wwdubbia
join:2002-06-03
Clinton, NY
| reply to AnonProxy
Re: Better Understanding...
said by AnonProxy  :I think you may be missing one small point: The ability to "throttle" or provide now "better" access to sites will stop the free fall. What happens when AT&T starts trottling down local mom and pop ISP access to stuff on their network? You move from mom and pop to AT&T or mom and pop has to pay money to get access to AT&T. Now AT&T's new marketing is "we are faster because we can throttle" the access of others to "our content". So there is a new created "value" to going with AT&T...so now they can "charge more" or at a minimum charge access fees to mom and pop ISP for access. ATT has content? |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :Your rates were going up no matter how this law came out. Higher bandwidth apps were going to increase rates. The only question is who is going to get more of your money - the isp's or the content providers. You're of course, under the assumption that telcos will actually provide bigger pipes. Since they run the show now, they have really no insentive to fund for better anything, but now can sell you back the internet you were used to at a premium rate.
Fuggin' awesome. |
|
johnh123
join:2002-11-19
Chicago, IL
| reply to nasadude
Good thing it passed. Hopefully the senate will pass it as well.
I'm just wondering, when the bill becomes law, and the internet continues to flourish with new services, faster speeds, and more innovation, will everybody here acting like it is the end of the world admit they were wrong? |
|
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace | reply to Thaler
They are in the process of providing bigger pipes: there was an article here on BBR only a day or two ago about how AT&T was quadrupling its backbone capacity to 40 Gbps at OC768 levels. That's NOT cheap. |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| said by LinuxJunkie :They are in the process of providing bigger pipes: there was an article here on BBR only a day or two ago about how AT&T was quadrupling its backbone capacity to 40 Gbps at OC768 levels. That's NOT cheap. And these various speed-increase articles have been pushed to us for how long now, and America still hasn't seen much of a speed increase outside these spotty test sites? Hell, the last bandwidth "leap" I was avaliable to was several years ago from dial-up to broadband. I still await any kind of significant performance leap since then. |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | reply to johnh123
And when that dreamland fails to occur, will the supporters wake up and smell the roses?
 |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to johnh123
said by johnh123 :I'm just wondering, when the bill becomes law, and the internet continues to flourish with new services, faster speeds, and more innovation, will everybody here acting like it is the end of the world admit they were wrong? We probably won't be posting, as the 'net's "slow lane" will render most forums unusable. |
|
Talis
join:2001-06-21
Houston, TX | reply to wwdubbia
Yes, they do. Their project lightspeed is content. |
|
wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| reply to NGOwner
said by NGOwner :Keep in mind that the bolded you in the above phrase refers not to individuals, but to companies. The individual consumer will not be hit (directly) with any cost increase. Perhaps not "directly", but we will be hit. I doubt that Google et. al. will eat increased access expense out of the goodness of their heart. This expense will be passed on to the advertisers as a whole, and, consequently, to you and me.
said by NGOwner :Here's the other thing. If the access pipe providers (telcos and cablecos) are unable to sufficiently monetize the development of next gen pipes, we as consumers won't be getting next gen pipes. The policies advocated under the broad umbrella of "net neutrality" eviscerate the access pipe providers' ability to monetize their networks. Horse manure! They are monetizing the hell out of existing networks. There is nothing about new, higher-speed networks that prevents them from being monetized using the existing model. This is nothing more than a naked greed play.
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. |
|
wwdubbia
join:2002-06-03
Clinton, NY
2 edits | reply to Talis
said by Talis :Yes, they do. Their project lightspeed is content. oh, so you're talking about subscription content anyway, nothing free that a casual surfer would care to access for free. The post that I replied to was talking about mom and pop ISP's accessing ATT's content. Can a non subscriber access Project Lightspeed? There is a difference between 'content' and 'a service'. |
|
jtorre69
join:2005-12-26
Hollywood, FL | reply to Skippy25
skippy, go to your room. I told you not to talk when we are having adult conversation. |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| reply to anonpisser
said by anonpisser :
this coming from a guy that supports a shill scam on wall street called Infinium labs.
I sure hope you appreciate the irony of the name Phantom Entertainment, it works on so many levels. |
|
dv
What was that?
Premium
join:2005-04-19
Goleta, CA
| reply to NGOwner
Re: Better Understanding...
Think about this:
Do you think these companies, google, youtube, myspace just have extra money laying around for paying for this?
I doubt it.
By increasing their bandwidth costs, it may not affect what we are paying our isp's but I GUARANTEE it will show up when you go to watch that video and they charge you for access to those sites.
Will you pay for that? I doubt I would. SO, ultimately they are forcing us to pay for all this, one way or another.
I pay enough for my server's current connections (2 colo'ed with an unmetered 100mbit link which costs me more than enough for them)
And I KNOW I could not pay more for bandwidth fees. My costs would increase, which again would come out of the customers pockets. |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
 ·Qwest.net
| reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25 :The shear stupidity of your post warrants no comment, other than the fact that it is shear stupidity. DUDE!
I don't remember any personal attacks in my post, just some points to consider. Do you have any thoughts on the subject, or do you resort to lashing out when you don't have a real thought of your own? |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| I guess your comment of "if you don't like it, build one yourself" is considered a pretty intellectual statement, right? So by your wisdom if google wants you as a search customer, they should build out a network? What about DSLReports? If they want you to access their site then they should build a network to you too right or pay (again) to get you there. Since I access 50 different internet apps or sites a week, should all of them build a network to my house as well? Do you now see the stupidity I saw in your comment?
How about we turn your comment around on these monopolistic pigs? How about they (network providers) innovate with services that their customers would see a benefit in so that they want to use them instead of trying to extort from those that have? That is truely what all this is about. It has nothing to do with bandwidth, as that is paid for IN FULL at both ends. The only thing they are trying to innovate is a new cash cow that requires nothing on their part other then stamping the checks to be deposited.
Do you know why a vast majority of all communities have only 1 network for each service (Cable and Telco)? If it was as easy as you claim to just go build one yourself, then it would be done. However, as you chose to ignore there are multiple barriers of entry that go way beyond just the shear cost of laying copper/coax/fiber. Besides not a single network that is there now would be there if we as a country did not subsidize it and we continue to do so even to this day. So it should be ripped from the greedy claws of these monopolies and returned to its people.
We as consumers should not have to result to having a new line ran from one company's network through our streets and yards every time we want to change providers or get a new service. I shouldnt have to deal with it when my neighbor switches, nor should they when I switch.
If you review my history you would see that I am a big proponent for having 1 (one / single) nationwide network independent of any service providers mainly because of the 2 things I pointed out above. If someone wants to provide services, that is fine. But they should not control the product and the method for getting it and any competing product delivered. We tried this back in the days of the railroad system, which is pretty similar to this. If it didnt work then without the government getting involved, what makes anyone think that it would work now? |
|
Genny Pershing
@covad.net
| reply to User0101
See www.cybertelecom.org/ci/neutral.htm for an explanation of Net Neutrality.
To put it simply, market power. In the local access market, the DSL and the Cable broadband providers have market power. Now as common carriers, they were not allowed to use market power to discriminate. The problem is - DSL and cable broadband services are not common carriage - unlike the old phone network. That means they have opportunity and incentive. They have market power to discriminate, and they get to extract a lot of protection money (aka monopoly rent) if they do. You dont get to cross their net unless you pay the man. People do not get to do new cool things without the permission of AT&T. |
|
