Primis1
join:2005-06-13
Coldwater, MI
| reply to chesney09
Re: Ed Whitacre Needs New Shoes
said by chesney09  :I'd swear.. everyone is already paying for access to those pipes.. . I pay a monthly fee just like anyone else that has internet access.. be it business, residential, etc.. We all have to pay for the access to the Information Super highway.. Some of us require faster speeds and more bandwidth, which is reflected in the price! Here's the thing some of you don't understand though:
Just because you pay $x-amount/mo. for your current access does not mean you DESERVE a higher tier as though it were some sort of right. And just because Developer Y wants to have Product Z on the market that is web-intensive doesn't mean the providers have to give them the time of day so they can.
All of us WANT higher speeds at the same or lower prices. It can't happen forever though, and eventually someone is going to have to pay for constant expansion. It's not fair to bash the telecos and cablecos for "not keeping up" -- maybe people should instead focus on software developers and engineers and find out why they can't be more-efficient witht he bandwidth we have *now* instead of the bloat.
That's what I don't get -- why it's all the providers' fault and all these people trying to make elaborate web-based apps (many of which are flat-out unnecessary and require way more overhead than they should) have nobody to answer to. it' snot "progress", it's scapegoating... |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| said by Primis1 :Just because you pay $x-amount/mo. for your current access does not mean you DESERVE a higher tier as though it were some sort of right. No one is asking for a higher tier for free. Whitacre wants companies like Google, Yahoo and any other major content provider to pay AT&T so that AT&T broadband customers will have access to those providers.
--
Tancredo 2008! |
|
Primis1
join:2005-06-13
Coldwater, MI
| said by pnh102 :said by Primis1 :Just because you pay $x-amount/mo. for your current access does not mean you DESERVE a higher tier as though it were some sort of right. No one is asking for a higher tier for free. Whitacre wants companies like Google, Yahoo and any other major content provider to pay AT&T so that AT&T broadband customers will have access to those providers. ...yes, but why? Because these companies keep pushing software and web development beyond what it's really capable of at any given time. In Google and Yahoo's eyes (as examples), ISP's should just "man up" and provide bigger pipes to support their adventures in web-based everything.
The ISP's are naturally none-too happy about that, and their response is "ok then, if you want to do all this, pay us a premium to provide the updates and pipe to allow it".
So yes, it *IS* about higher tiers and speeds. It's about users and companies like Google just assuming/demanding that faster tiers be provided at their whim, whether it's practical for the providers or not. Eventually, it all come sback to developers wanting ISP's to provides end users higher speeds/tiers at ANY cost (because the developers could care less if it's profitable or even makes an sort of fiscal sense).
Look... the internet is NOT meant for what everyone wants to use it for nowadays, and it never will be. Web-based apps and OS's on any large scale will NOT work, because no provider will ever be able to keep up. Software development and scalability is WAY easier than network/bandwidth scalability. Once software developers get this through their thick, empty skulls, maybe we'll get somewhere. Until we do though, this issue isn't ever going to resolve because the ISp's literally CAN'T meet developer demand, and the ISP's will all just go broke trying... |
|
NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
2 edits | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :No one is asking for a higher tier for free. Whitacre wants companies like Google, Yahoo and any other major content provider to pay AT&T so that AT&T broadband customers will have access to those providers. Sorry, that's not right.
It's a question of preferred access vs. regular access.
Not a question of access vs. no access.
preferred access = new, larger pipes, guaranteed RTT & jitter, better MTTR, etc. Note that the fees for preferred access are paid by the content company (Google, Yahoo, etc.) directly, and not directly (if at all) by you and me (residential broadband subscribers).
regular access = best effort, as it is today
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. |
|
King P
Don't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul
Premium
join:2004-11-17
Franklin, TN
 ·Windstream
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to Primis1
Maybe the reason that the web can't handle these "intensive" apps is because Whitacre pissed away the billions of dollars the government gave him and the other telcos to have fiber laid to all of our homes by 2006.
