 
Jafo232
You Can't Spell Democrat Without Rat.
Premium
join:2002-10-17
Boonville, NY
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Ok.. Whenever a company like this says "beneficial to customers", you have to be worried. That is usually a code for "We are about to screw the customer when he/she is not looking"..
--
Design, Hosting, Programming At MediaFlavor.com. | |
|
 | valuepac0
join:2001-05-30
Santa Monica, CA | Re: Ok.. Where my fiber to the curb... | |
|
| | 
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
 ·AT&T Southwest
4 edits | Re: Ok.. Great...by this logic AT&T should share some of their extra profits thus obtained with the local electric companies -- without whom they could not function as well (or maybe a 2 tier electricity grid...)
AT&T is damm lucky that Google is out-there -- inducing us to rent DSL lines -- at no cost to AT&T! This plan is blantantly anti-competitive unless they also charge their YAHOO partners as well. | |
|
| | | 
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| Re: Ok.. said by ronpin  :Great...by this logic AT&T should share some of their extra profits thus obtained with the local electric companies -- without whom they could not function as well (or maybe a 2 tier electricity grid...) Bad example. You pay for how much electricity you use by the watt. You pay a flat fee for internet access, regardless of how much you use it. | |
|
| | | | 
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26 | Re: Ok..
You pay for electric service based on how many KILOWATT HOURS (a draw of 1,000watts for one hour, or equibvalent)you use per month. usually in the range of 9-14 cents per KWH. | |
|
| | | | | 
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| Re: Ok.. Your argument is flawed.
Electricity costs money to produce. A bit of data costs nothing to produce, it only costs money to transport. It's known as a temporal asset. It costs the same to run at 1mb/sec as it does for 100mb/sec, given that all other things are equal. The objective of the transporter (comcast/verizon/etc) is to run as close to 100% capacity as possible (aka use every airline seats), since there is no UNIT cost (electricity production) to maximize profits.
If you check your electric bill, you pay for the transport (internet access) and the usage (production).
Comcrap/Verizon/Etc are trying to double dip, since they currently only get to charge for the 'transport', and want to now get a chunk of the 'production'. Greed, pure and simple, and it WOULD NEVER WORK unless it was a monopoly. I, for one, look forward to the day when my locally elected official seizes the assets of comcast and verizon under eminent domain. | |
|
| | | | | | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Ok.. Seizing commiecast of VZ (including VZW) would be a nice start.
These companies want to take control of your connection to throttle any thing that doesn't pay them toll, or isn't a 'Content partner - i.e. Yahoo/SBC(at&t)'
The flaw with that is we (the customers) pay for access to the Internet - with no restrictions to a specific vendor (i.e. Google) vs. their content partner.
While I do agree that there are limits - i.e. SBC/Yahoo back bone set up to handle OC-48 traffic, and say an online gaming service (or video streaming service) has an OC-192 backbone, it could be conceived as 'throttling', Company A asking Company B to assist in paying for extra capacity. I can see that as a reasonable request. What I don't see as being reasonable is packet shaping technology to filter specific ports/applications down to less than the users pipe size. | |
|
| | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| said by G_Poobah :Comcrap/Verizon/Etc are trying to double dip, since they currently only get to charge for the 'transport', and want to now get a chunk of the 'production'. Do you even bother to do your homework before you rant? ... ever?
When did Comcast get drug into a conversation about AT&T and their double dipping?
Eminent domain? if you want a socialist society, there are pleanty of them out there - please, choose one. | |
|
| | | |
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana | ...don't give AT&T any "ideas" | |
|
| | | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| said by footballdude :Bad example. You pay for how much electricity you use by the watt. You pay a flat fee for internet access, regardless of how much you use it. Not totally true, I have paid a 'service fee' + the KW usage for my electric for a long time. With my AT&T LD I pay a set rate, and if I call over a certain number of minutes, then I pay extra. My ISP is a flat rate up to 100 gigabytes/month, any more and I get dinged (not that I come close to using that much).
