 
Mchart
Super Joe
join:2004-01-21
Gurnee, IL | No No | |
|
 | retsam
join:2004-09-02
Red Bank, NJ | Re: No this article makes it sound like all the Telcos and cable providers aren't adding capacity at all...what a dumb article | |
|
| 
Rob A
Same Old Jets
Premium
join:2005-01-17
Pompton Plains, NJ | said by Mchart  :No | |
|
SteveLV702
Premium
join:2004-04-22
Henderson, NV | chip in some change? I'll through in a dime maybe... let the government pay for it they can finally contribute something to this country  | |
|
| 
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
 ·Comcast
| Re: chip in some change? said by SteveLV702 :I'll through in a dime maybe... let the government pay for it they can finally contribute something to this country Google CEO Eric Schmidt agrees with you. I guess Google isn't making enough money, he thinks the gov't and the taxpayers should help cover his costs.
»itmanagement.earthweb.com/netsys···/3671896
The Deloitte report asserts there can't be a free ride.
"For the Internet to continue operating to everyone's benefit, all companies whose livelihood depends on the Web need both to contribute and gain," the Deloitte report stated. "This means that organizations that build, operate, maintain and expand the underlying infrastructure need a return on their investment; everyone involved may end up paying more, including consumers."
Schmidt thinks the government should pay more of the rising infrastructure costs.
"We didn't ask for private citizens to pay for the highway system up front," he said. He said it would be "great" if the U.S. government recognized the advanced position other countries have in providing greater broadband access to their citizens as a competitive threat leading to further investment here.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
| | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| More Whining Baby Bell Hogwash !!! More Whining Baby Bell Hogwash!
You didn't hear this kind of cr@p when competitive LD companies had the biggest chunks of the Internet backbone, and you still don't hear it from Level 3. You only hear it from the monopolists and their paid lackeys, like Deloitte out-of-Touche.
First, the facilities layer of the Internet is not some "top-down" computer network that can be "managed", "planned", or "controlled". It was deliberately designed to be independent of such factors.
Second, the Whining Baby Bells don't understand such a concept. They are incapable of grasping any role for themselves in communications that does not place them in a position of "control".
The Whining Baby Bells are seeking not only government sponsored "investment", but overall "control". They seek the ability to have government sponsored investment, with enough government sponsored "control" to shut out competitors--either through inequitable access to the investment funds, irrational regulatory standards that only the Baby Bells can meet, or similar exclusionary tactics. They know they lack the competitive skills to win in a competitive backbone market, they fear that backbone will be "just a commodity" (as it SHOULD BE), and they will try anything to avoid those situations.
They are trying to change the face of the Internet, and we must not allow that to happen--because while they might be able to control some of the US backbone, the end result would be a crippled US Internet while the world plays in a truly competitive, open space.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | | 
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ | Re: More Whining Baby Bell Hogwash !!! Exactly. The $64000 Question:
Who paid D-T for this report? | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: More Whining Baby Bell Hogwash !!! One small part bought and paid for by some of their larger clients--without doubt.
Consulting is like any other advocacy business--where you stand depends on where you sit.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | | |
| | 
Fronkman
Macs Do It Better
Premium
join:2003-06-23
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: chip in some change? that is a bunch of garbage. this is google's fault? why is it that the cell phone companies actually charge LESS than they did 10 years ago when they are enormously more users using huge amounts of service? do the people who sell those stupid annoying ringtones owe money to cell phone companies because their crap is popular?
look at it this way, parts of the internet are like toll roads. google already pays to get on the road at their end, and we all pay to get on the road at our end. we just happen to meet at one of the rest stops somewhere in the middle to exchange our data. however, since the ISPs and backbones have so much control over the road, they want to charge successful companies (like google) again to access the road.
it is within their rights to do that, but the US government should be aware that this will stifle innovation and growth in one of the last parts of the US economy which still has strong growth. if they want to do that go ahead.
all this amounts to is a punishment for being successful. the ISPs never want to double bill the guy with a blog about his cat. they only want to double bill the huge successes. good luck greedy guys. your customers will certainly love this tactic.