This nonsense about the web not being able to "handle" apps and software is complete and utter crap. It's not a software developers fault that the Telcos would rather spend precious money lobbying to have municipal fiber initiatives shut down, than invest that money into their own infrastructure to make it better and more "app and software" friendly.
Ed Whitacre is full of crap. Everyone with half a brain cell knows that copper can only go so far and that Fiber is the next step for Telco evolution, but Whitacre would rather whine about people getting a "free ride" on his network and spend money lobbying congress and buying off the FCC. |
|
yaplej
CCNA
Premium
join:2001-02-10
White City, OR
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to Primis1
said by Primis1 :yes, but why? Because these companies keep pushing software and web development beyond what it's really capable of at any given time. In Google and Yahoo's eyes (as examples), ISP's should just "man up" and provide bigger pipes to support their adventures in web-based everything... Dude! How much of a dumb a$$ are you? Seriously ISP's provide *BANDWIDTH*. If customer x purchases y bandwidth its the ISP's job to deliver that amount of bandwidth. If they fail to then customer x will go to another provider than can provide the bandwidth they need.
You, and others like you make it sound like customer x isn't already paying for their bandwidth. So get your head out of the dirt, and stop spreading that horse shit around.
Customer x already pays for ALL the bandwidth they use. It doesn't matter if customer x is a DSL user, or a big content provider like Yahoo/Google. Both still pay their bill they receive from their ISP each month.
The only party in this equation that's trying to get a "free ride" are the f-ing ISPs! They want "anyone but themselves" to pay for THEIR network upgrades! AHHHHHHH!!!! STOP THIS MADNESS!!! |
|
normalcomp
@carlson.com
| reply to Primis1
Maybe the teleco's should learn to operate like a normal business. Where you take part of your profits (or budget for this) and reinvest this back in the company for expansion.
Basic example, you are a garbage company and you are getting more customers. Now you need more trucks to haul the additional garbage. What do they do? Buy more garbage trucks.
If the teleco's ran the garbage company their plan would be that you can only throw out banana peels or get charged for each item (weight). But garbage companies don't charge by the item they charge by the garbage pail size (kinda like different speed tiers you can get 3/512 at one rate and 6/1 at another rate).
Perhaps if the telecos would actually reinvest instead of spending all the profits to their executives in bonuses and stock dividends they would have money to upgrade. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to Primis1
said by Primis1 :...yes, but why? Because these companies keep pushing software and web development beyond what it's really capable of at any given time. In Google and Yahoo's eyes (as examples), ISP's should just "man up" and provide bigger pipes to support their adventures in web-based everything. It's ultimately the customer that drives the demand. Say I am a VOIP provider. I know this service doesn't work with 56K. Am I going to expect that the dialup ISPs pay more to provide faster service to their customers who use my service? No... I am going to expect my customers to order broadband service that meets their needs.
--
Tancredo 2008! |
|
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| reply to Primis1
maybe people should instead focus on software developers and engineers and find out why they can't be more-efficient witht he bandwidth we have *now* instead of the bloat.
I have to say I agree with you there 100%. Ever since DSL came out the size of applications and the bandwidth they consume has dramatically increased. But knowing programmers myself there is only so much you can go down too. There is a limit to how efficient a program can be.
Back in the day of 56k I remember downloading programs that where 500K or lower in size and did jobs that some applications did today but now are 9MB in size.
Although completely unrelated, Universal binaries from Apple Computer contain the code for both Intel and PPC architectures and I noticed that applications almost doubled in size in order to operate.
But as I said earlier more efficient programs have a limit, there is lesser a limit in expansion. |
|
Necronomikro
join:2005-09-01 | reply to NGOwner
Then why is Ed Whitacre complaining, and stating that they shouldn't get a free ride? THEY JUST WANT TO PUT QOS ON THE CURRENT EXISTING LINES AND BE DONE WITH IT, THIS WILL **DEPRIORITIZE** SOME TRAFFIC, WHILE **PRIORITIZING** OTHER TRAFFIC. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Primis1
said by Primis1 : ...yes, but why? Because these companies keep pushing software and web development beyond what it's really capable of at any given time. In Google and Yahoo's eyes (as examples), ISP's should just "man up" and provide bigger pipes to support their adventures in web-based everything. Back to basic marketing for you.
