 
rudnicke
Premium
join:2004-10-23
Rantoul, IL
clubs: | Kevin Martin has his head up his arse! | |
| phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD | What benefits are we the consumers reaping? Maybe I am just ignorant and completely missing something... but exactly what benefits am I supposed to be reaping from this Google/telco spat??? | |
|  | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: What benefits are we the consumers reaping? said by phantom6294  :Maybe I am just ignorant and completely missing something... but exactly what benefits am I supposed to be reaping from this Google/telco spat??? yeah. me too. i dont know about anyone else but my cable bill hasn't gone down any.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| | | 
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| More Spin Control This is nothing except the reborn evil empire doing their standard spin control. Much to the chagrin of the megacorps, the mainstream press has picked up the news, and people are rightfully outraged. When CNN, MSNBC, Newsweek and Time Magazines next week issue all have big stories about it, it DOESN'T paint a pretty picture of the telcos. Their greed has gotten the better of them, because we as Americans look at the rest of the world, and can see the greed for what it is. Journalists are tapping into a deep mind swell of American culture, when they RIGHTFULLY COMPARE this to racist institutions of the past, a dark chapter in our history the megacorps would love to bring back. It was called 'separate but equal', and the reality is that it was anything but if you were black. Net neutrality isn't just a concept, it's a fundamental RIGHT enjoyed by every other network in the world, and since the public is getting riled up, I look forward to seeing all those executives who publicly supported the idea of raping the consumer humiliated, bankrupted and blackballed from ever working again.
p.s. For all those who said this would never happen, and net neutrality wouldn't pass, I say (in Nelsons best voice) "Ha ha!". Sell your shares now suckers..
--
Sure the internet has lots of porn and piracy, but I'm sure there's a downside to it. | |
| | 
footballdude
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO | Re: More Spin Control OK, I'll bite. How can a two tiered network be compared to 'separate but equal'? The whole point of having two tiers is that they're NOT equal. You pay extra for the better tier. | |
| | | 
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | "now privately employed by industry think-tanks" Hahaha, thank you, I have no more questions. | |
| | | jjcrandall
join:2004-01-01
Salt Lake City, UT | Re: 2 tier won't limit access; only apportion costs The Consumer will be billed for both. For our access to the network and the priority of our access. Simple as that. The real treat will be 2 bills, 1 from the ISP and 1 from the content. The end user will never benefit from this. | |
| | 
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
 ·epix
| said by LiamJunket :Me. I've spread my chips across both the content providers and the internet providers. Aren't mutual funds wonderful? I win no matter which side prevails. Old_Repub,you by hedging your bets in such a manner.I'm thinking if you invested equal amounts of money into both options and one option gets the toilet bowl flush treatment.At best are you not just breaking even , by just offsetting your lose.?
I ask in all seriousness and honesty, how are you winning, if one of both investments fail.Would that not bring you back to square one.?
--
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. | |
| | | 
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
 ·Comcast
| Re: 2 tier won't limit access; only apportion costs said by guitarzan :said by LiamJunket :Me. I've spread my chips across both the content providers and the internet providers. Aren't mutual funds wonderful? I win no matter which side prevails. Old_Repub,you by hedging your bets in such a manner.I'm thinking if you invested equal amounts of money into both options and one option gets the toilet bowl flush treatment.At best are you not just breaking even , by just offsetting your lose.? I ask in all seriousness and honesty, how are you winning, if one of both investments fail.Would that not bring you back to square one.? Simply, the profit pie is growing. No matter which side wins and which side loses, the total pie is expanding. Even the losing side in the battle will continue to make money. It's just that the winning side's stock will go up more than the other. If you bet on just one contestant, you may win big or just get by. But if you bet on both you still win, just not win huge. The only way to lose big is if the whole entertainment and internet industries both tank - an unlikely outcome.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
Conrail Photo Album | |
| | | | 
TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO
| Re: 2 tier won't limit access; only apportion costs Hmm... both sides would continue to make money under the two-tiered system... interesting.
In 2001, independent ISPs made up more than 55% of the Internet services market with more than 77 million subscribers. This is at a time when the ILECs had just recently entered the Internet services market.
Thanks to the FCC's inability to maintain adequate regulations forcing ILECs to allow wholesale access to DSL service, today, those other ISPs make up only 28.7% of the Internet Services market with less than 27 million subscribers.
