justbitsDSL is dead. Long live DSL! Premium Member join:2003-01-08 Chicago, IL |
justbits
Premium Member
2008-Apr-18 11:04 am
Hey investors!This looks like an excellent opportunity for growth. *grin* | |
|
| DrModemTrust Your Doctor Premium Member join:2006-10-19 USA |
DrModem
Premium Member
2008-Apr-18 11:11 am
Re: Hey investors!More likely they'll just hit the "Off" switch for all their servers and go "We told ya so! Now pay us more money!" to the rest of us. | |
|
| | dks7 join:2004-05-31 Omak, WA |
dks7
Member
2008-Apr-18 11:14 am
Re: Hey investors!God knows I hate government, but the thought of private companies being able to just shut the internet off aggravates me. | |
|
| | | cdruGo Colts MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN |
cdru
MVM
2008-Apr-18 12:22 pm
Re: Hey investors!said by dks7:God knows I hate government, but the thought of private companies being able to just shut the internet off aggravates me. First of all, the Internet isn't a single network. It's many networks INTERnetworked together. No one company can just "shut it off". There are a few major players that could make life a lot slower as it may overload backup link for a period. If AT&T "shut off" it's network, the people that would be most affected by it would be their paying customers. Any datacenter worth their salt is going to have redundant links to different networks. So if AT&T's network went dark, Level3, Cogent, etc would be utilized more so most places would still be reachable. AT&T failing to meet their SLA for thier lines would result in many unhappy customers, and by unhappy I mean lawsuit unhappy. Plus, most of the companies that provide the major backbones of the internet are not private companies. They are publically traded companies. That means that they do answer to someone...their shareholders. Just switching off their network is going to piss off quite a few people and as an overall result, their bottom line is going to be impacted. Investors don't really like to lose money. | |
|
| | | | dks7 join:2004-05-31 Omak, WA |
dks7
Member
2008-Apr-18 12:34 pm
Re: Hey investors!I meant their section of the internet, sorry for my lame comment. I know the internet is not owned by anyone, but teh idea that a company can put millions without service irks me. | |
|
| | | | | cdruGo Colts MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN |
cdru
MVM
2008-Apr-18 1:31 pm
Re: Hey investors!The same argument still applies though. If they just shutoff their section, it really will affect their PAYING customers. If it's a prolonged outage, they are just going to go elsewhere. It still would be financially a dumb move for any company. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: Hey investors!Y'know how when one company hikes their rates, they all do the same thing? Or starting to offer "unlimited"--notice how all the major mobile companies announced it practically within the same week? Don't think for a second that's coincidence. As soon as one sees another making a move, they all play copycat in order to partake in the perceived profits... | |
|
| | | | |
to cdru
said by cdru:It's many networks INTERnetworked together. Does that mean it's actually made of innertubes? I had to, just HAD to !! lol | |
|
| | | | POBRes Firma Mitescere Nescit Premium Member join:2003-02-13 Stepford, CA 1 edit |
POB to cdru
Premium Member
2008-Apr-19 12:07 pm
to cdru
said by cdru:If AT&T "shut off" it's network, the people that would be most affected by it would be their paying customers. Any datacenter worth their salt is going to have redundant links to different networks. So if AT&T's network went dark, Level3, Cogent, etc would be utilized more so most places would still be reachable. AT&T failing to meet their SLA for thier lines would result in many unhappy customers, and by unhappy I mean lawsuit unhappy. That is a beautiful theory assuming a rogue telco acting on its own, but a couple questions here: 1. What happens if AT&T in conjunction with Level3, Cogent, etc. shut things down? This is not an impossibility nor unlikely as they realize they can get what they want if they collude. See also Cali's rolling blackouts. In fact, that is an especially apt analogy. 2. What is the difference between the Deathstar or anyone else for that matter, hypothetically shutting off the juice and demanding more money vs the capping/throttling/blocking that is becoming SOP? 2a. What, realistically, do you believe will stop any of the above referenced from shutting down and demanding more money? There is nothing in place at the moment to prevent such an occurrence. Government can't compel them to do anything. | |
|
| | gaforces (banned)United We Stand, Divided We Fall join:2002-04-07 Santa Cruz, CA |
to DrModem
Just like the power/fuel company's did, now the water company's are starting to, and ATT soon. Create artificial demand so they can make billions more than they already make.
THATS growth where there was none before in the 21st immoral century ... | |
|
1 recommendation |
abod121
Anon
2008-Apr-18 11:09 am
how to fix the internet | |
|
|
well ...So what do they know about what's hard-coded into their software that we don't know? | |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny Yours MVM join:2001-08-03 Grand Rapids, MI |
Well, its trueAT&T predicts a demise in 2010 without any upgrades to the current system. Yet, according to the article, they are investing $19 billion to upgrade their system. That sounds about right.