Why do people get high speed access? Simple surfing (no videos) and email require very little bandwidth. Dial up is sufficient for 99% of web-surfing and email. Usually, the cost is about $10-$25/month (not counting an extra phone line.)
Broadband normally runs around $50/month (not including temporary specials and 1 year introduction prices.) This equates to about the cost of a separate phone line and dial up service.
Now, again, ask yourself this question; why should people get broadband? Without the second phone line and dial up argument, the only one left is speed. How do you justify to someone they need more data transfer speed? APPLICATIONS!!
Video conferencing, VOIP, large downloads, music services, etc. all rely on speed to work properly. Companies have come out with programs to utilize the speed. Google and Yahoo are but 2 but you could also include iTunes and Vonage to name a couple.
said by Primis1 :The ISP's are naturally none-too happy about that, and their response is "ok then, if you want to do all this, pay us a premium to provide the updates and pipe to allow it". So yes, it *IS* about higher tiers and speeds. It's about users and companies like Google just assuming/demanding that faster tiers be provided at their whim, whether it's practical for the providers or not. Eventually, it all come sback to developers wanting ISP's to provides end users higher speeds/tiers at ANY cost (because the developers could care less if it's profitable or even makes an sort of fiscal sense). Anyone want to tell Bill Gates not to develop a bigger OS just because it needs a faster computer to run? 
As for the higher tiers, you forget one thing. Customers are already near the top of what they will pay for internet service so ATT is trying to make others NOT DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THEIR NETWORK to pay for it. I am not sure who Google and Yahoo use for their connection to the net but I doubt it is the consumer division of ANY ISP.
Compuserve and AOL used to charge by the hour for their walled gardens and, for a while, they did o.k. If you had a faster modem, you paid more per hour. Then, the internet started getting popular and some places charged a flat rate. What they lacked in frills, they made up for in the connection (remind you, this was dial-up still.) So AOL went to an all-you-can-eat connection that caused enough issues that they had to upgrade their entire system.
Now, what would happen if ATT made their DSL a pay per byte service? People would be up in arms. Fact is, there are plenty of people who consume less than their share of bandwidth but still pay for it. There are some that use more than their share but the lesser users make up for that.
Now, Cingular is trying to get rid of people who are "not profitable" and trying to bolster their bottom line. People who use more "free minutes" than they should. 
said by Primis1 :Look... the internet is NOT meant for what everyone wants to use it for nowadays, and it never will be. Web-based apps and OS's on any large scale will NOT work, because no provider will ever be able to keep up. Software development and scalability is WAY easier than network/bandwidth scalability. Once software developers get this through their thick, empty skulls, maybe we'll get somewhere. Until we do though, this issue isn't ever going to resolve because the ISp's literally CAN'T meet developer demand, and the ISP's will all just go broke trying... So we should stop looking for the next killer app until we get a bigger internet? |
|
quetwo
That VoIP Guy
Premium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI | reply to Primis1
Nobody is forcing the Telcos to partake in the internet -- they decided to go into that business on their own accord. If they don't want to / can't keep up with the internet, then GET THE HECK OUT OF MY WAY! |
|
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| reply to Primis1
said by Primis1 :All of us WANT higher speeds at the same or lower prices. It can't happen forever though, and eventually someone is going to have to pay for constant expansion. It's not fair to bash the telecos and cablecos for "not keeping up" Dude, don't stand in front of the stampede. The cattle may be ignorant but they'll still grind you down.
--
What's certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1) - Ann Coulter |
|
anonwwwww
@comcast.net
| reply to Primis1
Bandwidth is bandwidth - I don't understand the confusion??
If I pay $50/mo for a 3mbps internet service to my home or business, I am entitled to use it at up to 3mbps, unless there is a bandwidth-cap agreement and I have reached it.