Not only have independent ISPs lost over 50 million subscribers to the ILECS predatory pricing schemes, but thousands of people in the industry lost their jobs and businesses. These numbers continue to decline at an alarming rate and soon there will be no alternatives left but between the ILEC and the Cable MSO. When this happens prices will climb again.
In the meantime, access fees will be levied on companies like Google and Vonage and innovation will be stifled more so than it already has been the ILECs ability to leverage it's telephone monopoly to garner a strangle hold on Internet service.
A prime example of ILEC abuses is AT&T who to this day still do not offer a stand alone DSL product and force you to bundle if you want their DSL for 12.99 for six months plus fees, etc. Lack of choice is never good for consumers.
And to Old_repub I would say, being republican and a free market supporters does not mean you are against regulation. On the contrary, we are the very people that should be fore regulation. Regulation that allows small business to foster and grow. Regulation that prevents multi-national corporations from murdering small business. Just like we have a system of laws to protect citizens from murder and theft, so too do we need regulations to insure businesses do not act in ways detrimental to freedom and capitalism.
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com | |
| | | | | audiog
join:2004-08-09
Detroit, MI
| Re: 2 tier won't limit access; only apportion costs As of December of 2006 DSL will be unbundled as per the California ruling and FCC stipulation for the merger approvals.
Verizon and the New AT&T have until the end of the year to offer naked DSL ( un-bundling the DSL from voice in the provisioning system) per a case brought against SBC and Verizon by AT&T on the same issue.
I followed the case over the last 2 and 1/2 years. SBC and Verizon in a closed meeting with the California Commission showed that in for their systems to provision a DSL you need a phone number. a Naked DSL is not an option; Per the commission's order SBC and Verizon has until the end of this year to make naked DSL work and the FCC made that apart of the merger approval for The NEW AT&T and Verizon/MCI.
What was lost was two of the biggest CLECs that was suing the RBOCs for a competitive market place and now it is gone.
The American way: If a competitor is always suing you for your illegal practices then buy them.
The First statement from the head of AT&T( CEO of SBC) GOOGLE should pay us for access to our customers. Double dipping; Google is paying to access and we (DSL, cable and dialup customers) are paying for access to the internet. | |
| | | | | |
TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO
| Re: 2 tier won't limit access; only apportion costs The problem with SBC naked DSL claims is that we are offering Naked DSL in SBC and have no problem doing so without a DID.
And since you follow the issue, I am sure you are aware they only have to offer naked DSL for 2 years and there is no stipulation as to what they have to charge. Meaning, don't expect to pay $12.99 for naked DSL from SBC.
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com | |
| | 
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Consumers already pay. None of this will benefit the end user. | |
| 
Varlik
Without Honor You Will Never Be Free
Premium
join:2002-01-06
Anderson, SC | You went away, why won't you stay away Mr. Powell I think that he must have spent so much time spewing this BS that he's started to actually believe it. | |
| |
TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO
| Re: You went away, why won't you stay away Mr. Powell Actually, if you read the article Mr. Powell is pretty much on Google's side. Stating that access providers need to be more creative in finding ways to pay for the network build outs, like creating their own content not blocking or restricting access to others'.
Yes, he doesn't believe we need preemptive legislation as the situation has not yet occurred, but in one instance and the FCC was quick to act and set an example in the Vonage case.
I am inclined to agree with him in this case, except for the fact that the ILECs are lobbying so heavily to release themselves from franchise agreements while forcing incumbent cable companies to still adhere to them. Just today a bill in Kansas is expected to come out of committee that does just that. One already has in Missouri and Indiana. Texas has already passed the law, and the federal government just help a hearing on the subject.
It's coming, franchise agreements for the ILECs are going to be removed. We need to be sure that when they are, they are removed for all companies, not just ILECs and that anyone rolling out such services does so in a network neutral indiscriminate manner. These are issues we can address now while the ILECs are asking for something. If they want that freedom, than they need to give the competition freedom too.
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com | |
| Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
1 edit | Why stop at 2 tiers? Why dont we just make it an 8, 10, or even 1000 tier network?