So whats the point of the article? I am sure everyone in the industry will be shelling out their cut of $20 billion in the next few years to keep the system working.
Oh, and that is the reason why your price keeps going up. | |
|
| Jim Kirk Premium Member join:2005-12-09 49985
1 recommendation |
Jim Kirk
Premium Member
2008-Apr-18 11:31 am
Re: Well, its truesaid by Nightfall:So whats the point of the article? FUD | |
|
| RJ44 join:2001-10-19 Nashville, TN |
to Nightfall
said by Nightfall:So whats the point of the article? I was wondering the same thing. Sensationalist headline, followed by sarcastic insinuation that AT&T "is at it again". Followed by a suggestion that they need to do exactly what they announced they are going to do. Which prompted this whole headline/story in the first place. Huh? So in a nutshell it's mocking AT&T for stating that the internet would exceed it's current capacity in a few years, so they are investing more in building up their backbone. I don't get why this was even written. | |
|
| | |
Re: Well, its trueIf you ask me... it's because AT&T has a case of the "Captain Obvious." Are we suppose to think AT&T is some visionary company for investing for the future??? Are we suppose to thank AT&T for saving us from the impending doom? AT&T seems to want to a get a pat on the back for doing something any half-intelligent person would do... invest and prepare for the future.
If someone said 'Unless we expand the highways in L.A., we're going to have total gridlock, all day, everyday, and highway driving will come to an end in L.A........ but, no need to worry, we're going to invest in new expansions, etc so there is nothing to worry about' I bet people would look at that same someone with a 'Well, duh, you moron' kind of look. | |
|
| koitsu MVM join:2002-07-16 Mountain View, CA |
to Nightfall
And then we'll find out that there was US$55 billion spent on Sandvine hardware. | |
|
| Sammer join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA
1 recommendation |
to Nightfall
said by Nightfall:So whats the point of the article? The point is that AT&T wants more of your money! | |
|
| | lvas join:2001-05-17 Glen Carbon, IL
1 recommendation |
lvas
Member
2008-Apr-18 11:51 am
Re: Well, its truenowhere in the article does it say ATT wants more of "your money". It states ATT is going to invest 19 billion more in its backbone network. ATT is a "for profit" company that takes part of its profits and plows it back into the company - just like any other company does. For instance the American Car compaines have spent a ton of monies on R&D latey and upgrading the quality of their product - so too does ATT. whats your beef about them spending 19 billion on their network? | |
|
| | | |
| | | POBRes Firma Mitescere Nescit Premium Member join:2003-02-13 Stepford, CA |
POB to lvas
Premium Member
2008-Apr-19 12:12 pm
to lvas
said by lvas:nowhere in the article does it say ATT wants more of "your money". You are correct about that. But it also does not state anywhere within the same article that AT&T won't price hike as a direct result of their alleged $19M upgrades, either. | |
|
| | | | morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 |
morbo
Member
2008-Apr-20 3:40 pm
Re: Well, its trueit's like the "understood you" in grammar. it's understood that AT&T will be raising prices again soon. the benefits of the merger continue to pay dividends to us consumers! | |
|
| | | | | POBRes Firma Mitescere Nescit Premium Member join:2003-02-13 Stepford, CA |
POB
Premium Member
2008-Apr-20 5:55 pm
Re: Well, its truesaid by morbo:it's like the "understood you" in grammar. it's understood that AT&T will be raising prices again soon. the benefits of the merger continue to pay dividends to us consumers! I know that and so do you, but I like to do everything in my power to inject a little dose of reality into the lives of the corporate worshippers who believe companies like the Deathstar are generous, omnipotent beings. | |
|
| dnoyeBFerrous Phallus join:2000-10-09 Southfield, MI |
to Nightfall
said by Nightfall:So whats the point of the article? Not sure but you can bet the point of AT&T is to get some government cash like the airline indistry and the banking industry when they were faced with doom. | |
|
neufuse join:2006-12-06 James Creek, PA |
neufuse
Member
2008-Apr-18 11:37 am
ughgood greif... why do we keep talking about maxing out bandwidth and not doing anything to increase it? its like we are saying yeah we can fit 10Gbit we could take it to 100Gbit but yeah we'll let it max out and then whine that its over filled when we COULD of made it better | |
|
DaveDudeNo Fear join:1999-09-01 New Jersey |
manbearbig strikes againOkay, first its manbearpig, now something al gore invented is going to fall to demise!. Save the internet, forget the environment ! | |
|
|
Easy SolutionCall Al Gore up and have him solve the problem. | |
|
Luker3 join:2004-10-09 Blacksburg, VA |
Luker3
Member
2008-Apr-18 11:45 am
RationsThey will start rationing bandwidth out in Silicon Valley. | |
|
1 recommendation |
If South Park taught us anything....How stoopid do they think we are? If the internet fails, ya just have to unplug it, wait a few seconds, and then power it back on.