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|
| | | | 
AndyWarhol
Premium
join:2004-03-14
Broken Arrow, OK
clubs:
1 edit | Not entirely true, if you are under contract with an ISP or a webhosting company, you are allowed a certain amount of information per month and are charged for every bit you exceed your limit, even residential customers are subject to this limit (we all know that bandwidth caps exist in our residential contracts, but they are rarely enforced so we tend to forget about them), but ISPs don't care about residential customers because the margin they earn on them is nowhere near what they earn from business customers. If you can get 100,000 residential customers for $10 a month or 10 customers for $100,000 a month, which would you choose?
Edit: this also proved that they are not attempting to double dip, they are attempting to triple dip. Most domain names are already paying for a certain amount of traffic to their site, and all customers are already paying for their access to that site, so now charging the owners of those domain names not only for the traffic to their site but also for the traffic that passes through any certain network is triple, quadruple, quintuple dipping from the same pot. | |
|
| | 
99664227
Heavily MODerated
Premium
join:2002-11-21
USA
| said by valuepac0 :Where my fiber to the curb... Verizon dug up my yard today with that foot thick orange cable.:D
--
Life ain't nothing but bitches and cake! | |
|
| | 
Jigsaw
Stardust We Are
Premium
join:2000-10-21
Cleveland, OH
·Cox HSI
| said by valuepac0 :Where my fiber to the curb... Its on the curb:p
--
»www.auralmoon.com/html/ Open your mind and your ears. | |
|
| |
| | 
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| Re: Here is the reality and not the fantasy AT&T besides being a distributor of content is ALSO going to be a provider of content.
And when they are the provider, they are going to make sure that content is delivered with the BEST quality of service possible. Even if they have to spend extra money on infrastructure to make that possible.
And other providers will get the standard old best effort internet non-optimized delivery vehicle. UNLESS ... they also pay extra to get on the optimized path too.
Maybe you should tell the AT&T CEO about your plan, because he didn't specify any "non-optimized" outlet for google. He said "since people use our bandwidth for you instead of us because you have a superior service, we'd like to charge you money rather than beat your service."
And can you explain the engineering behind such "optimized" information delivery. Whatever would that mean? | |
|
| | | 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: Here is the reality and not the fantasy said by broadbander :And can you explain the engineering behind such "optimized" information delivery. Whatever would that mean? Best explained by an example. Comcast built it's own nationwide fiber backbone to interconnect all its locations to keep traffic off of the regular internet. The 1st product using that exclusively is their Comcast Digital Voice(voip) product. They also plan on using that backbone to get into video delivery(IPTV) as well. I suspect that other content providers desiring the Quality of Service that backbone provides will need to fork money over to Comcast for that privilege.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page | |
|
| | |
| | |
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
| Re: Here is the reality and not the fantasy
Interestingly enough, I had a problem with my SBC/AT&T DSL which turned out to be the modem. However, during the conversation, while the tech was testing the line (next day in home service, by the way), he made a comment about my DSL line being 294 feet long and that my current service was only using 12% of the capability of the line.
How could this be? I'm definately not that close to the switch. Apparently, it's because I am that distance from a node of some kind. This seems to tie in with my having seen SBC putting in large fiber cables under the main avenue a few months back, as well as in other places over time.
In all the blathering about SBC/AT&T, has it ever occurred to anyone that SBC HAS been upgrading their infrastructure, quietly, over time?
Oh, and by the way, it seems that SBC DSL is provided by a outfit called ASI (Advanced Solutions Inc), which, from what I was told, is a subsidiary of SBC, but, because of FCC regulations, operates independently. Go figure. | |
|
| | | | 
aztecnology
O Rly?
