rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| reply to jsouth
Re: Let's not confuse.
Most of us don't have a choice. That's why we need regulation. Market forces aren't at work.
Once customers have choices (not just one but MANY), then there is no need for regulation since customer choices will inevitably define what ISP and HSI mean. And regardless of what most choose, a choice will be there to serve the niche who want something different.
That said, I doubt true competition will ever exist and we need to get on with the regulation. Carriers don't want this because they want to increase their revenue. From a certain perspective, they have an obligation to their shareholders to increase revenue any way they can. That doesn't mean it's just.
What if the electric company increased profits by charging more to businesses who uses energy to make money? They don't want to be a "dumb electric" provider but rather they want to get a piece of the money pie that comes from consuming energy. In return they would guarantee "priority" power to businesses. Naturally these surcharges are above and beyond what each business already pays for their energy use.
In my opinion this is hogwash. |
|
04875776
Rollin' up my dog ends
Premium
join:2006-11-14
Chicago, IL
| Electric companies already charge higher rates to businesses than they do to residential accounts. In fact, as a commercial user you can pay extra for "priority power" and even connect yourself to two different grids for redundancy--for a price. In critical situations the power company will even provide on-site emergency generation if you pay for the premium service. On the other hand, if you are a large user you can negotiate discounted rates your typical homeowner can only dream of.
You need to come up with a better analogy. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
4 edits | So is the priority power better than less expensive power? (i.e. Will one simply not work to run my manufacturing plant and the other will?)
I thought the price usually went down the more you used. |
|
04875776
Rollin' up my dog ends
Premium
join:2006-11-14
Chicago, IL
| You pay for reliability (as in priority service). If you are identified as a critical load (i.e. you pay extra for reliability) they'll cut off others to make sure you're not browned-out. If power goes out you're one of the first restored. It's all about premium service.
I'll compare my office electric bill to your home bill any day. The price goes down the more you use up to a point if you have a contract that states that. In exchange, you agree to use x KWH/mo and do not exceed y KWH in any z period (demand metering). If you go over the negotiated demand limit your rate goes through the roof for the entire billing period.
In this case the "packets" are the same, but their priority is based on how much you pay. The amount you pay is based on how much you use. If you go over the contract rate you are penalized. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| But in the end, how many times would a "non priority" customer accept a brown out or black out before the government demands change? I believe priority electrical contracts are for exceptional situations. In my opinion, ISPs want their customers to pay more for the "normal" situation. In other words, unless Google video pays more, their video service will always suck.
A few years ago California had a big problem with rolling blackouts to keep the grid on-line. I believe they have solved that problem by adding more capacity, not by signing more priority contracts from businesses.
Net-neutrality folks are asking the ISPs to add more bandwidth and, if necessary, increase base rates. But to charge based on type of traffic is ridiculous. It's not hard to recognize it's simply a money grab. Besides, QOS won't work if it means everything else goes to hell as in the case of an electrical brown/blackout. |
|
04875776
Rollin' up my dog ends
Premium
join:2006-11-14
Chicago, IL
| They accept them every year. If you agree to interruptible electrical service for a discount rate (which is the equivalent to residential/consumer-class ISP service) then you have no grounds for a complaint.
California's problem was due to being cut off from most of the generating capacity due to sleight-of-hand accounting and inability to pay (see: Enron).
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with bandwidth. It has to do with Chicken Little punditry. |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| said by 04875776  :Net Neutrality has nothing to do with bandwidth. It has to do with Chicken Little punditry. Or people who want all websites to have equal access over the internet, not just those who make lots of money. I.E. don't want to mess up a system that is currently in place and working just fine. |
|
04875776
Rollin' up my dog ends
Premium
join:2006-11-14
Chicago, IL | Wake me when there is a documented case of this actually happening. Until then it's all merely chest-thumping and blog-filling speculation, designed to drive page views and Adsense payouts. |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| said by 04875776 :Wake me when there is a documented case of this actually happening. Until then it's all merely chest-thumping and blog-filling speculation, designed to drive page views and Adsense payouts. Many providers have already stated publicly their intentions to find ways of charging Google and other content providers extra for equal rights on the internet backbone.
I see you recently joined, but this site has been following this issue for quite some time. The story is more than speculation of a possible problem, it's about something that ISPs have already said they intend to implement. I would suggest you do a search in the news on network neutrality. Here's some info on people wanting companies like Google to pay extra money.
»Tax Incumbents for Accessing Google
»Videotron Wants Content Providers to Pay
»Time Warner Eager to Charge Google?
»SBC Wants to Make Google Pay
Are you awake yet?
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad |
|
04875776
Rollin' up my dog ends
Premium
join:2006-11-14
Chicago, IL
| I'll just restate what you quoted here by reference and add that, paraphrasing Mammy, "askin' ain't gettin'". They can announce intent all they want but until it is implemented, see above.
I've been here for seven years. Don't let the join date mislead you. |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs: | The fact is they want to, and there isn't anything really to stop them. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| reply to 04875776
So are you saying the connectivity that Yahoo and Google buy today is the type of service that's interruptable in exchange for a discount rate? I doubt they have that arrangement. I would guess they have the type of contract that requires five nines and expectation of bandwidth.
What I hear from the ISPs is that they fear their backbones will be oversold and someone is going to have to pay for upgrades. In a normal competitive environment a business places a portion of existing profits into reserves for future upgrades, borrows money and uses current profits to make payments or, if publicly trade, issues stock. If they cannot afford upgrade, they lose the excess business to competitors.
Is that what will happen? If so, there's no need for net neutrality. |
|
04875776
Rollin' up my dog ends
Premium
join:2006-11-14
Chicago, IL | We're talking about ISP customers, not Google. This news item is about port blocking at the customer end, and whether it is a "network neutrality" issue. For whatever reason, you're the one who derailed this train. |
|
