 
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
1 edit | Hmmm... ...if I blackmailed someone, I'd go to jail. If I bribed a Senator to vote my way...I'd go to jail. Telcos follow diff'rent rules than us lowly folk. | |
|
 | |
| | rileyjam514
There You Go Again...
join:2005-06-26
Kearny, NJ
| Re: Hmmm... I agree. Some Congressional Committee discussing "network neutrality" doesn't mean that it's going to happen.
Watch, the providers will gut the concept of neutrality to the point where it's useless.
And does anyone care? Nah, these are the phone companies. They can do anything.
Where's Eliot Spitzer when you (really) need him?
--
"It is my destiny to give back to the universe infinitely more than I have taken from it." -- Anonymous | |
|
| | | AJ023
join:2001-12-25
Forest Hills, NY
1 edit | Re: Hmmm... Spitzer actually will have an impact based on the NY State level especially as he appoints a new PSC when he wins.
So dont worry about Spitzer 
I see you are in New Jersey however so it all depends on the NJ PSC or the equivalent thereof. | |
|
| | | | rileyjam514
There You Go Again...
join:2005-06-26
Kearny, NJ
| Re: Hmmm... Yeah, I'm in Jersey, with our wonderfully corrupt politics (former Newark resident) and impossible bureaucracy (NJ BPU = NY PSC only more corrupt since it's Jersey).
Granted, I'm not saying Spitzer's a saint or anything, but considering his anti-corporate record, I would think the phone companies and cable companies present a very large and tempting target to him, and I would hope that he takes them on and leads the charge (since Jersey will always follow suit - ha ha what a pun!!1!).
Only time will tell.
--
"It is my destiny to give back to the universe infinitely more than I have taken from it." -- Anonymous | |
|
| | | | | 
asdjf
join:2005-01-01
 ·Cox HSI
·Insight Communicat..
| Re: Hmmm... Spitzer's much more anti-corrupt than anticorporate. That he happens to go after a lot of corporations says more about those corporations being corrupt than it does about Spitzer's stance on corporations.
--
144 145 145 172 040 156 165 164 163 | |
|
| | | | | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
 ·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Hmmm... said by asdjf  :Spitzer's much more anti-corrupt than anticorporate. That he happens to go after a lot of corporations says more about those corporations being corrupt than it does about Spitzer's stance on corporations. If he only goes after Corporations that are corrupt or corrupting politics then I will have no problem with him as the Telcos and their dollars are definitely corrupting our political system.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Do you even have a clue what net neutrality is about? Lower prices are not what's important here ya close minded puppet.
It's about making sure these monopolies (or duopolies)that you so blindly support dont use their market position to extort profits from legit businesses or restrict access to what should be free flowing packets throughout the entire internet.
Backbone providers should be doing nothing more than passing the packets they are paid to pass. They dont need to increase the priority of those that are giving in to their extortion and thus lowering the priority of those those that don't. And yes, they are paid for their services in full right now. There is no free ride as they would have you believe. | |
|
| PersonelDaze
join:2003-03-04
Sharon, MA
| ...I seem to remember several years ago, in the early days of DSL, how "The Bells" used to drag their feet when asked to fix a problem by re-sellers, and the only internet access option they offered was a $1500+/Mo T-1 line. The rationale at the time was the expense of the infrastructure was being unfairly borne by "The Bells". Since that time, "The Bells" have come to offer affordable DSL packages due to competition, since they were no longer in the position say the masses should "...(let them) eat (T-1) cake". Apple learned this exclusivity lesson the hard way as well. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it... | |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Oh really? quote:
The RBOCs were represented by their trade group, the USTA, and their message was simple. “We will not block, impair, or degrade content, applications in any way,” said USTA’s McCormick. He would repeat the remark nearly verbatim several times during the hearing.
When you keep repeating the same line, verbatim, over and over again, then you are spouting off nothing but a PR line that has no sincerity in it.
I wonder if they sell bridges in New York too. 