Premium
join:2003-02-12
Murrieta, CA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Here is the reality and not the fantasy said by Fatal Vector :Oh, and by the way, it seems that SBC DSL is provided by a outfit called ASI (Advanced Solutions Inc), which, from what I was told, is a subsidiary of SBC, but, because of FCC regulations, operates independently. Go figure. SBC was required to spin its DSL operations into a separate company, ASI, back around 2001. This past year ASI moved back to SBC/ATT, though the group is still called ASI...
--
.:|:. "Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that always come in legions." John Callari .:|:. | |
|
| | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Here is the reality and not the fantasy ASI has existed since 1997 or abouts. It's been around as long as DSL for Pacific Bell has been. (pre SBC) There was never a "spin off" - it's always been. Being the first customer in Sacramento to have DSL installed (news cameras and papers present for install) I learned this long ago.
Yes, it's because of the regulatory demand. | |
|
| | |
AndyWarhol
Premium
join:2004-03-14
Broken Arrow, OK
clubs: | exactly, you must at some point try to beat the competition by upgrading. Then again they might just try to lower their prices and become an in-between dial-up and fast broadband. | |
|
| | 
Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting
| Your argument is completely and wholly bogus.
You've created a complete false reality argument, where your reader must accept that if this system is opposed by a functional regulatory authority, there will be no deployment. It's the same red herring carrot/stick that's been foisted on Internet debate by think tank drones for a quarter century. It's false.
For one, if the telcos do not invest in network upgrades they will be beaten stupid by wireless, cable, and muni-alternatives, so investment must happen regardless.
Second, prices will not automatically go up if this system is opposed, that's another red herring. If anything, competition between services will force telcos to lower prices for said services.... | |
|
| | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| Re: Here is the reality and not the fantasy For one, if the telcos do not invest in network upgrades they will be beaten stupid by wireless, cable, and muni-alternatives, so investment must happen regardless.
Aw! But that's when the telcos AREN'T against regulation! When it impedes those who might stand up against their refusal to deploy, then regulation is doing its job. All other times, oh no no. | |
|
| | 
stickfigure
join:2002-06-11
El Cajon, CA
| said by GOLFnSUN :The option everyone wants can NOT happen. And that is an enhanced infrastructure paid for only by the ISPs with no increase in costs to the customer. Investors of the ISPs will not support that option. So how is it that an ISP such as AT&T (SBC at the time) offer 1.5-6mbps DSL for $299.00 per month a couple years ago and after having invested in enhanced infrastructure (fiber and more RT's) now offer the same service for around $69.99 per month? Because that sounds to me like they were the only one investing in their infrastructure and they weren't raising the costs of DSL to cover it. In fact the residential DSL costs have typically been reduced as more has been invested into the network.
What SHOULD happen and what has been happening until this crap... is ISP's continue to come out with faster and faster services. If I'm a customer who wants to have "THE" fastest service I know I'm going to have to pay more for it while it is considered "the best". But this would be the same thing if I wanted the latest and greatest technology (ie blue ray DVD writer's). At first it's going to be expensive but as time progresses costs decrease. | |
|
| | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Before we go further, we have to distinguish between additional loads caused by A) additional subscribers and B) higher, more intense usage of bandwidth by the average subscriber.
"A"--additional subscribers--shouldn't be any economic problem for the ISPs, unless they are improperly pricing their existing services under cost now (which some have claimed the Baby Bells are doing with DSL). With more customers, they at least gain some economies of scale.
"B"--increased individual usage--is the issue. All "shared" or "concentrated" facilities will need to be expanded, resulting in increased cost on a "per customer" basis, as average usage increases through heavier bandwidth occupancy caused by streaming video, more extensive downloads, etc.
