 
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
| Waste This must have taken millions of dollars and thousands of hours to implement. Project managers, sys admins, developers, 10 layers of management, servers, firewalls, routers, bandwidth etc. etc.
...all for a project that no one will give a shit about and that at&t will kill off eventually because it isn't producing revenue.
Instead, they could have used those resources towards a true next-generation solution for their crappy 100-year old copper-based network.
...but this would have required at&t to make...whatchmacallit...a GOOD decision. 
--
»www.VoIPTrunk.com | |
|  | 
Laughing Man
Stand Alone Complex
Premium
join:2008-03-17
Louisville, KY
clubs:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Waste said by kapil  :This must have taken millions of dollars and thousands of hours to implement. Project managers, sys admins, developers, 10 layers of management, servers, firewalls, routers, bandwidth etc. etc. Not to mention that they didn't even include FOX on their network list (where the majority of the shows I watch are).
--
WARNING: This user does not listen to political drivel. Any attempts to communicate political drivel to this user will be rightfully ignored. | |
| | | OmagicQ
join:2003-10-23
Bakersfield, CA | Re: Waste It looks like it just HULU rebranded. | |
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Nothing Wrong With Being a Pipe and Content Provider I don't understand the continued distaste towards ISPs that desire to distribute content as an additional revenue stream. As long as the ISPs provide a sound and stable network and a level playing field for everyone, why should they not be allowed to use it to distribute their own content as well? Consumers still have choices and nothing is being rammed down their throats. | |
| | 
Sabre
Di relung hatiku bernyanyi bidadari
join:2005-05-17
 ·Comcast
| Re: Nothing Wrong With Being a Pipe and Content Provider said by openbox9 :As long as the ISPs provide ... a level playing field for everyone That's the big rider. There have been a lot of arguments that the ISPs are not providing that.
--
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world.
Save American Soccer - Stop the MLS! | |
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Nothing Wrong With Being a Pipe and Content Provider said by Sabre :There have been a lot of arguments that the ISPs are not providing that. And where has it been proved to be so? | |
| | | |
Sabre
Di relung hatiku bernyanyi bidadari
join:2005-05-17 | Re: Nothing Wrong With Being a Pipe and Content Provider Proved? Oh, I have no idea if it has or not. I honestly haven't been following this debate close enough to have a firm opinion one way or the other. But I'm sure that others on this board who pay more attention than me will chime in. | |
| | | | | sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH | Re: Nothing Wrong With Being a Pipe and Content Provider No, not really. Openbox has been here for far too long to rationally believe nothing has been demonstrated.
At this point it's probably better to just ignore his bait. | |
| | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Re: Nothing Wrong With Being a Pipe and Content Provider Or a better idea is to actually present your argument. Failing to do so only decays your position. | |
| | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Re: Nothing Wrong With Being a Pipe and Content Provider And once again, where has this happened? | |
| | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | Re: Nothing Wrong With Being a Pipe and Content Provider Heard of this little company called Time Warner Cable?
Before you say "that was overrulled", they're launching a "customer education" campaign on the down-low to effectively marginalize any content that isn't theirs. | |
| | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Re: Nothing Wrong With Being a Pipe and Content Provider If it happens, which I don't believe such a drastic plan will ever come to fruition, then we can revisit. Until then, consumers voiced their concern and won....just like the process should work. | |
| 
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ |  Remember when ISPs just concentrated on running networks?
| |
| | 
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: Remember when ISPs just concentrated on running networks? said by TKJunkMail :And when was that? The first ISPs were Compuserve, Prodigy, Aol, etc that were all about delivering content. None of those were ISPs because that stands for INTERNET service provider. They only slowly allowed access to outside content much later in their careers and it destroyed them, because they tried to wall their customers in.
The difference here, is that if the cable companies and your ILEC decide to wall you in, where do you go? | |
| | |
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: Remember when ISPs just concentrated on running networks? said by Matt :said by TKJunkMail :And when was that? The first ISPs were Compuserve, Prodigy, Aol, etc that were all about delivering content. None of those were ISPs because that stands for INTERNET service provider. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_s···provider
An Internet service provider (ISP, also called Internet access provider, or IAP) is a company that offers its customers access to the Internet. The ISP connects to its customers using a data transmission technology appropriate for delivering Internet Protocol datagrams, such as dial-up, DSL, cable modem, wireless or dedicated high-speed interconnects. They all qualified under this definition.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | |
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: Remember when ISPs just concentrated on running networks? said by TKJunkMail :said by Matt :said by TKJunkMail :And when was that? The first ISPs were Compuserve, Prodigy, Aol, etc that were all about delivering content. None of those were ISPs because that stands for INTERNET service provider. » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_s···providerAn Internet service provider (ISP, also called Internet access provider, or IAP) is a company that offers its customers access to the Internet. The ISP connects to its customers using a data transmission technology appropriate for delivering Internet Protocol datagrams, such as dial-up, DSL, cable modem, wireless or dedicated high-speed interconnects. They all qualified under this definition. AOL didn't add full internet access until 1995 or later. There were a myriad of true ISPs, like Earthlink, so AOL/Compuserve, etc were not the first ISPs. They showed that trying to wall in your customers to your content alone doesn't work.
