wirelesswoes
join:2004-02-12
Hialeah, FL | If anyone can do it...
Google can! Now with Google backing this, we don't need to worry anymore. |
|
GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| Why do you say that? The network owners will simply state that its their network, which is not tariffed, and as such open to their implemented use the way they see fit.
As a cowsumer, you are not paying for the network-side performance, but rather the access-side of performance which is limited to cowsumer 'best-effort'. And the may be a minimum effort requirement, but I doubt they'll cross that line.
Maybe you should consider starting NetNuetralISP.net and start your own business and operate it to a better success than these current network owners are doing. I bet everyone on DSLR would support you. |
|
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| As a cowsumer, you are not paying for the network-side performance, but rather the access-side of performance which is limited to cowsumer 'best-effort'.
You can bet the 'net fast-lanes' costs will be passed down to consumers. So, yes, we'll be paying for that, too. |
|
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL | reply to wirelesswoes
It will be a court battle. I doubt courts will find in the favor of ISPs because the effect would eventually be censorship and a violated of interstate commerce.
If it happens, why even have broadband? |
|
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
|  reply to wirelesswoes
said by wirelesswoes  :Google can! Now with Google backing this, we don't need to worry anymore. I wouldn't lay any bets on Google winning this battle in Congress. They are not well loved in Congress and have suffered a black eye over their hypocritical attitude toward China censorship and their fighting the DOJ subpoena. And the telcos and cable companies have a many years headstart on lobbying Congress.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Unfortunately, this is probably true.
It's also something that will show that the government isn't supportive of business unless business is "supportive" of their bank accounts. |
|
wirelesswoes
join:2004-02-12
Hialeah, FL
| reply to GhostDoggy
GhostDoggy: I hope your post was in jest.
Anyways to further add to my .02 cents...
I pay $60 a month for internet access, Google pays $x for the bandwidth they consume.
My money goes towards paying the ISP for the right to access websites. Google's money goes towards the right to use x amount of bandwidth.
In what way, shape or form should the telcos have any right to charge an addtional fee for "faster access".
I hope Google slaps the telcos silly like they did the DOJ.  |
|
wirelesswoes
join:2004-02-12
Hialeah, FL
| reply to TK Junk Mail
TKjunkmail: Yes congress isn't pleased with Google because Google had the balls to stand up for the rights of their users and the courts agreed with them.
Google is more powerful than a lot of people give them credit for; it doesn't matter what Congress thinks of them at this point, they have the backing of millions of consumers and Billions of dollars helps as well. 
The telcos will lose the war. |
|
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to tsu
said by tsu :As a cowsumer, you are not paying for the network-side performance, but rather the access-side of performance which is limited to cowsumer 'best-effort'.
You can bet the 'net fast-lanes' costs will be passed down to consumers. So, yes, we'll be paying for that, too. The consumer WILL PAY for getting more bandwidth intensive applications. This so-called net neutrality battle is more about how they cut up the consumer pie. Who will get the bigger cut - the content providers or the ISPs. So rest assured, this battle isn't about helping the consumer, no matter what the pundits say. They are just supporting 1 side or the other in the fight. So BBR just comes down on the side of the content providers and not the consumers.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | So BBR just comes down on the side of the content providers and not the consumers.
That would, of course, be a matter of opinion. It could be seen the opposite, depending on how you believe things will work. |
|
achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| reply to wirelesswoes
said by wirelesswoes :I pay $60 a month for internet access, Google pays $x for the bandwidth they consume. Who is paying for the transport? Access and transport are two different things.
You, Google, Amazon, E-Bay, etc, all pay for access...
--
Bring back chicken and potato chips - Vote Perot! |
|
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Up until this issue was brought up, access was transport.
What use is access if there is no transmission? |
|
Megladon1
join:2003-09-05
Minneapolis, MN
| reply to wirelesswoes
No, what this really means is, Google is going to be paying for you to have the fastest possible connection to them. But now rather then pay the isp's for this, they're now going to be paying political figures for this. They pay in the end, and we always end up paying for a big company like them paying. |
|
achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| reply to tsu
said by tsu :Up until this issue was brought up, access was transport. What use is access if there is no transmission? Access (»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_networks) and transport, a/k/a IXC (»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IXC) inside the telecom industry, are dependent on each other; however, they are two very different components.
Most end users and companies pay for just access to the "Internet". The only time you start to pay for transport is when you pay for a Private line, ATM/Frame PVC/SVC, or a PIP CAR.
Most people tend to forget that their DSL line is not a direct link to Google, but is only an entry ramp onto the network backbone that takes you to Google's entry ramp.
A simple trace will show access and transport networks. Comcast, DSL, OOL are all examples of access. UUNET, AT&T, Sprint are examples of transport.
The names and players have changed a bit since merger mania, but most people also don't realize that, for example, when MCI and VZ merged, local and long distance operations still need to operate as two different entities under FCC regulation.
--
Bring back chicken and potato chips - Vote Perot! |
|
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Like I said. What use is access if there is no transport? |
|
Talis
join:2001-06-21
Houston, TX
| reply to TK Junk Mail
said by TK Junk Mail :The consumer WILL PAY for getting more bandwidth intensive applications. You are either misrepresenting this or have no idea what net neutrality is about. It has nothing to do with providing more or less bandwidth to the consumer.said by TK Junk Mail :This so-called net neutrality battle is more about how they cut up the consumer pie. Who will get the bigger cut - the content providers or the ISPs. Please expalin to me how network neutrality has anything to do with how a content provider will make more or less money. Which pie is it you are cutting up?said by TK Junk Mail :So rest assured, this battle isn't about helping the consumer, no matter what the pundits say. They are just supporting 1 side or the other in the fight. So BBR just comes down on the side of the content providers and not the consumers. How can giving network providers control over the content traveling on their networks be GOOD for anyone but the network providers? Tell me what consumer benefits I will gain by letting the telcos determine which sites are more responsive than others? Or which content I can view? Or which VoIP provider I can use? I don't understand your reasoning at all. |
|
achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| reply to tsu
said by tsu :Like I said. What use is access if there is no transport? What's the use of a light bulb without electricity, what is the use of a car without gas? Sure, we can go on all day with this argument; however, here the common argument with this topic is "x already pays $y for their access..." which only addresses one piece of the pipe.
Who's paying for the transport?
I am not trying to argue for or against QoS on the Internet. I can see both the pitfalls and the benefits of such an arrangement. The main question here is, does anyone making the above quoted argument really understand how the Internet actually works?
--
Bring back chicken and potato chips - Vote Perot! |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2 | Who's paying for the transport?
I would love to see a grass roots campaign by the people to withold the payment of thier internet bills for a few months. That would show these corporate types who ownes the internet
The people! |
|
achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| said by backness :Who's paying for the transport? I would love to see a grass roots campaign by the people to withold the payment of thier internet bills for a few months. That would show these corporate types who ownes the internet The people! You would see a lot of people lose their access, that is about it. Remember, most consumer accounts are either sold at cost, or even below cost.
Most of the money that is made in access/transport is with companies that are paying big dollars for their access and PL, ATM, FRAME, or PIP networks.
And, the networks that use to carry data over the Internet are privately owned, operated, and maintained. They are owned by their respective companies.
--
Bring back chicken and potato chips - Vote Perot! |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
·Rogers Hi-Speed
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
edit:
June 7th, @02:51PM
| interesting... but i still don't believe that the telcos and cable cos of the world would have the cash flow without the consumers to support their activities (proving this would be difficult for me )
Besides that was not the point i was trying to make was that if everyone had an egocentric view of the internet it would cease to exist.
|
|