Now, to deal with the fallout:
said by GOLFnSUN :... If government steps in and tries to forbid the so-called 2 tier system, then 1 of 2 things would happen: 1) the ISPs will not spend their money to upgrade infrastructure to handle the new products(video, etc.) at all. So everyone suffers. OR 2) the ISPs will upgrade the infrastructure to support all comers and the PRICE to their customers goes up accordingly. ... Ooops. You left out (or improperly crammed into option 2) the third option, which is that ISPs will raise prices only to the heavier users, i.e., those that are streaming video and downloading all the time. (Those of us who only read and write text don't add much load to the shared facilities at all.) I.e., option 3 is that we'll see some sort of "per-byte" pricing.
said by GOLFnSUN :... The option everyone wants can NOT happen. And that is an enhanced infrastructure paid for only by the ISPs with no increase in costs to the customer. Investors of the ISPs will not support that option. Again, with a "per-byte" pricing structure, the infrastructure improvements necessary will be paid for by those heavy users that make them necessary.
Now, it appears that the Baby Bells, so long dependent on "access" pricing they charged to long distance carriers, and now trying to extract that money stream from the content providers, rather than legitimately raising it from their own customers. This approach is indirect and inaccurate--and only really works for monopolies.
(Previously litigated example: Microsoft charges manufacturers, rather than end users, for Internet Explorer. This is not only easier for Microsoft, it avoids the necessity of having to compete at the end user level for browser customers. Likewise, if the Baby Bells can extort "transit" fees from the content providers, they can avoid charging proper end user prices and thereby avoid competing at the end user level for customers. They will have effectively used their size to force Google (and hence, all of Google's end users) to subsidize the Baby Bell DSL, just as Microsoft forced manufacturers and their customers to subsidize IE. As Netscape found out, smaller players without the "heft" to engage in industry-wide extortion then get squeezed out of the picture, and the user community loses both the price and product differentiation benefits of having competing products.)
Competition depends on the cost-causer (in this case, the intense user who is downloading and streaming a lot) bearing their own costs. To the extent these costs are hidden elsewhere, true competition is stifled.
It's as if you opened the electric network to competition for generation capacity, but told the competitors that they couldn't meter the electricity. There's then effectively no way for real competition to develop.
The real danger is that the user community will embrace the "hidden" cost model (i.e., the 2-tier system for content providers) to avoid "per byte" pricing--and we'll be stuck with monopoly pricing models for years, much to the delight of the Baby Bells.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | |
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ | Re: The true economics of increased usage Excellent analysis. I wonder if they can get customers to buy in to the per byte model? | |
|
| | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: The true economics of increased usage It's possible to use a "carrot" approach and get the lighter users onto a "per unit" pricing plan, but to see full economic implementation it usually takes a "stick" of some sort to force the heavy users over, either by capping (essentially eliminating) "unlimited use" plans, or by raising (or, if prices are falling, failing to drop) prices for unlimited use.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| GnS, I have to disagree with you on this one, for once.
The likes of AT&T and such are providing INTERNET ACCESS.
If they want to be the deliverer of content as well, they need to sell themselves as in the days of AOL 4.5. Online service first with access to the "internet" second. Many people are not going to go for this since what they have purcahsed is HIGH SPEED INTERNET.
AT&T, and the likes, are a day late and a dollar short of getting into the game. Show me one major ISP that, until recently, had anything to offer on their own until recently. The major ISPs have always had the worst portals in the industry.
Now, they are poppin up and wanting to increase and enhance their own offersings and want to be the ones to turn to for the content because they are just now waking up to the fact that there is not only money in the transport, but content as well.
I don't buy Comcast or Qwest for their information. I have purchased their pipes to get me onto the NET.
If they want to make sure their "CORE" services of Video, and Telephone are able to make it to the home, they can certainly do that by splitting their services down different channels, pipes, or frequencies. Cable is already doing this and so is telephone as DSL and Voice run on different frequencies.
The bottom line is that they are looking simply for more places to make income. What ultimately is happening here is the same thing that is happening in the housing markets. The hosing market was was so sucked dry of cash that many houses are now out of the price range of many people - and rentals are also going up. Come late 06 or easly 07 we are heading back into another TRUE recession.