Just like Verizon lied in PA, the RBOCs are lying now and will go back on their word since they do not fear Congress (since they bought most of the people in there) nor do they fear the FCC.
How many Madison River Communications incidents do we need before this becomes a problem? | |
|
| bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | Re: Oh really? 'When you keep repeating the same line, verbatim, over and over again, then you are spouting off nothing but a PR line that has no sincerity in it.'
Kinda like what's happening right now with the opposition to the Bells. | |
|
| | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Oh really? said by bogey780 :'When you keep repeating the same line, verbatim, over and over again, then you are spouting off nothing but a PR line that has no sincerity in it.' Kinda like what's happening right now with the opposition to the Bells. And to whom are you referring? | |
|
| | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | Re: Oh really? Those who say they're going to block and degrade competitors service. | |
|
| | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Oh really? said by bogey780 :Those who say they're going to block and degrade competitors service. Madison River Communications has already blocked Vonage. They were forced to stop. | |
|
| | | | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here
| Re: Oh really? They're not one of the bells, FWIW. They're a CLEC/RLEC. And for what the Bells are planning blocking competitors isn't a part of it. As it is current rules prohibit it and I don't seee the Bells lobbying to make it so they can block competitors from using certain ports. | |
|
| | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Oh really? They might not block competitors but they can degrade them.
Simply saying, what they call QoS, could mean slowing down those who do not pay. "Best Effort" could mean anything including slowing it down so their "preferred traffic" can get through. If there are no other packets, then the rest of the non paying customers can go in until more preferred packets come in. | |
|
| | | | | | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | Re: Oh really? "Slowing down" is a involved act. As stated Bell doesn't want to slow down or degrade anyone's surfing. They want to be able to offer better services and be able to charge for it. | |
|
| | | | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Oh really? Do you really believe they are going to build a whole separate network to carry "paid" traffic? Not likely.
They are making upgrades to what they have now and want all sides to pay for it under the guise of faster performance.
And as been shown before, what the Bells say and what they do are 2 very different things. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here
| Re: Oh really? 'Do you really believe they are going to build a whole separate network to carry "paid" traffic? Not likely.'
Well what they're doing isn't too far off. They're going to better manage the data traffic across their network. More efficient and much faster. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: Oh really? Your right, that is exactly what they are going to do. But doing so is impeding the traffic of those that are not paying and that is the problem.
If they leave it alone the technology will work out it's own QoS. It always has and always will without these greedy bastards trying to steal from profitable companies.
Besides, where do you draw the line? Do all companies pay this extortion or only the "profitable ones"? What about the ramification of this on startups or new services being brought to the web? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | Re: Oh really? I have passed the CCNA and work with 6500 and 4000 series switches and other Cisco routers/switches. Nothing in that link (which does not work) changes anything I posted. So what was your point in that? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here
| Re: Oh really? Working link- »www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/SG246297.html
4.6 Summary of QoS, it details what benefits implementation of QoS brings and how it's much better for network architecture. It doesn't harm normal data traffic and helps overall traffic to move more efficiently.
This is something Bell wants to do anyway with their traffic and the idea of charging content providers came secondary. Had they decided against even including content providers in their plans I can only imagine the articles we'd be seeing here. | |
|
| | | | | | | | 
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| If the present internet situation won't change for those who don't want the enhanced service, then I'll ask this again:
A number of bell executive statements say that google, vonage, etc. are PRESENTLY freeloaders. They don't say they would be future freeloaders if they wanted enhanced service but didn't pay for it but that they are PRESENT freeloaders(that is, freeloaders under the presently constructed order of things). Do ATT, BS, Verizon plan to allow them to continue to be freeloaders, even though the statements they have made say that the freeloading can not continue? If they don't intend to allow this freeloading to continue, then they clearly intend to radically alter the nature of the present internet, NOT to continue it undisturbed.
| |
|
| | | | | | | | | 
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| Re: Oh really? Ahh, a PROFESSIONAL astroturfer we have here..
Your problem, of course, is that you make a false statement at the beginning, and then attempt to support it by offering an alternative.. Tricky... did your handler give you a sheet to use? I've worked with enough dickless marketing guys to recognize their writing style.