--
Everyone should own a G4 cube or an iBook or the Mac mini! | |
|
| | 
SSidlov
Other Things On My Mind
Premium
join:2000-03-03
Pompton Lakes, NJ
·Optimum Online
 ·Cingular Wireless
 ·Optimum Voice
| Internet2 is gov't funded & gov't should lease network said by SteveLV702 :Schmidt thinks the government should pay more of the rising infrastructure costs. "We didn't ask for private citizens to pay for the highway system up front," he said. He said it would be "great" if the U.S. government recognized the advanced position other countries have in providing greater broadband access to their citizens as a competitive threat leading to further investment here. This is a fine concept. But two warnings. One, state owned systems have a tendency to be censored, like those in the China, the middle east and elsewhere -- even the US internet is heavily regulated for content »www.isoc.org/inet97/proceedings/B1/B1_3.HTM and »www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens3.html . Let's do it like Korea. The government builds it to allow for 90% in excess capacity. They use 10% for their own purpose, and lease the excess on bids for $$ to recoup the initial investment, pay for maintenance and upgrades. Leases should not be for more than 10 years to make sure that the government is able to do the upgrades and that there is a possibility of change in management. Companies like Verizon and Quest who are building or already have fiber networks can sell them to the government for tax breaks or preferential bids but not 'sweetheart bids' (say they have to offer 90% of the highest bid) for the first 10 years, that will give us a start, and allow the phone companies and other carriers to 'come on board.'
This is the only way the government should be allowed to do this. The highway system in the US is falling apart and is always short of funds because it's based on trucking fees and gasoline taxes. While Trucking Fees are usage based, gasoline taxes are not since not everyone uses all the gallons of gas to drive on highways. Raising the gas tax is considered a political liability. All US highways should be toll roads, and the Federal Gas Tax repealed. Highways to no-other-state like those in Alaska and Hawaii could then be justified and alloted maintenance based on the actual usage.
"In April[2006], representatives of the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Congressional Budget Office testified before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure’s Highways, Transit, and Pipelines Subcommittee about the fund’s financial status. Current estimates indicate that the fund will probably become insolvent in 2009 or 2010, the witnesses said." »www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonl···eat.html
--
»www.Warpstock.org | |
|
| | | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: Internet2 is gov't funded & gov't should lease network said by SSidlov :The highway system in the US is falling apart and is always short of funds because it's based on trucking fees and gasoline taxes. While the non-toll road highways are only funded by these sources, the problem is that the funds collected by these taxes are treated as a slush fund due to not being DEDICATED to maintaining the highways (the same also may apply to Toll-Road revenues). In most cases, the majority of the funds collected gets diverted to the State's "General Fund" for uses having nothing to do with highway maintenance or building (I'll include maintenance of the Highway Police as a legitimate usage here). If the funds collected from the taxes were ONLY used for the highway uses (and the states were forced to return the embezzled funds to the Highway Fund) there were be enough money for the needed Highway Maintenance and Construction. | |
|
| | 
asdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| Re: chip in some change? Where does Schmidt say the government should pay "his" costs? Google pays for it's transport now and it isn't asking for government to subsidize its transport costs.
Schmidt says that the problem is last mile access and that the government should be involved in making sure that all citizens have broadband access. This isn't a request for the government to pay "his" costs. Google doesn't own or control the last mile. They are not in the last mile access business. The cablecos and telcos control the last mile.
"The Deloitte report asserts there can't be a free ride"
Google does NOT get a free ride. You and I don't get a free ride. They pay for their transport needs, as do you and I, just like every other user and business does. If google needs more transport for it's growth it will spend the money it needs to buy the transport that it requires.
As for return on investment I think it is bogus to continue to insinuate that these companies aren't making a return on their infrastructure investments. Whether they are or not, however, is not google's problem. Capitalism doesn't guarantee a return. Google does not own and control the infrastructure and they are not under any obligation to guarantee that the ATTs of the world make a certain return on their investment. The investments that ATT and verizon are making are investments to get them into the video business. Why is google obligated to shoulder the costs of telco video content dreams? Why shouldn't the telco's video customers be shouldering that cost? If the costs of getting into the video business are so large that ATT can not recoup its costs through its video customers then it has a failed business model and shouldn't be in the video business.