The internet is going to head the same way. They are going to drive the prices up everywhere they can that internet is going to become a loss in providing it that they will not be able to enhance it or less people will buy it period. They are too busy sucking cash from every source in their quest for world domination that they will eventually drive the internet into the ground.
The only way that the internet can and will exist and survive is for them to simply leave it alone. It's not broke and it doesn't need fixing. Yes, the government will step in, but I think it will be to knock this B.S. off.
I have problems with companies that look within' their currnet products and services to make more money from it first instead of looking outside by creating new new product offerings. To me, this tells me that they having nothing new on the horizon or they don't plan on upgrading anything they have.
AT&T (SBC) is VERY good and making empty promises and never delivering. I thought vapor-ware was a short sting when Bill Gates pre-microsoft days with DOS. | |
|
| 
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Re: Ok.. said by Jafo232 :Whenever a company like this says "beneficial to customers", you have to be worried. That is usually a code for "We are about to screw the customer when he/she is not looking".. Reminds me of the old joke, "What's Yiddish for 'f*ck you'?"
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
|
| | 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Re: Ok.. Why say "f*ck you" in Yiddish when you can use one of the more colorful curses?
»www.yiddishradioproject.org/exhi···hp3?pg=1
Number 29 seems appropriate for the Telecos should they implement their plan:
A groys gesheft zol er hobn mit shroyre: vus er hot, zol men bay im nit fregn, un vos men fregt zol er nisht hobn.
He should have a large store, and whatever people ask for he shouldn’t have, and what he does have shouldn’t be requested.
;););)
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com | |
|
| | |
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Re: Ok.. said by Jason Levine :Why say "f*ck you" in Yiddish when you can use one of the more colorful curses? Because the answer to the joke's question is "trust me". Which is appropos of telcos proposing things that are "in the best interest of consumers".
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
|
| 
CableConvert
Premium
join:2003-12-05
Atlanta, GA | Unfortunately...we are looking, and we will still get screwed | |
|
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| said by Jafo232 :Whenever a company like this says "beneficial to customers", you have to be worried. That is usually a code for "We are about to screw the customer when he/she is not looking".. This time it's different. They're already screwing their customers and now they're looking to screw every company/web site/service on the Internet even if said company/web site/service isn't their customer.
Hey, wait. Maybe that's the "beneficial to customers" part. Maybe it really means "if we're too busy screwing all of the companies/web sites/services on the Internet, we'll have less time to screw you, our customers." 
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com | |
|
pumpkinhead7
join:2002-06-14
Fairmont, WV | This is stupid ISP's need to realise that they are an onramp to the information highway. No more and no less. Does mcdonalds pay more to the gov since we use the roads to get there?
I'll just add att to the ever growing list of companies i am boycotting. | |
|
|
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| Re: This is stupid said by pumpkinhead7 :Does mcdonalds pay more to the gov since we use the roads to get there? Yes. They are expected to collect and then pay sales tax, which will be used to maintain the roads. The more customers that drive to McDonalds, the more they pay. | |
|
| |
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
| Re: This is stupid
Actually, in most places, Gasoline taxes are used to repair roads, at least state and federal roads. Sales taxes are state taxes. The feds kick in money to the state from federal gas taxes (which is what the fed gas tax is for) The local communities use property taxes
Currently, you are paying about 39 cents per gallon in taxes. | |
|
| | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: This is stupid Yes, and gasoline taxes to support roads work because we have a (government) monopoly on building roads.
To the extent we let large ISPs extract a "content tax" to support their operations, we'll then have an ISP monopoly (or duopoly) consisting of those ISPs large enough to extort these payments from content providers.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| Deathsadvoca
join:2003-08-20
South Lyon, MI
clubs: | Yeah i totally agree with you, I ALREADY PAY them for a connection why should someone else have to pay to get content to me? I call that double dipping.