If I pay $50/mo for a 10mbps hosting service, I am entitled to serve content/files/etc at up to 10mbps until I reach a bandwidth-cap and I have to pay penalties.
Why should it matter what it is that I use it for!?? be it voip, web, ftp, ssh, etc...? Why should it be the ISP's concern if my software that I'm serving is bloated or bandwidth efficient!? I've already paid for the (amount of) bandwidth!! |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to Necronomikro
said by Necronomikro :Then why is Ed Whitacre complaining, and stating that they shouldn't get a free ride? THEY JUST WANT TO PUT QOS ON THE CURRENT EXISTING LINES AND BE DONE WITH IT, THIS WILL **DEPRIORITIZE** SOME TRAFFIC, WHILE **PRIORITIZING** OTHER TRAFFIC. The problem is that until the Internet goes to IPV6, this is not possible unless the traffic flows ONLY between the user and the content provider over the user's ISP network. Once the data has to go to a peering point and leave the ATT network and flow over some other backbone, the ATT supplied QOS flags on the TCP/IP Packets become useless/meaningless. Only IPV6 supports end-to-end QOS. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Primis1
Ed's too busy selling you $14 DSL service. Ed's too busy raking in the profit on the network. Ed's too busy lowering his price so he has little profit. Ed's too busy not looking at putting money back into the network to keep up with demand. Ed's too busy putting a new face on the same old crap which is Telephone 101. (They've dont htat for their entire existance) Ed is too busy picking enimies in the industry. Ed is too busy using his customers to build a last mile on top of the backbone to shove TV down the throats of their telephone customers in order to compete.
So, how does your phone service look now?
At least cable's $42 internet fee goes back into rebuilding and redeveloping it's network to improve services. In 30 years, how much has cable grown? And in the last 30 years, how much has phone grown?
Anyone care to dispute my statement and it will just show that you are a true blind fan boy.
Phone can't get it right, nor will they ever. |
|
mackieg4
Premium
join:2003-03-24
Riverside, CA
| reply to King P
Thank you for that response.
We've been paying these extra "fees" for years on the promise of higher bandwidth. What happened? NOTHING.
Verizon was at least able to bring 30M (now 50M I believe).
Why can Korea have 100M download when we're stuck with 6M with AT&T?
I say BULLSHIT with AT&T. Unfortunately, I'm stuck with them because they are my local provider.
Primis1, you must be a telco cheerleader or employee. |
|
short09
join:2006-07-21
| said by mackieg4 :We've been paying these extra "fees" for years on the promise of higher bandwidth. What happened? NOTHING. Why can Korea have 100M download when we're stuck with 6M with AT&T? koreans pay 41 cents per mb of speed. they dont have anywhere near the amount of bullshit regulations that the usa telcos have. if any such regulations exist im not aware of them. im not sure how long it took korea to deploy 100mb speeds. each korean household gets affordable and fast broadband
the usa telco companies whine to congress about competition in certain regions. they go on tv and talk about mergers. claiming its gonna bring better service faster speeds and lower prices. thats just a bunch of lies. time after time the american people get ripped off by the telcos and regulations. if one single regulation didnt exist american subscribers would have 100mbit cable speeds for maybe $50 - $60 a month tops |
|
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace
| reply to yaplej
Seriously. These scumbags are making money at BOTH ENDS OF THE PIPE. They charge consumers their monthly access for their DSL connections and then on top of that they're already charging Google and Microsoft for their access to the network. BOTH ENDS. Now they're simply trying to say "gee, these sites are pretty popular and get a lot of traffic -- let's see if we can come up with a way to force them to pay even more." They are not using any more or any less bandwidth than what they are already paying for. |
|
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| reply to normalcomp
said by normalcomp :
Basic example, you are a garbage company and you are getting more customers. Now you need more trucks to haul the additional garbage. What do they do? Buy more garbage trucks.
Nah, the Phoneys would rather complain, that their customers are getting their garbage hauled away for free.
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. |
|
