GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| reply to wirelesswoes
Re: If anyone can do it...
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. |
|
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.  |
|
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? |
|
achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| 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.
|
|
achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| said by backness :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 ) Actually, Mass Market, or consumers, have always been break-even or negative margins for the past ten years I have been in the industry.
I think the Cable Companies pull a healthy profit, mostly because most of their base is MM, but telcos make their money on business accounts.
A good example is to compare the price of a business grade DSL @ 756k and a consumer DSL @ 1.5M. With some markets, the price is 3 to 4 times higher for business services.
Granted, you get more customer support under a business account, but the lines and equipment are all the same.
--
Bring back chicken and potato chips - Vote Perot! |
|
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
edit:
June 7th, @03:03PM
| reply to achuchma
Who's paying for the transport?
The customers?
You surely don't imagine that our fees do not in part pay for the peering agreements, do you? |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to achuchma
sorry for the late edit on the last one 
ok but in percentage of business what would you say the consumer market represents of the total businesses total sales? Break even or not it is not relevant unless we know the
%.
Another interesting point i would like to add is we must keep in mind all those atm transfers and CC's are consumers transfers also, eventhough another firm is representing them. IMO, the cable and telcos are piggybacking on the old DARPA network (forgive me if my internet history is bad) which is also purchased with public funds. |
|
achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| said by backness :Another interesting point i would like to add is we must keep in mind all those atm transfers and CC's are consumers transfers also, eventhough another firm is representing them. IMO, the cable and telcos are piggybacking on the old DARPA network (forgive me if my internet history is bad) which is also purchased with public funds. Actually, you are confusing the term ATM. ATM is actually a protocol (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) and has nothing to do with Automatic Teller Machines or Credit Card transfers.
As for the DARPA network, that network has been replaced long ago by private vendors and wouldn't come close to handling today's traffic demands.
--
Bring back chicken and potato chips - Vote Perot! |
|
achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| reply to tsu
said by tsu :Who's paying for the transport?The customers? You surely don't imagine that our fees do not in part pay for the peering agreements, do you? In part, yes, but not in whole. Transport costs are usually absorbed in a number of ways with different mediums in which the data is transfered (public FRAME networks with multiple vendors who use the networks for point to point data transfers).
The problem is that most people forget the transport piece of the whole equation, and that it still costs money which access will pay for some, but not all.
Again, I see both benefits and pitfalls to this whole argument, and I am pretty much undecided about if it is a viable option.
My only point I am trying to make here is more of an educational point that there are multiple pieces to the Internet equation that often people tend to forget about.
--
Bring back chicken and potato chips - Vote Perot! |
|
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to achuchma
anyway i'll just get to the point. Free access to market is the founding princple of the united states. Do you honestly believe that telcos and cablecos are impartial enough to decide this on thier own? or as you have already pointed out are they slaves to those who pass data across thier networks? Internet Business ideas need to be accessible to all across the internet for there to be a level playing field otherwise the haves will always have and the have not's will forever remain. (again this is not one of the founding principles of the usa). |
|