Also there is a spelling mistake in the article, broadband isnt spelled "broadfband " | |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| WRONG!! This "arrangement" they are talking about is ONLY beneficial to them. It gives absolutely zero added value to the other parties. AT&T (or rather SBC) just wants to double dip companies that are making more than they are. Companies already pay for the bandwidth they use so there is nothing there are no free rides that SBC might like us to think is happening. Customers are already paying for the bandwidth also so in theory these Bells are already getting money from both ends.
If you ask me going multi-tier is likened to extortion, and should be treated as such by the courts... considering how little the FCC seems to mind about such tactics. | |
|
freethenet
@shawcable.net | Gov't watchdogs are needed This is DEFINITELY something the FCC or some other powerful gov't watchdog needs to get involved in. Someone has to keep an eye on these buffons! | |
|
|
AndyWarhol
Premium
join:2004-03-14
Broken Arrow, OK
clubs:
| Re: Gov't watchdogs are needed I hope that you don't go around spreading your ideas here. Bigger government and more regulation is not the answer. First of all, they have the FCC in their back pockets, second the only way to really hurt a corporation is to 1. Regulate them out of existence (but seeing as how the FCC is favorable to them, this will NOT happen) and 2. To refuse to give them any money, a boycott. | |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | hmmmmm.... this is just one of the reasons why we are lagging behind other countries in affordable high speed broadband....
--
BlooMe | |
|
deadzoned
Premium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA | Well Damn The begining of the end in progress... | |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| They WILL Have to Block Access To Make This Work If customers don't notice the hobbled access to websites like Google, Yahoo, or worsened performance with VoIP providers, then those providers won't be inclined to pay the extortion fee to access AT&T's victims customers.
The only way content providers would be in any way forced to pay such fees would be for AT&T to block their customers from accessing these sites. Of course, this doesn't stop AT&T's customers from switching ISPs.
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! | |
|
|
AndyWarhol
Premium
join:2004-03-14
Broken Arrow, OK
clubs:
1 edit | Re: They WILL Have to Block Access To Make This Work Odds are that most people will notice. Don't you notice when a website gets whorred with traffic at about 5:30 PM everyday? The cause of the slowdown wouldn't be the same but the effect would be the same. If you give spam (usually the lowest priority on any network) a higher priority than a website, the performance will be adversely affected. Unfortunately, few people complain when their broadband is taking forever and a half to load a page, and even those that do are going to be dicked around by customer service until they stop trying.
Edit: They do complain when their connection is completely lost though. Trust me, it took me forever to convince my parents to call a few times because their connection speed was slow as molasses but the second they lose the connection they are already on the phone. 9 times out of 10 I call about problems before they do. | |
|
deadzoned
Premium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA | ?? How will this even work? Seems like a pretty major task to undertake. I suppose that big money will do anything it takes to make more money. | |
|
|
AndyWarhol
Premium
join:2004-03-14
Broken Arrow, OK
clubs:
| Re: ?? It is not a major task at all, traffic shaping and deprioritizing traffic over networks is as simple as changing some router/firewall configurations. Some will use software traffic shaping on 1+ of their servers, meaning that the GUI interface makes it even more simple. | |
|
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
 ·VOIPo
| I like this part... “However, the reality is that business models are changing and I think there are opportunities..."
Yeah, opportunities for you to screw everyone over more and line your already filthy rich pockets you scum bag!!!
--
FWD#: 223611 | |
|
|
AndyWarhol
Premium
join:2004-03-14
Broken Arrow, OK
clubs: | Re: I like this part... And not only screw everyone over more, but also more thoroughly and more efficiently! Doesn't that sound great?! | |
|
verolom
join:2002-03-23
Eagleville, PA
·Comcast
| Blah This is the SBC part of the new company talking. The former AT&T as a CLEC and LD provider used to scream "bloody murder" at the access fees the ILECs (incl. SBC) were charging for completing calls on both legs, sometimes exceeding the 7 cents it was getting from the consumer.
