openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| reply to SilverSurfer
Re: Let's call a spade a spade here
said by SilverSurfer  :The pre-emptive actions of so called network traffic shaping as executed by the various offending providers in the headlines can hardly be considered merely just an "infraction." You're right. I wouldn't even call it an infraction. |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
 ·Comcast
| But he is right about calling a spade a spade. Like it of not, the Internet is not just a privilege or luxury anymore, it never really has been. It is woven throughout our very existence; throughout all forms of government to banking to commerce. This makes it a utility!
Once you grasp that concept, then you should be able understand the need for regulatory panels from the federal level to the PUC level.
You don't see electric companies cherry picking which neighborhoods they want to serve, why is this tolerated at the telecommunication level?
Now lets see the angry backlash...
--
Where have the adults gone? |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :You're right. I wouldn't even call it an infraction. that's because you subscribe to the "if an incumbent telco does it, it can't be wrong" school of thought. so of course you wouldn't consider any of those things infractions. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | I don't subscribe to the "if an incumbent telco does it, it can't be wrong" philosophy, but I do subscribe to the belief that managing finite resources is a must for maintaining enjoyment of the finite resource. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer :But he is right about calling a spade a spade. Like it of not, the Internet is not just a privilege or luxury anymore, it never really has been. Wow, and to think that society has managed to survive so long without the Internet. Add on the numerous people that I know that live without this integral "utility" and I'm simply amazed. Seriously, until the Internet becomes a necessity to sustain life, I have a hard time getting on the regulation bandwagon.said by S_engineer :Now lets see the angry backlash... No anger, just adult conversation and display of personal opinion. |
|
Yauch
join:2005-06-24
| reply to openbox9
said by 82.7% of the DSLR readers :
But like I read in a forum somewhere they they can just like flip a switch and stuff. The resources aren't finite cause if they wanted bandwidth more they could just liek do it.
|
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :I don't subscribe to the "if an incumbent telco does it, it can't be wrong" philosophy, but I do subscribe to the belief that managing finite resources is a must for maintaining enjoyment of the finite resource. well, you certainly buy into the telco framing about the network - their goal is to create bandwidth scarcity so they can pretend it is a much more limited resource than it actually is.
I would be willing bet that if the incumbents start charging web sites and applications for "speedier" delivery over non-paying ones, they are not going to go out on a capital spending binge to add capacity. As a matter of fact, failing to add capacity simply enhances their business model - as bandwidth demand grows providers can simply claim they can't keep up, they need more money for upgrades and raise rates.
I'll keep saying it: the easiest (and maybe cheapest) way to solve a bandwidth crunch is to add more bandwidth.
most of what I read indicates that bandwidth costs are low. how much does a large cableco have to spend for traffic management/shaping/interfering/snooping/whatever equipment?
regardless, the telcos and cablecos will milk consumers for billions of dollars until stopped by the government or a miracle occurs and competition develops (although the govt stopping this anytime soon would be a minor miracle) |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| said by nasadude :well, you certainly buy into the telco framing about the network - their goal is to create bandwidth scarcity so they can pretend it is a much more limited resource than it actually is. Even though excess capacity may be available at certain points in networks, and adding additional capacity to those points might not cost that much in comparison to building out the initial infrastructure, network capacity is still finite. Besides, I don't think any of the major carriers are seriously complaining about bandwidth issues on their core backbones, the concern is further down the path.said by nasadude :I would be willing bet that if the incumbents start charging web sites and applications for "speedier" delivery over non-paying ones, they are not going to go out on a capital spending binge to add capacity. You're foolish to think that increased SLAs and revenue won't drive capital investments in infrastructure.said by nasadude :I'll keep saying it: the easiest (and maybe cheapest) way to solve a bandwidth crunch is to add more bandwidth. Easiest...obviously. Cheapest...debatable.said by nasadude :most of what I read indicates that bandwidth costs are low. how much does a large cableco have to spend for traffic management/shaping/interfering/snooping/whatever equipment? I've read those non-fact based posts around here also.said by nasadude :regardless, the telcos and cablecos will milk consumers for billions of dollars until stopped by the government or a miracle occurs and competition develops (although the govt stopping this anytime soon would be a minor miracle) Because government intervention has a great track record for saving citizens money  |
|
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000
| reply to S_engineer
"You don't see electric companies cherry picking which neighborhoods"
Yea and you don't see them facing any competition what so ever. They don't have much of a risk either. They can write off their costs for decades if they want.
Broadband is still a luxury just like cable tv. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 : Add on the numerous people that I know that live without this integral "utility" and I'm simply amazed. Seriously, until the Internet becomes a necessity to sustain life, I have a hard time getting on the regulation bandwagon. Lets take away your electricity, gas, water and sewage. I'll give you a flint axe to go find wood for your campfire, a bucket as a toilet, and a map to a river or stream near by for water? Still think its not a necessary thing? |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Umm, we're discussing access to the Internet  |
|
nekkidtruth
You fail at life.