If AT&T et al want to deliver content and internet connectivity, they should be forced to separate the businesses, as it's a clear conflict of interest. | |
| | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Remember when ISPs just concentrated on running networks? said by Matt :If AT&T et al want to deliver content and internet connectivity, they should be forced to separate the businesses, as it's a clear conflict of interest. How so? What is the conflict of interest? Are you worried that AT&T will cutoff or degrade your access to content other than AT&T provided/approved content? I'm truly trying to understand the concern. Personally, I could careless if my ISP provides content. I may or may not access the material. As long as it doesn't drive price increases for my access, bring it on. | |
| | | | | |
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: Remember when ISPs just concentrated on running networks? said by openbox9 :said by Matt :If AT&T et al want to deliver content and internet connectivity, they should be forced to separate the businesses, as it's a clear conflict of interest. How so? What is the conflict of interest? Are you worried that AT&T will cutoff or degrade your access to content other than AT&T provided/approved content? I'm truly trying to understand the concern. Personally, I could careless if my ISP provides content. I may or may not access the material. As long as it doesn't drive price increases for my access, bring it on. Yes. As evidenced by their refusal to allow almost all video streaming apps on the iPhone, but will happily allow their U-Verse app to do it. Their past desire to "tier" the internet and allow additional bandwidth for content providers that paid them while relegating other content providers to slower speeds notwithstanding. | |
| | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Remember when ISPs just concentrated on running networks? said by Matt :Yes. As evidenced by their refusal to allow almost all video streaming apps on the iPhone, but will happily allow their U-Verse app to do it. The U-Verse iPhone app streams video content?said by Matt :Their past desire to "tier" the internet and allow additional bandwidth for content providers that paid them while relegating other content providers to slower speeds notwithstanding. And whatever came from that? | |
| | | | | | 
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
·Cingular Wireless
·Verizon Online DSL
| I sincerely hope you aren't as naive as to believe that the ISP portals will stay here.... this is just the start.
It's not that hard to understand..... my ISP provides me with a pipe to access various content, be it videos or music, or web pages/downloads on the internet, provided by various parties. When my ISP starts providing their own (possibly ad-supported and revenue-earning) content service, it is only a matter of time before they attempt to give me "incentive" (you KNOW what I mean here....) to go only to THEIR content portal instead of their competitors' portal(s). That is bad, and purely anticompetitive. Next thing you know, ISP's will come up with creative ways to create "tiers" of internet access, with premium packages including access to things we take for granted these days. It's back to the square one of an AOL "intranet", except this time it's delivered to you over broadband, complete with low caps and outrageous overages....
Would you settle for this deal? Of course, this isn't happening from day one. Today AT&T has implemented their own video portal, and the sun still sets and the world has not ended.... yet. It's only a matter of time before more onerous things start to happen. I have no problems with ISP's looking for additional revenue streams. However, this particular route is almost immediately indicative of a VERY possible conflict of interest that challenges the ISP's role of a dumb pipe.
-a333
--
Physics: Will you break the laws of physics, or will the laws of physics break you?
If physicists stand on each other's shoulders, computer scientists stand on each other's toes, and computer programmers dig each other's graves. | |
| | | | | 
tphillips
Premium
join:2009-02-04
Apopka, FL
1 edit | OK,
What is the first ISP you remember. I used MCI and UUNET. The MCI package came in this big box with, if I remember properly a bunch of floppys. So I would say they were my first ISP. I never used AOL. I did use Genie back in the day but that wsan't the Internet not yet anyway. I know its off topic..sorry.
T. | |
| | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
·Comcast
·Qwest.net
 ·magicjack.com
·BeeCreek Communica..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Re: Remember when ISPs just concentrated on running networks? First dialup provider (not internet) was Juno. E-mail only. Then we decided we wanted internet service. Tried NetZero, didn't work at the time (this was back when they were different companies, circa 1996).
Then we hopped onto the local telephone cooperative''s network. Full internet access. Ten hours a month I think, or maybe it was more. That was back before I had my own email address (that came in late 2001). Parents had an @hctc.et email.
Then we switched (for some reason, probably cost) to OmniGlobal. Another local dialup ISP. AOL doesn't work so well when your ILEC is a telephone cooperative with a ridiculously small local calling area. Phone service was good though...just had to use a calling card for long idstance. I remember my parents being really hapy about the "ZipDial" feature of OneSuite so we could just dial their 1-800 number and connect without having to enter a PIN. I think I actually set that up.
When we moved (2002) we switched to what was the local dialup ISP in the area, Kerrville Telephone Company. They had a presence in town as a DLEC, though Verizon was (and is) the telephone company. Ten hours, ten dollars. At that point I started using a lot of interwebs and we ended up a few times with a $35 or so dialup bill. Parents called me in one night and said that that had to stop. FWIW, KTC is now part of Windstream.
So we switched to TOAST.net, who resells various dialup providers access across the country. Once again, the phone number we dialed was to a semi-local (Texas) network. Connection was a bit slower (32k I think vs. 41.2-42.6) but $12.95 (and later $9.95) for unlimited access sure beats $9.95 for ten hours.
Then we switched to wireless internet. I don't say broadband because it still isn't 768k down.
So, in sum, we never once used an internet provider that also tried to be a content provider. Was always some sort of telephone company or an "on purpose" ISP.
Now I'm using Comcast cable at my apartment. Parents are still using a provider that does nothing but (unreliable) internet. All I use Comcast for is a pipe to the interwebs. For all I care, they could shut down their TV service, their VoIP service, their e-mail service, their free web space and their branded home page and I'd be perfectly fine... | |
| | | |
|
|
AT&T Launches New Video Portal