In short, this is ridiculous and a reason why we need a functional and impartial FCC. | |
|
XBL2009
------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL | Greedy Bastards They already make Billions per year in profit and charge us for the service and now they want to charge the places were going as well.
If I were Google and Microsoft I would object to this. | |
|
fegul
Premium
join:2004-08-23
united state
| Wait a minute... So they are threatening to throttle connections to google because their customers like it so much?
Why dont they threaten Yahoo?
Or maybe Newegg?
Or maybe AskJeeves?
Or maybe DSLreports??
Or maybe it could eventually get down to charging me not only for my hosting provider, but every damn person that visits my site?
Fsck that.
--
|Networking Help|My Blog|Fegul.com| | |
|
| 
DrewCapu
Giant Diehard
join:2001-12-19
California
clubs:
| Re: Wait a minute... said by fegul :Or maybe DSLreports?? Because it could possibly affect »/forum/sbcdirect | |
|
| 
Geminimind
Premium
join:2003-12-20
Sacramento, CA | at&t and yahoo are partners | |
|
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ | No Google for AT&T customers Google should stop providing service to AT&T customers.
I suspect that AT&T will STFU very quickly. | |
|
| |
| |
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| Re: No Google for AT&T customers said by EGeezer :said by jjoshua :Google should stop providing service to AT&T customers. Now THERE's a great idea - I can hear ATT's commercial site customers griping when search results are returned with ATT customers' sites on page 4486 of 10,381.. I meant that »www.google.com should return "site not found or server error".
I like your idea too but that would put Google on the same level as AT&T. | |
|
| | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: No Google for AT&T customers Actually, Google could probably accomplish more by adding just a line or two to their search page, something along the lines of, "We're sorry that your ISP, at&t, is deliberately not providing their best and fastest service to you when you access our Web offerings. You can let them know how unhappy you are by calling them at NPA/NXX-YYYY, or by changing to another Internet Service Provider."
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| Gilitar
join:2000-11-20
Mobile, AL
·AT&T Southeast
| I said the same thing when I heard about this whole deal. I think that Google should shut down service for one week to all the bells that a running their mouth. That would indeed shut them up very quickly. Maybe they don't know who they are playing with here? | |
|
| |
acyd
join:2005-06-01
Eatontown, NJ
| How the fcuk ..are you going to convince both subscribers and IP service providers like Vonage, google, packet8, etc, that making them pay more money is beneficial? I pay for internet access at a certain speed. The end. Don't make me suffer because I choose my ISP's competitor for voip, or streaming video, or whatever. It's so transparently scummy and greedy it's stunning. | |
|
majella77
join:2001-10-03
Chicago, IL
| Stupid This is more of the same stupid crap their CEO was talking about back in the fall.
Ultimately what telcos like SBC (AT&T is an unearned name upgrade) is to charge per minute the way they do on cellphones etc.
We already have almost 3rd world level service compared to the rest of the developed world (Japan and Korea are years ahead). Guess legislation by whores on Capitol Hill will ensure that the telcos get exactly what they're asking for and consumers will get screwed again. | |
|
Snakeoil
Taxes are Armed robbery.
Premium
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
| last 2 times I heard the word beneficial I ended up in the army, and getting Married. Sure At&T is looking out for its customers, and I have a bridge for sale at a real good price.