Google video, unlike telco video, isn't demanding special privilege or transport on the network. It is treated as other traffic is treated so it is nonsense to claim that anyone who uses internet transport for video should be paying for the infrastructure upgrades of the telcos, who intend to use their upgrades to provide privileged transport for their own telco video. Again, their own telco video customers should be bearing the cost of upgrades for their telco video business. | |
|
| |
| |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: chip in some change? How soon we forget!
Uh, the Internet was a government (DARPA) project. Without it, we might all currently be hostage to ISDN protocols.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | |
Mchart
Super Joe
join:2004-01-21
Gurnee, IL
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: chip in some change? said by calvoiper :How soon we forget! Uh, the Internet was a government (DARPA) project. Without it, we might all currently be hostage to ISDN protocols. calvoiper Uh, we are currently still hostage to POTS. I'd rather have ISDN be a standard to every house, then POTS. | |
|
| | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: chip in some change? Thanks, but no thanks. ISDN at megabit levels would be in the hundreds of dollars per connection, without the alternative of the Internet driving digital prices down.
Think of it this way. The world wanted stripped-down pick-up trucks to haul data around. The Bells created ISDN as the fully loaded, all option Rolls-Royce vehicle--and then told people, reluctantly, that if you really want to haul data, you can use a cutting torch to turn the trunk into a truck bed--but it will still cost you Rolls-Royce prices.
Guess what? The Bells didn't sell much ISDN, and they are STILL smarting about it.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | | | 
Bassistguy
Alrighty Then
Premium
join:2001-07-14
Ballwin, MO
clubs:
| said by Mchart :said by calvoiper :How soon we forget! Uh, the Internet was a government (DARPA) project. Without it, we might all currently be hostage to ISDN protocols. calvoiper Uh, we are currently still hostage to POTS. I'd rather have ISDN be a standard to every house, then POTS. ISDN and POTS are 2 totally different things, but ISDN does use POTS. ISDN is a dial-up service (2 dial-up connections, that runs over a POTS line), and POTS is what you use when you pick up your standard land phone (that is, if you are using the old baby bell/new AT&T monopoly service...I guess a cable phone can be considered POTS, as it is just a plain old telephone service). If you don't want POTS, get rid of your land line and get a cell phone  .
--
If you miss 1 day, you notice; you miss 2 days, your band notices; 3 days, the crowd notices.... | |
|
| | | 
MadMANN
Premium
join:2005-08-19
·Comcast
| said by calvoiper :How soon we forget! Uh, the Internet was a government (DARPA) project. Without it, we might all currently be hostage to ISDN protocols. calvoiper I thought Al Gore invented it. | |
|
| | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| said by pnh102 :I'll agree with you that the government doesn't really contribute much of anything good to this country... but who always foots the bill for the government? you get the govt you have, not the govt you wish you had. | |
|
| |
ShadezeRO
join:2006-04-24
Fort Lauderdale, FL | ^_^ I doubt it, but even if it were true.
I wouldn't be contributing much.
I say we get rid of all those damn FiOS users and their fancy connections....showoffs!!!!! | |
|
| 
Amadeus
Premium
join:2005-05-02
Miami, FL | Re: ^_^ Yeah i second that!!!! | |
|
GlennAllen
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Little by little... What are my ISP fees for if not to contribute to the continued maintenance and improvement of "my" little part of the Internet? Bandwidth will increase in due course because it's in the best (business) interest of those who provide it to make it do so. There are already technologies available to increase the backbone speed many times over; it'll just take the time and some money to implement them. We'll also need some new and improved protocols. ("...and then SkyNet became active")
--
Wherever you go, there you are. | |
|
| flankspeed8
join:2001-07-20
Saint Paul, MN
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Little by little... I agree. Keep the government out of it. This is why I pay my ISP $40 a month and my wireless provider $50 a month for net access. They are the ones who need to pay. Along with the VOIP providers, content delivery people (IP VOD, streaming TV, etc.). | |
|
| | 
nfixit2004
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Brooklyn, NY | Re: Little by little... let the government finally spend some money in this country! we pay taxes on everything | |
|
| | | 
Rogue Wolf
Drank Your Milkshake- He Drank It Up
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Little by little... This would leave one of two choices:
1) Currently-collected tax money would be diverted from some politician's "pet project"
2) New taxes would be imposed, or current taxes would be raised
Which do you think more likely? I'm not interested in paying for your Internet, nor should you be interested in paying for mine.