We can have one tier for web browsing. One tier for P2P. One tier for video casting. One for actual IPTV. One for IP Phones. One for multi player games, which we can then divide up per game. One for streaming music. One for FTP. One for news groups. One for Windows Updates. One for linux distros. One tier for porn, or maybe just create a whole new "internet" for porn. We can create new internet protocols for every program out there and do away with that pesky TCP/IP along with the simplicity and freedom of packet passing it provides. Then within those tiers we can tier the providers based on how much they want to pay. The backbone providers can then auction off the priority levels of each tier since they interconnect the world. Then the broadband providers can get in a spat with the backbone providers over their "cut" since they connect the consumers. And backbone providers can then start tiering broadband providers. Why should UUNet let SBC/AT&T just use their network for free? They should have to pay UUNet tiering fees to help them upgrade their backbone to support the additional subscribers they are signing up with broadband. If they aren't willing to pay, then they should get lower priority then someone like Comcast that is willing to play.
Point of this is simple. Every single piece of the internet puzzle fits together and without one you do not have the others. You have the backbone providers, the broadband providers, the content providers, and the consumers. ALL of them are just as vital to the survival of the internet and one another. ALL of them fuel the bottom line of the others and are the very reason of their existence (stay on internet here). Content providers attract the consumers. Broadband providers provide the experience. Backbone providers interconnect the broadband providers to the content providers enabling the consumers to ultimately get the information they wanted seamlessly. Every piece of the chain here is interconnected. Every piece of the chain pays their share to survive and maintain the internet. ANYONE saying they don't is simply an idiot. If they didn't then we wouldnt be as far into the internet as we are today as compared to 10 years ago. We didnt get here today because free bandwidth rides were given or because providers (backbone or broadband) were just pulling bandwidth out of their rears. As the need arised and the additional cost were justified, the networks were upgraded. This happens on every end from the content providers all the way to the consumer.
I personally have not seen any content provider requesting higher priority in their packets. I have not seen a single service on the internet require higher priority that was not worked out by the developer. That is the great thing about the internet. One creates a use for it, that use is modified and somewhat perfected over time based on what they have to work with. | |
| | GigahertZ420
join:2001-10-02
Fairbanks, AK |  Re: Why stop at 2 tiers?
| |
| |
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| How will dial up users figure into this 2 tiered equation.? Will 56k have to be the 3rd tier,how much will dial up users have to pay.?
When this 2 tiered internet becomes reality and I have to pay for viewing web pages over a commodity (DSL) that I already pay for,in advance mind you. I will cancel DSL in a heartbeat and disconnect my modem& router from the net, in doing so I will save myself some $$$ ,because i simply refuse to pay for some hair brained greedy get rich scheme Fsck it, because it won't be worth it.So AT&T or any other ISP put that in your pipe and smoke it.
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. | |
| | | 
Jigsaw
Stardust We Are
Premium
join:2000-10-21
Cleveland, OH
·Cox HSI
| Re: Why stop at 2 tiers? said by guitarzan :How will dial up users figure into this 2 tiered equation.? Will 56k have to be the 3rd tier,how much will dial up users have to pay.? When this 2 tiered internet becomes reality and I have to pay for viewing web pages over a commodity (DSL) that I already pay for,in advance mind you. I will cancel DSL in a heartbeat and disconnect my modem& router from the net, in doing so I will save myself some $$$ ,because i simply refuse to pay for some hair brained greedy get rich scheme Fsck it, because it won't be worth it.So AT&T or any other ISP put that in your pipe and smoke it. If everyone thought like that we would not even see them say anything.Its a shame thou there would still be sheepeople that will just blindly do whatever.Just up and stop using it for a week or better yet cancel it all together.They could care less about us but hit em were it hurts well they care then.
--
»www.auralmoon.com/html/ When you want some Real Music | |
| | | 
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs | Amen.
If I, as a consumer, have to pay both to have internet service, and then pay every web site I go to a chunk to boot, I would cancel my service.
Really, what would be the point... | |
| | phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD | all I can say is...
"dang skippy!!!"
For those unfamiliar with that phrase... see this link. | |
| claudeo
join:2000-02-23
Redmond, WA | Mr. Powell does not pay his own bills Mr. Powell obviously does not pay the bill like a normal ratepayer. If he did he would sing a different tune. | |
| | | |
|
|
Former FCC Chief Powell: Net Neutrality 'Doing Great'
2 tier won't limit access; only apportion costs