"The bell executive statements say google, etc are FREELOADERS". Well, DUH, but that statement is incorrect. Please explain exactly how they are 'freeloaders', they are paying for an internet connection.
The remains of your argument are based on the fact that you have defined google as a freeloader, and you are offering options for the telcos. Of course, you initial statement is pointless, so everything you say after that is meaningless noise.
Please tell your handlers to give you a better script next time. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| Re: Oh really? Wow. Though I admit to being less than impressive in the male anatomy department, I'm hurt more by the claim that I write like a marketing drone. You're missing my point. I know I only have myself to blame, since I continue to post as anonymous, but I have a long posting history as asdfdfdf and it in no way suggests I am a bell apologist.
I don't define google as a freeloader. Key management people at the different bocs have defined them this way. I am using their own words to explain how the claims that their apologists use, namely that there is no intention to alter the nature of the present internet but only to "offer an enhanced service", don't make any sense within the context of the comments the executives are making.
Apparently I am failing miserably in trying to use the bocs own words against them. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| Let me try again.
Boc management says that, as the internet is presently organized, google, et al are freeloaders. They say that they do not intend to allow this freeloading to continue. How can they then claim that they have no intention of altering the present nature of the internet? These statements are contradictory. Aren't the original statements more likely to accurately represent their real intentions than the later reassurances that they didn't mean what they said? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Disection time:
said by asdfdfdf :
If the present internet situation won't change for those who don't want the enhanced service, then I'll ask this again: AHHH, but it will change.
Just as operating systems and programs have increased in size (from kilobytes to gigabytes), so will data files. Imagine being able to copy a full 10MB HD over the net in under 5 minutes (when 10MB disks were considered huge.)
Now, MP3 files are around 5MB each, videos can be 10MB or much more, Linux distros are CD sized. More and more people are getting on the net daily and more and more data is flowing. It has to go somewhere. So the Bells are making their networks bigger to cope with the influx of users and the increase in file sizes. Otherwise, no one will want to surf a bottle necked system. This is one of the main selling points of a broadband connection; speed.
said by asdfdfdf :
A number of bell executive statements say that google, vonage, etc. are PRESENTLY freeloaders. They don't say they would be future freeloaders if they wanted enhanced service but didn't pay for it but that they are PRESENT freeloaders(that is, freeloaders under the presently constructed order of things). Do ATT, BS, Verizon plan to allow them to continue to be freeloaders, even though the statements they have made say that the freeloading can not continue? If they don't intend to allow this freeloading to continue, then they clearly intend to radically alter the nature of the present internet, NOT to continue it undisturbed.
O.k. by your reasoning, if I were to call you (long distance) on the phone, not only would I have to pay but so would you. When you call someone long distance, only the caller pays, not the receiver. The Bells would like both sides to pay. Should SBC pay when they try to call a Vonage number? What about a Verizon customer calling a T-Mobile number? Should they have to pay the cell airtime too?
Now, how are Google, Yahoo and Vonage "freeloaders?" They pay their ISPs to get on-line. We pay our ISPs for a connection to the net. Where is the free ride?
One explanation for all of this could be that the Bells know they can't hit up their customers for more money. Can you imagine the backlash if Verizon told all its customers that they need to charge an extra $5/month for network upgrades. It would probably be more for business customers.
This is nothing more than a shakedown of large companies that have money. The Bells need to upgrade their systems but are afraid to ask their customers for the money to pay for it. They want someone else to pay for it. There are enough studies out there that show what people will pay for broadband and many think that price is too high as it is. How many people have dumped POTS lines in favor of cellular (not including those that don't even have VOIP.) | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Freezone
join:2000-09-29
Southfield, MI | I will love to see how this plays out with gamers. Would all those xbox live people being told "Sorry MS did not pay us for the connection you are already paying for"
The bells will lose alot of subs and that is afitting pounishment. | |
|
mdmaddox
Premium
join:2002-12-29
Federal Way, WA | Telecom Tell The Trurth History has shown the telco will say anything and do very little. Post from last week of broken promises. »muniwireless.com/community/1023 | |
|
TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO
| Read the articles The best analogy I have seen used yet regarding Bells' QoS propaganda.