--
Let not the Demon in your thoughts.
Let not the Demon in your dreams.
Lest you should awake one morn,
And find the Demon within thee. | |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Keep the Government Out Schmidt thinks the government should pay more of the rising infrastructure costs. We don't want the government responsible for the networks in the US. The bureaucracy and bloat that will be paid for by the taxpayers will not benefit the users.Moran likened the current situation to a "Tragedy of the Commons" where there's a reluctance to invest more in the Internet because no one owns it. That's not true. The backbone owners invest in their infrastructure and will continue to do so as the need arises. | |
|
| iluv2fish
join:2007-03-04
Cape Coral, FL | Re: Keep the Government Out I have to agree. If the government gets its hands in there...it won't be long before an internet tax takes place to pay for their service.
Thanks, but no thanks. | |
|
dslwanter
Why would I want DSL? I have FTTH
Premium
join:2002-12-16
Lowellville, OH
·Armstrong Zoom In..
·AT&T Midwest
| It could be Just like everything else the internet is constantly being added upon. Just remember the black out in August of 2003 that left many places dark for several hours. It wasn't until after that we heard of ideas of "re-drawing" the power grid, sadly we don't hear anything else about that now and probably won't until it happens again. We keep adding and adding and do nothing to ease the burden of addition.
But no action will be taken until it actually happens.
--
"You're as worthless as a screen door on a submarine!" Check out my Internet Radio Station & DJ Service, »www.thebomb102.com. | |
|
JazzJRabbit
join:2003-09-27
Wheaton, IL | Oh no... A consulting and outsourcing company says we need to rebuild something that already works perfectly. Who could have seen that coming? | |
|
raye
Premium
join:2000-08-14
Orange, CA
| It will depend on your provider Those cable companies that have not been diligent in upgrading their networks to support more downstream AND upstream (that means you Roadadelphia in soCal). will suffer IMHO, as at&t and Verizon expand. Both bells own two of the largest IP backbones in the world, so they should have little trouble allocating bandwidth. The cable cos lease bandwidth from companies such as theirs, although some cable cos like Time Warner and Cox have their own extensive fiber networks.
But the customer hubs are key. If they become oversubscribed, then the Internet will slow down for some. But their is PLENTY of excess bandwidth/fiber avaiable at the backbone level. | |
|
| 
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26 | Re: It will depend on your provider
Hold on to your asses and ypur wallets. The push for full control has begun. | |
|
| | 
dv
What was that?
Premium
join:2005-04-19
Goleta, CA | Re: It will depend on your provider i agree, in some aspects - but still it comes down to un-backed FUD by the providers. The bandwidth is there - they just don't want to take the risk of making less of a ridiculous profit to grab it for the customers. | |
|
Joseph327
join:2006-02-03
Jacksonville, FL
1 edit |  Internet Slow Down?
| |
|
| 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Internet Slow Down? said by Joseph327 :I don't believe any such rubbish that comes out of UCLA or any other organization of their kind. Did you go to USC?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | Joseph327
join:2006-02-03
Jacksonville, FL | Re: Internet Slow Down? Kirk to Enterprise, one to beam up. | |
|
Pashune
Inhaling at 410 KB per sec.
Premium
join:2006-04-14
Gautier, MS | Dark, unlit fiber ..You know, there is a lot of dark fiber just laying around all over the country. | |
|
| tbaker397
join:2004-07-19
Berlin, PA | Re: Dark, unlit fiber Well in that case, lets go get a flash light and light it up:-D | |
|
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| It's not necessarily about the fiber. It's about what connects to the fiber. Fiber is relatively inexpensive. When it's already been laid, adding more isn't a big problem. The equipment on the end is the expensive part and the part that must routinely be upgraded to meet demand. | |
|
| |
MrMoody
Liberal Capitalist
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | Shortage How do you increase the price of a commodity? Stage a shortage! | |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs: | NO way. Net neutrality will save us all from sticky tubes. | |
|
|
|
|
Will 2007 Be The Year The Internet Slows Down?
