how-to block ads
|
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| reply to bogey780
Re: Oh really?
If the present internet situation won't change for those who don't want the enhanced service, then I'll ask this again:
A number of bell executive statements say that google, vonage, etc. are PRESENTLY freeloaders. They don't say they would be future freeloaders if they wanted enhanced service but didn't pay for it but that they are PRESENT freeloaders(that is, freeloaders under the presently constructed order of things). Do ATT, BS, Verizon plan to allow them to continue to be freeloaders, even though the statements they have made say that the freeloading can not continue? If they don't intend to allow this freeloading to continue, then they clearly intend to radically alter the nature of the present internet, NOT to continue it undisturbed.
| |
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| Ahh, a PROFESSIONAL astroturfer we have here..
Your problem, of course, is that you make a false statement at the beginning, and then attempt to support it by offering an alternative.. Tricky... did your handler give you a sheet to use? I've worked with enough dickless marketing guys to recognize their writing style.
"The bell executive statements say google, etc are FREELOADERS". Well, DUH, but that statement is incorrect. Please explain exactly how they are 'freeloaders', they are paying for an internet connection.
The remains of your argument are based on the fact that you have defined google as a freeloader, and you are offering options for the telcos. Of course, you initial statement is pointless, so everything you say after that is meaningless noise.
Please tell your handlers to give you a better script next time. | |
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to asdfdfdf
Disection time:
said by asdfdfdf :
If the present internet situation won't change for those who don't want the enhanced service, then I'll ask this again: AHHH, but it will change.
Just as operating systems and programs have increased in size (from kilobytes to gigabytes), so will data files. Imagine being able to copy a full 10MB HD over the net in under 5 minutes (when 10MB disks were considered huge.)
Now, MP3 files are around 5MB each, videos can be 10MB or much more, Linux distros are CD sized. More and more people are getting on the net daily and more and more data is flowing. It has to go somewhere. So the Bells are making their networks bigger to cope with the influx of users and the increase in file sizes. Otherwise, no one will want to surf a bottle necked system. This is one of the main selling points of a broadband connection; speed.
said by asdfdfdf :
A number of bell executive statements say that google, vonage, etc. are PRESENTLY freeloaders. They don't say they would be future freeloaders if they wanted enhanced service but didn't pay for it but that they are PRESENT freeloaders(that is, freeloaders under the presently constructed order of things). Do ATT, BS, Verizon plan to allow them to continue to be freeloaders, even though the statements they have made say that the freeloading can not continue? If they don't intend to allow this freeloading to continue, then they clearly intend to radically alter the nature of the present internet, NOT to continue it undisturbed.
O.k. by your reasoning, if I were to call you (long distance) on the phone, not only would I have to pay but so would you. When you call someone long distance, only the caller pays, not the receiver. The Bells would like both sides to pay. Should SBC pay when they try to call a Vonage number? What about a Verizon customer calling a T-Mobile number? Should they have to pay the cell airtime too?
Now, how are Google, Yahoo and Vonage "freeloaders?" They pay their ISPs to get on-line. We pay our ISPs for a connection to the net. Where is the free ride?
One explanation for all of this could be that the Bells know they can't hit up their customers for more money. Can you imagine the backlash if Verizon told all its customers that they need to charge an extra $5/month for network upgrades. It would probably be more for business customers.
This is nothing more than a shakedown of large companies that have money. The Bells need to upgrade their systems but are afraid to ask their customers for the money to pay for it. They want someone else to pay for it. There are enough studies out there that show what people will pay for broadband and many think that price is too high as it is. How many people have dumped POTS lines in favor of cellular (not including those that don't even have VOIP.) | |
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| reply to G_Poobah
Wow. Though I admit to being less than impressive in the male anatomy department, I'm hurt more by the claim that I write like a marketing drone. You're missing my point. I know I only have myself to blame, since I continue to post as anonymous, but I have a long posting history as asdfdfdf and it in no way suggests I am a bell apologist.
I don't define google as a freeloader. Key management people at the different bocs have defined them this way. I am using their own words to explain how the claims that their apologists use, namely that there is no intention to alter the nature of the present internet but only to "offer an enhanced service", don't make any sense within the context of the comments the executives are making.
Apparently I am failing miserably in trying to use the bocs own words against them. | |
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| reply to G_Poobah
Let me try again.
Boc management says that, as the internet is presently organized, google, et al are freeloaders. They say that they do not intend to allow this freeloading to continue. How can they then claim that they have no intention of altering the present nature of the internet? These statements are contradictory. Aren't the original statements more likely to accurately represent their real intentions than the later reassurances that they didn't mean what they said? | |
|