Picture the Internet as your typical highway. Now, how does that highway react when a car like that of the police or fire department comes down full speed ahead with sirens blaring?
That's right, we all pull over and give them preferential, QoS on our highways. We wait so they can get by unabated.
No image you have to do this for every UPS truck too.
What do you think happens to all those packets that can't afford to pay for QoS in addition to their very expensive broadband backbone connections?
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com | |
|
|
See 12 replies to this post |
|
TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO
| The Talking Points 1. The Internet is already being paid for on both ends. Customers pay access providers for unrestricted broadband pipe. Content providers pay backbone providers for huge pipes to deliver content.
2. In order to provide any packet preferential treatment or QoS you can do 2 things. First, you can build a whole other network that only those people who pay can gain access to. Second, you can give priority to those packets that pay and when they come down the pipe every other packet gets out of the way temporarily.
3. Next-gen broadband services will need to be paid for. Who should pay for them. The end user by buying a fairly priced service from an access provider or the end user by paying much higher rates for every service on the net or by being forced to use on Bell company content? In either case you have two facts: the end user will end up footing the bill and the telco ends up with the money. The only question is will you force the telco to absorb the negative PR of the increased costs or will you let them dump it on unrelated content providers?
I hereby state that if and when access fees are charged by the telcos to content companies, I support content companies ability to list a separate line item charge on the customers bills labeled '[Insert regional Bell monopoly here] Internet Access Tax' and assign a few.
Example Vonage bill:
Vonage Services:
Unlimited Phone Service $24.95
------------------------------
Subtotal: $24.95
Other Items and Fees
At&t Internet Access Tax $4.93
------------------------------
Subtotal: $4.93
Total Due upon receipt: $29.88
Content companies can feel justified doing such a misleading thing because those Bell monopolies have been doing the same thing in the guise of FCC fees for decades.
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com | |
|
| 
heathcpe
join:2002-03-19
Brandon, MS
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: The Talking Points said by TelecomJunky :Example Vonage bill: Vonage Services: Unlimited Phone Service $24.95 ------------------------------ Subtotal: $24.95 Other Items and Fees At&t Internet Access Tax $4.93 ------------------------------ Subtotal: $4.93 Total Due upon receipt: $29.88 You forgot the Internet Acccess Taxes for everyother network between you and vonage. For me it would look like this.
Suscom Internet Access Tax $4.93
AT&T Internet Access Tax $4.93
Broadwing Internet Access Tax $4.93
WCG.NET Internet Access Tax $4.93
------------------------------------------
Subtotal Internet Access Tax $19.72
If AT&T was the only one implementing the "2-Tier" concept, then the "2-Tier" concept wouldn't work anyway.
***Catch my drift*** | |
|
| |
TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO | Re: The Talking Points Excellent point! | |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| More lies in writing by the telco's There's some great lies in there..
Lie #1: "Have we sought to control or restrict the Internet?" Walter McCormick, president and CEO of the U.S. Telecom Association, which represents a wide swath of the industry, asked the senators. "No, we have not. We have instead invested, grown and increased the scale and the scope of the Internet."
The Truth : Lets see, ahh, yes ROGERS is throttling bittorrent. Verizon blocks port 80 and 25! That is a RESTRICTION. There is NO OTHER WORD to describe it other than RESTRICTION. Which goes to show that the telecom industry has no problem lying through their teeth.
Lie #2: "The fact is that our regulations and our laws need to be modernized to reflect the realities of technology today to create more incentives for companies to invest so that we have those broadband networks that are higher quality, that are faster, that give consumers more competition," said Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev"
The Truth : His #1 CONTRIBUTOR is none other than the telecom industry! Suprise, suprise.. »www.tray.com/cgi-win/x_candpg.ex···073*2004
Lie #3: "Both McCormick and the NCTA’s McSlarrow said their member companies have spent billions aggressively building out their networks, and will continue doing so as long as the financial incentive isn't stripped away by new regulation."
