bamabrad
join:2006-01-27
Port Orange, FL | USE IT!
Why SAVE bandwidth when you are in the business of selling it to a consumer that will USE it? Seems to me that if the bandwidth is utilized instead of hoarded and guarded that it will bring in more customers, which means more money, etc,etc.. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| said by bamabrad  :Why SAVE bandwidth when you are in the business of selling it to a consumer that will USE it? Seems to me that if the bandwidth is utilized instead of hoarded and guarded that it will bring in more customers, which means more money, etc,etc.. no, no, no. You don't understand. the telcos don't want to SAVE bandwidth, they want to control it. If they give all that bandwidth, why, it would be like the internet or something. No, it is necessary to CONTROL the bandwidth and make sure there isn't too much of it, otherwise users wouldn't need to purchase the bandwidth a bit at a time, like the telcos want.
Besides, all that upgrading is expensive and the investors don't like it. Why upgrade when you can CONTROL what you already have and make more money? You idiot consumers didn't actually fall for that "building advanced networks" stuff, did you? |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
 ·Qwest.net
| said by nasadude :Besides, all that upgrading is expensive and the investors don't like it. Why upgrade when you can CONTROL what you already have and make more money? While much of what has previously been posted is hyperbole, a nugget of truth has come forth. Concentration (control) of bandwidth is a major part of the business model for bandwidth providers, and always has been. When you were on dial-up, you never noticed how it slowed down in the evening? This was because the ISP couldn't afford to purchase more bandwidth from their provider, and still make money. You know how some cable systems slow down in the evening? This is because the cable co. can't afford to increase bandwidth, and still make money. Same for wisps, BPL, etc.
Hell, even the POTS network is concentrated. You think phone switches have enough long distance capacity for everyone to make a long distance call at the same time? Hell no. That would be expensive. You gonna pay for that?
Until all bandwidth in this country is nationalized and run by the government, it is all about money, and investors, and capital, and the financial markets, and CEOs... |
|
bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto
join:2001-02-10
Santa Clarita, CA
·AT&T Yahoo
| Bandwidth should never be nationalized and run by the gubmint. That is a recipe for absolute failure. It is completely against the capitalistic ethos this country runs on. Now, I am sure you'll bring up China or some other communist country as an example, but it's a slippery slope. Once gubmint controls one thing, it's on to the next. I agree with you in that these companies are greedy greedy greedy, but nationalizing ain't the answer. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to nasadude
Well, there's a couple of things that they're missing here..
1) They're selling product (video/music downloads ala V-Cast), making big chunks of money on it, especially the txt/sms/IM - not much payout, but decent cost to the end user.
2) Haven't they ever thought of running compression on a T-1 ?
3) As you stated... why payout to put in bigger lines (and more importantly spend on spectrum) if you can just stick it in a TOS, and jack up the price.
They need a high ROI for a few reasons.
a) profits
b) deploying more locations
c) war chest to squash the competition. |
|
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace | reply to bigunk
I take it you're against municipal broadband then? Contrary to what you believe, some governments (that aren't Communist) can actually provide these types of services without running it like a dictator. |
|