--
Say no to the IRS.. Yes to the Fair Tax! This beer is for: 464th bat. 98th div. Combat engineers. Hillside Ave schenectady NY. | |
|
| 
brooklynman4
join:2004-09-07
Brooklyn, NY | Its to good to be true I guess big bother is taking over . | |
|
| |
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26 | Re: Its to good to be true
Yes, brooklynman4. And we are watching you closely. Be carefull or you will stand accused of thoughtcrime and be punished. | |
|
AndyWarhol
Premium
join:2004-03-14
Broken Arrow, OK
clubs:
| Somehow.... ...I fail to realize how this is beneficial to BOTH companies and customers. If this were put into place: 1. Google would have to PAY AT&T for decent network performance over their network; someone explain how this is beneficial to Google in any way, shape, or form. 2. This also would mean that if Google did not pay, the customer THAT HAS ALREADY PAYED FOR ANY INFORMATION THEY SEND/RECEIVE VIA THEIR MONTHLY FEE would get horrendous responses from google's website; someone explain how this is beneficial to the customer. The whole idea is like capital gains and inheritance taxes: paying taxes twice and thrice on the SAME income that you already paid INCOME taxes on. | |
|
| underscore
join:2004-04-20
Fairfax, VA
| Re: Somehow.... It wouldn't really, and even if Google did pay the charge, they would charge more for ads, companies that used google ads would increase prices, and the costs would get passed on to you, the customer. It's simply a very indirect way to drain more money from consumers. | |
|
| chris123
join:2002-07-23
Highland, IN
| said by AndyWarhol :...I fail to realize how this is beneficial to BOTH companies and customers. If this were put into place: I agree this is a filty load of bs but I have an idea of how they are going to sell this to the public and busineses.
For years we have been looking for ways to classify traffic over the internet. Some people have had sucess at using qos at their home routers. The problem is once traffic leaves your home router its all best effort. Best effort is no good for voice traffic in most public internet cases. So for people who use voip and companies providing those services like Vonage, being able to give real time traffic priority would be worthwhile.
I don't understand the example given about google, because I would consider the bulk of their traffic to be web pages. Web pages would be considered a lower priority than say voice, but a higher priority than email. The point is non realtime traffic, like email can take an extra 10 seconds to arrive and nobody complains. Web pages are in the middle, voice traffic must have top priority in order for the quality to be good.
I don't know anything more than the average reader here regarding at&ts' intentions. I'm just drawing some conclusions and trying to make sense of what they're saying.
2 things. First this would be a valuable service to many companies and people, especially those who use Voip or Video over the public internet.
Second, it's unlikely that those people who chose not to purchase the premium bandwidth offered by att and who did not use real time apps would see a degration of performance. Those who send real time traffic over the public internet could see a degration of performance if this system were implemented.
--
see my SBC Review @ »Review of AT&T Midwest by chris123 | |
|
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| Who is he trying to kid I listened to most of that tele cast, up to the point where he talked about neutrality. In my opinion he dodged the question. He never answered to whether is is beneficial to the customer to view one site at a slower speed and view another site at a faster speed.
When I purchase an internet connection, I want to be able to view everything at the same speed. If I view different sites at different speeds then essentially I don't have a true steady broadband connection.
Another thing, at&t already is in partnership with Yahoo. You honestly think that Yahoo would allow Google to have the same speed as Yahoo? | |
|
htwnrver
join:2004-04-01
Houston, TX
| Easy fix I think google should cut sbc/att and whoever else they own off for a bit. Put a page up that will only come up for people on that ISP that says they should contact AT&T CFO Rick Lindner (with proper contact information) if they want to be able to use google. Then AT&T will have to publically apologize for this crap before google allows their customers to use it again. | |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs:
·Optimum Online
| Hmmm "Abramoff was indicted by federal prosecutors in Miami last month on unrelated charges of wire fraud and conspiracy. He remains the linchpin of an 18-month probe by a federal task force that includes the Internal Revenue Service, the Interior Department and the Justice Department's fraud and public integrity units. His lawyer did not respond to phone calls seeking comment."
Maybe they need to expand their probe to include the FCC if they haven't already..
--
Who do you want to pay off today? | |
|
|
|
|
AT&T: 2 Tier Web 'Beneficial' to Customers
Here is the reality and not the fantasy