Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to viperlmw
Re: Better Understanding...
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? |
|
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? |
|
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. |
|
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'. |
|
Talis
join:2001-06-21
Houston, TX | reply to wwdubbia
Yes, they do. Their project lightspeed is content. |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to LinuxJunkie
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. |
|
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
| 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. |
|
wwdubbia
join:2002-06-03
Clinton, NY
| reply to AnonProxy
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? |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | reply to viperlmw
The shear stupidity of your post warrants no comment, other than the fact that it is shear stupidity. |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | reply to anonpronman
Customers and businesses are going to be screwed from this. The only winner is the ISP, whom is now free to resume doing nothing. |
|
AnonProxy
Proxy of Anon
Premium
join:2001-05-12
ß
| reply to NGOwner
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. |
|
anonpronman
@optonline.net | reply to tsu9
tsu, To bad only some of us are educated enough to understand "To every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction"
In short the customer is going to get shafted on this one. |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| reply to rit56
"Personally, I am happy to strongarm (some would say extort) google, yahoo, mytube, ebay, and all the other mega-internet firms to subsidize the next gen build for telcos and cablecos. Better that they subsidize the build than me."
Bump! I would also point out that, just like facilities based telecom, if you don't like what is out there, build your own. If, as a CLEC, you don't like the incumbents wholesale rates for resale of dial-tone, build your own network. If you don't like broadband providers prices or think they are restrictive, build your own and sell some service! There is nothing in any of these laws to prevent new networks. What? To expensive, you say? Well, there's the rub. It's expensive for the incumbent to operate, maintain and invest in additional capacity. |
|
NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
1 edit | reply to rit56
said by rit56 :do you really think for a second that a corporation is not going to increase our rates based on this? no way. they will now get it from both ends and you can bet your rates will go up. I absolutely believe that the cost of Internet access is going down, not only for us as consumers, but for corporations as well. Look at ATT (formerly SBC). Their prices have been in a free fall. Everyone is running specials. Where there is competition, there are deals. My RR is running $24.99 per month because of ATT in the area. Look at FIOS's pricing in those areas where Cablevision is. Internet access is a COMMODITY. And as the supply increases its price is forced down.
In the corporate world, look at what Cogent has done to access pricing. Forced an off-a-precipice-like free fall.
As far as content providers are concerned, read this thread: »Clueless head of the FCC?!
I speak extensively about how content providers will not be able to raise price.
The concept of Net Neutrality, IMHO, is government intervention and intrusion where none is (currently) warranted.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| reply to TKJunkMail
Both consumers and companies (particularly small businesses) will both be hit with additional fees (and penalties if they don't pay up). Customers will pay more for access to websites, and those websites will forward that on to the ISPs, with ISPs dictating which sites can and cannot be reached properly.
It's comforting to know that small business sites can be destroyed by ISPs, should they not pay their protection monies. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| reply to rit56
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.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY
| reply to NGOwner
"Personally, I am happy to strongarm (some would say extort) google, yahoo, mytube, ebay, and all the other mega-internet firms to subsidize the next gen build for telcos and cablecos. Better that they subsidize the build than me."
do you really think for a second that a corporation is not going to increase our rates based on this? no way. they will now get it from both ends and you can bet your rates will go up. |
|
