GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| It is there networks, you know.
Folks, while we can all sit here in front of the keyboard complaining about what 'might' come of the network owner threats, we must all recognize that it is their network, and 'their' being shareholders.
If you wanted something other than 'best effort' service from one of these providers, go pay for it. If you do not like the abuse that these network owners are threatening, then don't use them.
Like the FCC, most consumers will just complain and do nothing more. Few change services. My suggestion is to drop your provider and help your local municipality start a muni broadband project. Go get'em, tiger!  |
|
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| said by GhostDoggy  :Folks, while we can all sit here in front of the keyboard complaining about what 'might' come of the network owner threats, we must all recognize that it is their network, and 'their' being shareholders. If you wanted something other than 'best effort' service from one of these providers, go pay for it. If you do not like the abuse that these network owners are threatening, then don't use them. Like the FCC, most consumers will just complain and do nothing more. Few change services. My suggestion is to drop your provider and help your local municipality start a muni broadband project. Go get'em, tiger! That is a clear misunderstanding of the issue at hand here. Content providers (that you've heard of) are already shilling out bucks for their own pipes to the 'net. You as the end user are also shilling out money for your pipe to the 'net.
Their argument is that they, as a network operator, should be compensated MORE for traffic going across their network. They are already being compensated-just not enough for their greedy minds. So, in a typical old fashion Ma Bell way, they've dreamt up a new way to stick it to the consumers (the idea of phone rentals, bloody expensive LD, charges for extensions...these are "in our lifetime" anachronisms that nobody would tolerate now)...
BUT, unlike the old days, the content providers (Google comes to mind) obviously don't want this to happen as it would require them to either start charging or charge more for their content to recoup the "priority" access to networks they already have pipes connected to. In other words, it's bullshit. |
|
lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL
| it is exactly on point - SBC/Version own the last mile. while you state they are compensated plenty - it obviously doesn’t matter what you think - its not your company - nor are you the one spending approx 20 billion dollars to provide FIOS and HSIA. They are the ones spending the 20 billion and they are the ones that must find the revenue stream to justify spending that money. Or guess what - they won't build it. its simple business 101 - you have to make more money than you spend on something. and not only do you have to make more you have to make X % more than what you would make by simply keeping the 20 billion in the bank and making 7% interest on it. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| said by lvas :nor are you the one spending approx 20 billion dollars to provide FIOS and HSIA. Actually, that money came from customers...
They are the ones spending the 20 billion and they are the ones that must find the revenue stream to justify spending that money. Or guess what - they won't build it. And they should be able to without extorting money from content providers... They have been foaming at the mouth about offering IPTV and VoIP for the last couple of years. That's where the Bells revenue is going to come from next. Not playing monster on the internet holding up packets for weekly protection dues.
--
Too logical to be a conservative... Too practical to be a liberal... Too realistic to be a Libertarian. |
|
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| reply to lvas
said by lvas :it is exactly on point - SBC/Version own the last mile. while you state they are compensated plenty - it obviously doesn’t matter what you think - its not your company - nor are you the one spending approx 20 billion dollars to provide FIOS and HSIA. They are the ones spending the 20 billion and they are the ones that must find the revenue stream to justify spending that money. Or guess what - they won't build it. its simple business 101 - you have to make more money than you spend on something. and not only do you have to make more you have to make X % more than what you would make by simply keeping the 20 billion in the bank and making 7% interest on it. Well, you know what? Don't freakin' built it! What the hell do I care? I'm a happy customer without them. So is everyone else, apparently-who else is frothing for this scrimshaw except the Bells? Nobody!
And that's really the point here-they are trying to build a case for a outdated business model (e.g. the good ol Bell days) that they are already getting nicely compensated for.
They don't want to build? Fine. If they build it and no one comes...who loses? |
|
lvas
join:2001-05-17
Glen Carbon, IL
| really - no one is frothing at the mouth for better speeds? Its only all over in dslreports that american is behind everyone else and that supposdly we all want 20meg down & 5meg up, etc. etc. well you won't get the speeds unless the 20 billion is spent to improve the network. I didnt mention Voip and IPTV at all. FIOS and HSIA is your dsl connection. yes of course once you have the speeds the Bells want to sell you IPTV and/or Voip - but you don't have to buy them to get the dsl connection (and the better speeds). |
|
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| So, by your logic, the content providers want more speed as well? They are already paying for more speed, or at least their hosting company is. The pipes to the home that you mention are only half of this equation.
Plus, between cable, wireless, satellite, and any other nonBell pipe choices, it is now possible to be ILEC free. So...they can have their cake, but I'm not having any. Neither is the big content providers who (again) are already paying for premium access. |
|
GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| No, actually I am dead on target target. Phone companies own their network and sell access to their network as they see fit and according to how the FCC allows them to operate. This understanding isn't a defense of the telephone companies on my part, but rather an argument that consumers are a lazy bunch and often whine about something than actually doing something about it--as I suggested, start a muni-broadband company.
Company executives at the phone companies have to answer to the FCC and their shareholders, not the bloody consumers. Best Effort is what consumers bought into, and this doesn't include an SLA. I do not like what they are doing anymore than anyone else, but I see their legitimate right to how they wish to traffic-shape their network traffic.
As a result, I say Google should tell them to f-off, and I would guess the telephone companies in return will employ traffic-shaping. But in the end the consumers that are not lazy will find alternatives and as a result the traffic-shaping, shareholder-answering executives will have to decide what's next.
Stop playing the lazy consumer and send a letter to your ISP threatening to leave. I'm betting, though, too little and more lazy than not will be the case. |
|
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| You seem to think that the internet starts and stops on the Bells network. Hogwash.
If customers, the lazy pricks you so easily dismiss, start getting the content they wish to see/view/use being blocked due to this extortion tactic, I'm betting they'll switch TO ANOTHER PROVIDER to bypass the Bells altogether. Yahoo/Google are pretty damn popular, so I'm guessing that Joe Sixpack User isn't going to tolerate their provider blocking or slowing access to those sites.
Free Market disciples should love this shit. The market will decide when the customers go around the bell messopoly all together. |
|