The Truth : What INCENTIVES are being stripped away? Right now, they aren't raping everyone for the extra money? By their definition, the ability to rape the consumer is an incentive? Why am I not surprised....
Lie #4: "Simply put, our side believes that businesses that seek to profit on the use of next-generation networks should not be free of all costs associated with the increased capacity that is required for delivery of the advanced services, they will be seeking more bandwidth. If you want more, then you pay more, is as American as it comes.""
The Truth : Well then, RAISE YOUR RATES!.. Oh, wait.. too greedy.. possible competitors.. ouch, that would be bad. Oh, you don't want to pay to upgrade your network, you want the USERS to pay for your upgrades (and your 4th house, and your yacht)..
Summary: Only the corporate apologists could possibly say that net neutrality is a bad thing. It's not really amazing, but as the smart people say : "Put simply, the FCC is betting America's future on the goodwill of the Bell companies and large cable operators. Counting on companies to act in the public good against their own financial interests has been tried before, and it has never worked."
Why would it suddenly start to work now?
--
Sure the internet has lots of porn and piracy, but I'm sure there's a downside to it. | |
|
| rileyjam514
There You Go Again...
join:2005-06-26
Kearny, NJ
| Re: More lies in writing by the telco's Not to burst your bubble, but Rogers is a Canadian company. We're talking about what role American government has in the regulation of the telecom industry, in America.
Aside from that, I find myself agreeing with you.
--
"It is my destiny to give back to the universe infinitely more than I have taken from it." -- Anonymous | |
|
| |
itguy35
@mo.chart | Re: More lies in writing by the telco's I also agree. | |
|
| |
blimeyham415
@sympatico.ca | Aren't ANY american companies throttling bit torrent as well? | |
|
|
TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO
| Lets not forget At&t said they paid $15 billion last year for network upgrades but neglected to mention they still profited $8.5 billion in 2003, $6 billion in 2004, and are on pace to hit $4.5-5 billion for 2005 (EOY financials pending).
So despite these increased build out costs they are still raking it in hand over fist. And since we all know that once the build cost is paid on an upgraded network the costs are gone. Thus, next year those build out costs are gone and any revenue generated from the line goes directly to their bottom line.
Let's also keep in mind that these financials contain right-offs of the old network built over 30 years ago that are in the 10s of billions and long past the acceptable accounting practices for such right offs. But since the FCC won't bother to audit the Bells they continue to hide their real profits.
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com | |
|
AJ023
join:2001-12-25
Forest Hills, NY
1 edit | Vint is the genious, so why dont we just LISTEN! Out of all the people, Vint Cerf is the brightest of the bunch, yet why doesn't the American congress just listen to him?
Vint was one of the true founders of the internet, it is his baby. Let Vint nuture his child. Not some corporate bureaucrat who wants to use it for wealth creation!
Rather than raising a child to do good, too many parents raise their children to be corporate pigs.
Shows how people have bad parenting skills who refuse to teach their kids ethics and morality. | |
|
| |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Sick of the Telco blackmail and threats I'm getting so tired of hearing the same threats and excuses used over and over by the big communications monopolies (Telcos).
At State, and Federal level they threaten "Give us everything we want, or else we won't build out the information infrastructure and deliver the future services America needs and wants.... and... we'll blame YOU for it..."
Maybe, if our politicians would develop some cajones and reply "Well, we consider advanced information infrastructure as important to national security and economic prosperity, so if you refuse to act in our national interest AND your OWN best interest you will leave us little choice but to use our "Eminent Domain" power to seize your companies infrastructure and assets and throw you out on your collective asses."
Of course, the Telco's know this won't happen. Why do they get to play Hardball but nobody else... simple... they pay the $$$ to own the politicians and the lobbyists.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
shashinka
join:2000-09-16
West Boylston, MA | let them try... i will stay with cable... Let them go ahead and stop the next gen deployment and see none of the profits. If Verizon did something like this I would most likely stay with my cable or alternative service provider just to make a point. | |
|
|
TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO | Re: let them try... i will stay with cable... If the Bells are allowed to this, the cable cos won't be far behind.