Premium
join:2002-05-20
London, ON
| said by openbox9 :Umm, we're discussing access to the Internet Um no, you were replying to the claim that the Internet is a utility. All the utilities we have today were not at some point in time, and people lived several hundreds if not thousands of years without these "basic utilities" we have today.
The fact remains that the Internet is well on it's way to becoming a utility/basic need in life. Some people believe this to already be the case, I agree.
--
Weeeeeee |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :I don't subscribe to the "if an incumbent telco does it, it can't be wrong" philosophy, but I do subscribe to the belief that managing finite resources is a must for maintaining enjoyment of the finite resource. It is finite ONLY because the Connectivity Provider (Telco or Cable) is unwilling to spend the money to increase the resources when the demand approaches/exceeds what they are currently willing/able to provide. IOW: The "Finite Resources" are a product of an Artificial not a Real Scarcity. |
|
matrix3D
join:2006-09-27
Deep River, CT | reply to openbox9
While a car is not considered a utility, by your argument we should have stuck with a horse and buggy since we could "do without" cars before that. Times change and the basic necessities of those times also change. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to nekkidtruth
said by nekkidtruth :Um no, you were replying to the claim that the Internet is a utility. All the utilities we have today were not at some point in time, and people lived several hundreds if not thousands of years without these "basic utilities" we have today. Did you read patcat88's response? He discussed everything but the Internet.said by nekkidtruth :The fact remains that the Internet is well on it's way to becoming a utility/basic need in life. Some people believe this to already be the case, I agree. Great. In another decade or so, I may agree. My point was that until it's a main pillar in sustaining life, I don't believe it should be regulated as a utility. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to matrix3D
said by matrix3D :While a car is not considered a utility, by your argument we should have stuck with a horse and buggy since we could "do without" cars before that. Times change and the basic necessities of those times also change. I did not say "do without". Of course basic necessities change as we mature as a civilization, I just don't think internet access counts as one of those basic necessities....yet. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to RARPSL
Resources will always be finite. ISPs are investing a lot of money (Verizon =$18B, AT&T=$5B, cablecos=????) for "last mile" connectivity. Additionally, ISPs are continually investing money in their backbones to increase capacity. Explain the "artificial" scarcity to me. |
|
RainWind
join:2000-10-20
Van Wert, OH
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9 :said by matrix3D :While a car is not considered a utility, by your argument we should have stuck with a horse and buggy since we could "do without" cars before that. Times change and the basic necessities of those times also change. I did not say "do without". Of course basic necessities change as we mature as a civilization, I just don't think internet access counts as one of those basic necessities....yet. Perhaps for you it isn't, but for many it is. I grew up in a very rural area where it wasn't uncommon to see Amish people. They live just fine without utilities. Just because some people live without something doesn't mean that for others it isn't a necessity.
I do all my banking and shopping on the internet. I leave my house to go to work, to grocery shop, to take my fiancee out, and to go to the YMCA. For everything else I use the internet. All my bills are paid online. All my non-food shopping is done online. I even rent my movies online.
Fiddling with my connection is much akin to deciding that at 6:00 PM power to my stove will be shut off.
When someone pays for an internet connection it should be just like power and water. No filtering or fiddling with the service. If the ISP doesn't like bittorrent traffic and heavy use then they shouldn't offer a 7meg connection. 768k is fine for most people. Maybe companies should offer slow, cheap internet marketed towards casual users rather than trying to get everyone to subscribe to the highest speed. When anyone tries to get on the slow package the sales reps try to talk them up to the faster one.
ISPs should charge more for high speed connections or introduce fast capped connections with reasonable caps tailored to casual users. If heavy users are doing so much damage to their network they need to change the way they do business. Offering a cheap fast product and then complaining that people use it is silly. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| said by RainWind :I grew up in a very rural area where it wasn't uncommon to see Amish people. They live just fine without utilities. You're preaching to the choir...I grew up in southeast IA.said by RainWind :I do all my banking and shopping on the internet. I leave my house to go to work, to grocery shop, to take my fiancee out, and to go to the YMCA. For everything else I use the internet. All my bills are paid online. All my non-food shopping is done online. I even rent my movies online. How many of those activities require a regulated internet connection? None. Dial-up works just fine for everything you mentioned and dial-up access has survived for decades without regulation. I'm not saying the dial-up access is the answer, but I am saying the regulation isn't necessarily the answer either.said by RainWind :When someone pays for an internet connection it should be just like power and water. No filtering or fiddling with the service. Be careful what you wish for. Power and water are metered services. Personally, I believe that's a viable option to "control", not regulate, the explosion of internet use.said by RainWind : If the ISP doesn't like bittorrent traffic and heavy use then they shouldn't offer a 7meg connection. 768k is fine for most people. ... ISPs should charge more for high speed connections or introduce fast capped connections with reasonable caps tailored to casual users. Sounds good to me, but that's heresy around forums like this.said by RainWind :If heavy users are doing so much damage to their network they need to change the way they do business. I agree, and that's exactly what we're seeing. The problem is, some users aren't happy with the new business model. |
|
dig it
@att-inc.com | reply to patcat88
that should be 'a shovel for a toilet'. a bucket goes only so far... |
|
