how-to block ads
|
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| 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. | |
|  
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26 | 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. | |
| | 
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| Re: Ok.. 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. | |
| | | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Ok.. Seizing commiecast of VZ (including VZW) would be a nice start.
These companies want to take control of your connection to throttle any thing that doesn't pay them toll, or isn't a 'Content partner - i.e. Yahoo/SBC(at&t)'
The flaw with that is we (the customers) pay for access to the Internet - with no restrictions to a specific vendor (i.e. Google) vs. their content partner.
While I do agree that there are limits - i.e. SBC/Yahoo back bone set up to handle OC-48 traffic, and say an online gaming service (or video streaming service) has an OC-192 backbone, it could be conceived as 'throttling', Company A asking Company B to assist in paying for extra capacity. I can see that as a reasonable request. What I don't see as being reasonable is packet shaping technology to filter specific ports/applications down to less than the users pipe size. | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| said by G_Poobah :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'. Do you even bother to do your homework before you rant? ... ever?
When did Comcast get drug into a conversation about AT&T and their double dipping?
Eminent domain? if you want a socialist society, there are pleanty of them out there - please, choose one. | |
| 
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana | ...don't give AT&T any "ideas" | |
| RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| 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. | |
| 
AndyWarhol
Premium
join:2004-03-14
Broken Arrow, OK
clubs:
1 edit | 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. | |
| | | |
|