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com | |
|
logic1977
Premium
join:2001-02-11
Tucker, GA
| two sides two every story I kind of liked the highway analogy, except to make it more accurate that higway would have to be a private road, because in this example the network is owned by the telco involved.
So if it is thier road, shouldn't they be allowed to pass the traffic laws?
If they can't make the revenue they want, what incentive is there for the network provider to keep building?
Could they abuse this power? Certainly, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have any say on what happens on thier network.
There are ups and downs to both side of the argument.
Certain services are going to need this type of prioritization. VOIP among them. If we shackle network providers into a single tier approach then you can't prioritize any traffic unless someone buys a seperate network | |
|
| 
jubangy
Premium
join:2005-03-26
Erie, PA | Re: two sides two every story Would it not be more accurate to say that it is their road and they are running a "toll booth" so to speak. | |
|
| 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| To use your analogy that would mean the road owners want to charge more for those trucks carrying products they deem as more profitable. It shouldn't matter what you are carrying in your vehicle. You still get more money from said trucks if they are taking up more of your road due to the toll charges everybody pays to be on that road. I don't see any fair reasoning for what the ILEC's want to do. | |
|
| bi0tech
join:2003-06-19
·Comcast
| Yes it is a private road that was funded at least in part by the public in the form of hundreds of millions of tax dollars for a service which still hasn't been completed.
Again nobody is saying they won't have control over what goes on "their network", this is about a pretty basic concept that makes the internet work. Services like VOIP may or may not require prioritization depending on how close to capacity they want to run the network at hand. But this does in no way indicate a need to prioritize traffic based on its origination point. Aside from being just an asinine idea, they simply can't guarantee quality service regardless unless they host the entire transit of the packet. So in the end the consumer pays more, to get the same thing in a more disfunctional way, solely to line the pockets of big business.
If they really want this type of concept let them bite the bullet and implement ipv6 end to end and pretend that this country isn't run by special interest prioritizing short term profit over a logical infrastructure. | |
|
Ghost of Cogent
@sonnet.com
| Cogent vs. Level3 Last year, there was great debate about whether Cogent or Level 3 was the 'at fault' party... I said Level 3, while the majority of folks wanted to blame Cogent, who primarily hosted cheap websites. I called for government regulation to prevent Level 3 from ever pulling the stunt again. Many screamed they don't want gov't intervention.
Now, in Google vs. Verizon, everyone seems to be on the side of Google... who also primarily hosts cheap websites. There are calls for the gov't to prohibit the Bells from doing anything to discriminate against Google.
So which is it Broadband Losers? Do you finally recognize that the gov't DOES have a role, and that Cogent was the good guy last year? Or are you going to continue your mindless cheering for whatever feels good today? | |
|
| DSLdewd
join:2004-06-05
Denver, CO
| Re: Cogent vs. Level3 I thought Cogent owed Level 3 a bunch of money and refused to pay so Level 3 cut them off. I am not sure how this has anything to do with Verizons half cocked two tiered internet shambles of an idea and your post certainly didn't make that any clearer.
Oh and neither company "hosts cheap websites".
Level 3 is an internet backbone provider.
Google is a search engine.
Oh, and welcome to the internet. I am assuming this is your first day.. | |
|
| |
Ghost of Cogent
@sonnet.com
| Re: Cogent vs. Level3 No, Cogent had refused to enter an agreement to pay Level 3 money. Level 3 felt Cogent wasn't paying their fair share to "use Level 3's lines."
I didn't say Level 3 hosted cheap web sites; I said Cogent did.
Google is a cheap web site, and they are getting the same squeeze from Verizon as Level 3 tried to give Cogent.
Welcome also, DSLdewd. | |
|
|
|
|
Senate Hearing Tackles Network Neutrality
Re: Hmmm...
