Primis1
join:2005-06-13
Coldwater, MI
| reply to pnh102
Re: Ed Whitacre Needs New Shoes
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... |
|
King P
Don't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul
Premium
join:2004-11-17
Inman, SC
 ·Windstream
 ·Charter Pipeline
| 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!!! |
|
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! |
|
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! |
|
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. |
|
Primis1
join:2005-06-13
Coldwater, MI
| reply to King P
said by King P :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. OK, since you're so determined that web-based OS's and apps need to exist... WHY do they need to exist? Give us VALID reasons why they should exist and are absolutely necessary, aside from software companies sensing the gravy train just around the corner.
You can't, none of you can. And that's the point. When it dawns on you finally too, you'll also feel dumb that you ever bought into this whole line of BS and didn't see what was really unfolding before your eyes -- the 100% loss of right of software ownership.
You and anyone else who can't see this is a sucker. |
|
jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
| reply to Primis1
In the past companies would charge money for services to make a profit. In turn for this profit, in the future the companies usually "reward" the customers and future customers with upgrades to whatever it is they are selling. This is especially true with services (not so much with products).
Ed is basically saying: "Even though you all payed for your services and we got a big profit from you, we would like you to pay us more to pay for the upgrades to our network just so our precious little investors will not suffer a cut or two for the next couple of years."
Boo hoo. Every business when starting out or even upgrading has to take a short hit on profits, but if they have a good enough product and market it right they will probably make their investment back and then some in a few years.
What is with these businesses lately thinking their profits should never decrease a significant ammount from what they currently are. Every business has to take risks in making upgrads or a new product, whineing about the cost is not going to sell your product faster. |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to Primis1
You have never owned any software. Not a single one! It has always been the property of the company that made it.
Also, the market will decide EVERYTHING when it comes to bandwidth and such. No website is going to purchase more bandwidth then it needs and no provider is going to charge less then they need to to make a profit.
If Google releases some very traffic intense application on their website and they want their customers to be able to use it then they will purchase more bandwidth. If they go to thier provider (Verizon, AT&T or whoever) and say I need 10,000,000Gbps bandwidth per month then that provider is free to charge whatever they feel Google will pay that will earn them a profit. If those 2 can't meet, then Google is free to shop and find that. If it can't be found, then Google can't release that product yet. It is the way the internet has ALWAYS worked and the way it SHOULD ALWAYS work. This is also true of any other market, as it should be. |
|
g3ski
join:2004-07-19
San Francisco, CA
| reply to Primis1
Web based apps are not clogging the pipes. VOIP+torrents are taking up the largest share of web traffic. Podcasts, vlogs, youtube, etc are starting to make up a larger portion of the bandwidth also. That is why providers are traffic shaping voip and torrents. Salesforce.com and other hosted apps are not the problem - ever heard an ISP mention they were going to traffic shape on hosted apps?
The best point made on this forum is that Koreans not only get 100Mb for less than $50/mo, but also that speed is available to most households. The Korean govt and people wanted it to happen and made it happen. In the US many areas are still on dialup, and broadband is limited to 512Kb in areas. That truely sad for a country that can spend billions/day in Iraq (or name other poorly allocated tax dollar here).
Our cel phone, internet, and even power grid are way behind - and the us is supposed to be some sort of world leader. |
|
