Here is the reality and not the fantasy
said by GOLFnSUN :...Even if they have to spend extra money on infrastructure to make that possible. ...No
AT&T must upgrade their infrastructure anyway -- just to survive against the cable companies. Nobody will be using DSL for any purpose at-all unless it's upgraded to compete with DOCSIS3.
I'll definitely switch to a cable provider if AT&T does something this stupid (they've already waited too long for FTTP) |
|
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting
| reply to GOLFnSUN
Your argument is completely and wholly bogus.
You've created a complete false reality argument, where your reader must accept that if this system is opposed by a functional regulatory authority, there will be no deployment. It's the same red herring carrot/stick that's been foisted on Internet debate by think tank drones for a quarter century. It's false.
For one, if the telcos do not invest in network upgrades they will be beaten stupid by wireless, cable, and muni-alternatives, so investment must happen regardless.
Second, prices will not automatically go up if this system is opposed, that's another red herring. If anything, competition between services will force telcos to lower prices for said services.... |
|
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to broadbander
said by broadbander :And can you explain the engineering behind such "optimized" information delivery. Whatever would that mean? Best explained by an example. Comcast built it's own nationwide fiber backbone to interconnect all its locations to keep traffic off of the regular internet. The 1st product using that exclusively is their Comcast Digital Voice(voip) product. They also plan on using that backbone to get into video delivery(IPTV) as well. I suspect that other content providers desiring the Quality of Service that backbone provides will need to fork money over to Comcast for that privilege.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page |
|
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26 | reply to footballdude
Re: Ok..
You pay for electric service based on how many KILOWATT HOURS (a draw of 1,000watts for one hour, or equibvalent)you use per month. usually in the range of 9-14 cents per KWH. |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana | reply to footballdude
...don't give AT&T any "ideas" |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| reply to Jafo232
said by Jafo232 :Whenever a company like this says "beneficial to customers", you have to be worried. That is usually a code for "We are about to screw the customer when he/she is not looking".. Reminds me of the old joke, "What's Yiddish for 'f*ck you'?"
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| reply to Fatal Vector
Your argument is flawed.
Electricity costs money to produce. A bit of data costs nothing to produce, it only costs money to transport. It's known as a temporal asset. It costs the same to run at 1mb/sec as it does for 100mb/sec, given that all other things are equal. The objective of the transporter (comcast/verizon/etc) is to run as close to 100% capacity as possible (aka use every airline seats), since there is no UNIT cost (electricity production) to maximize profits.
If you check your electric bill, you pay for the transport (internet access) and the usage (production).
Comcrap/Verizon/Etc are trying to double dip, since they currently only get to charge for the 'transport', and want to now get a chunk of the 'production'. Greed, pure and simple, and it WOULD NEVER WORK unless it was a monopoly. I, for one, look forward to the day when my locally elected official seizes the assets of comcast and verizon under eminent domain. |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| reply to footballdude
said by footballdude :Bad example. You pay for how much electricity you use by the watt. You pay a flat fee for internet access, regardless of how much you use it. Not totally true, I have paid a 'service fee' + the KW usage for my electric for a long time. With my AT&T LD I pay a set rate, and if I call over a certain number of minutes, then I pay extra. My ISP is a flat rate up to 100 gigabytes/month, any more and I get dinged (not that I come close to using that much).
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
CableConvert
Premium
join:2003-12-05
Atlanta, GA | reply to Jafo232
Unfortunately...we are looking, and we will still get screwed |
|
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
| reply to ronpin
Re: Here is the reality and not the fantasy
Interestingly enough, I had a problem with my SBC/AT&T DSL which turned out to be the modem. However, during the conversation, while the tech was testing the line (next day in home service, by the way), he made a comment about my DSL line being 294 feet long and that my current service was only using 12% of the capability of the line.
How could this be? I'm definately not that close to the switch. Apparently, it's because I am that distance from a node of some kind. This seems to tie in with my having seen SBC putting in large fiber cables under the main avenue a few months back, as well as in other places over time.
In all the blathering about SBC/AT&T, has it ever occurred to anyone that SBC HAS been upgrading their infrastructure, quietly, over time?
Oh, and by the way, it seems that SBC DSL is provided by a outfit called ASI (Advanced Solutions Inc), which, from what I was told, is a subsidiary of SBC, but, because of FCC regulations, operates independently. Go figure. |
|
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to Minister
For one, if the telcos do not invest in network upgrades they will be beaten stupid by wireless, cable, and muni-alternatives, so investment must happen regardless.
Aw! But that's when the telcos AREN'T against regulation! When it impedes those who might stand up against their refusal to deploy, then regulation is doing its job. All other times, oh no no. |
|
aztecnology
O Rly?
Premium
join:2003-02-12
Murrieta, CA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Fatal Vector
said by Fatal Vector :Oh, and by the way, it seems that SBC DSL is provided by a outfit called ASI (Advanced Solutions Inc), which, from what I was told, is a subsidiary of SBC, but, because of FCC regulations, operates independently. Go figure. SBC was required to spin its DSL operations into a separate company, ASI, back around 2001. This past year ASI moved back to SBC/ATT, though the group is still called ASI...
--
.:|:. "Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that always come in legions." John Callari .:|:. |
|
AndyWarhol
Premium
join:2004-03-14
Broken Arrow, OK
clubs:
1 edit | reply to footballdude
Re: Ok..
Not entirely true, if you are under contract with an ISP or a webhosting company, you are allowed a certain amount of information per month and are charged for every bit you exceed your limit, even residential customers are subject to this limit (we all know that bandwidth caps exist in our residential contracts, but they are rarely enforced so we tend to forget about them), but ISPs don't care about residential customers because the margin they earn on them is nowhere near what they earn from business customers. If you can get 100,000 residential customers for $10 a month or 10 customers for $100,000 a month, which would you choose?
Edit: this also proved that they are not attempting to double dip, they are attempting to triple dip. Most domain names are already paying for a certain amount of traffic to their site, and all customers are already paying for their access to that site, so now charging the owners of those domain names not only for the traffic to their site but also for the traffic that passes through any certain network is triple, quadruple, quintuple dipping from the same pot. |
|
AndyWarhol
Premium
join:2004-03-14
Broken Arrow, OK
clubs: | reply to ronpin
Re: Here is the reality and not the fantasy
exactly, you must at some point try to beat the competition by upgrading. Then again they might just try to lower their prices and become an in-between dial-up and fast broadband. |
|