Duh. | |
|
|
Scare tacticsAT&T is trying to scare the public away from net neutrality. Spending money spreading FUD instead of spending money to increase their infrastructure.
I hate gov regulations but it's time the gov put AT&T and others in their place and forced them to do right by the public. They were much better under utility regulations than a for profit corp. POT's had to keep up with the tremendous growth of the telephone and it was done under a regulated system. You never once heard AT&T say we were going to run out of phone lines. | |
|
| C0deZer0Oc'D To Rhythm And Police Premium Member join:2001-10-03 Tempe, AZ |
C0deZer0
Premium Member
2008-Apr-18 12:46 pm
Re: Scare tacticsNo, but we ran out of viable phone numbers quick... and the solution? Area, country, and dialing codes. | |
|
| ptrowskiGot Helix? Premium Member join:2005-03-14 Woodstock, CT |
to bjbrock9
said by bjbrock9:AT&T is trying to scare the public away from net neutrality. Spending money spreading FUD instead of spending money to increase their infrastructure. I hate gov regulations but it's time the gov put AT&T and others in their place and forced them to do right by the public. They were much better under utility regulations than a for profit corp. POT's had to keep up with the tremendous growth of the telephone and it was done under a regulated system. You never once heard AT&T say we were going to run out of phone lines. Exactly what we DON'T need is more govenrment intervention. | |
|
1 recommendation |
Zappas Ghost
Anon
2008-Apr-18 12:42 pm
ContradictionsI call BS on this. Pure BS.
How does this statement by AT&T in the article: "In three years' time, 20 typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet today."
Square with this statement two paragraphs later: the "unprecedented new wave of broadband traffic" would increase fifty-fold by 2015
Lets assume hes just talking U.S. With about 60 million homes connected to the broadband internet in the U.S., his first statement implies that in 2011, the size of Internet traffic will increase by a factor of 3 Million! If hes talking the world and not the U.S., this factor is much higher. Yet he says later that well have a 50 fold increase in 8 years.
Pure Bunk | |
|
| 4 edits |
Re: Contradictionssaid by Jim Cicconi, vice president of legislative affairs for AT&T :
"In three years' time, 20 typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet today." Statements like this are really a good thing. It shows how some companies get blinded by the $ signs dancing in their heads, which leads them into stupidity like the above quote. In turn it brings their true business model to light which seems to be, just bend over and relax it will only hurt for a little bit, for what it is. On the up side apparently from a statement like that one could conclude that at some point in the next twenty four months or so there are going to be twenty people in AT&T territory that are going to have 100,000 to 1,000,000MB connections that I am sure they will enjoy immensely until they crash the internet. Edited change was: I was replying to what Zappas Ghost had pointed out, but I felt it was better to point out who actually said it. Second edit: Added thoughts Lets assume these "In three years' time, 20 typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet today." Do nothing but download 50GB Blu-Ray movies 24 hours a day 7 days a week for a month. They can only watch 12 movies a day. Thats 50GB x 12 movies a day x 30 days x 20 people = 360,000GB a month. Now I have heard of people downloading 500 or 600GB in a month from time to time, but everyone out of a want for that much content slacks off after the new of that content subsides. Don't get me wrong I know the demand on the internet is growing at a incredible rate, but this guy really stepped in it with his statement. The U.S. and global Internet is measured in petabytes or exabytes not gigabytes. I do believe the typical household will use more date in 3 years than they are using today, but nowhere near 18,000GB. Nor 20 typical households use as much as the whole U.S. or global internet of today which ever he was referring to in such a ludicrous statement. | |
|
|
Online games are bandwidth whores? Multicast too!... online games take alot of bandwidth?! Since when?! First Person Shooters are the more bandwith hungry and they use about 5/5 (Down/Up) and 10/5 KB/s of bandwidth. Or perhaps they are talking about the content distribution system.
Anyway, why don't they try to make the multicasting system more widespread? | |
|
| 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2008-Apr-19 4:30 pm
Re: Online games are bandwidth whores? Multicast too!said by SHARPSHARK:... online games take alot of bandwidth?! Since when?! First Person Shooters are the more bandwith hungry and they use about 5/5 (Down/Up) and 10/5 KB/s of bandwidth. Or perhaps they are talking about the content distribution system. Anyway, why don't they try to make the multicasting system more widespread? Things like XBOX live do not take up huge amounts of bandwidth. All the graphics are handled by the machine. Only the data telling the mahcine what to do is transmitted. You could play Halo 3( or whatever ) 24/7 and only use up maybe 15 GB a month. | |
|
|
Any difference between KathrynV and AT&T?I'm confused... KathrynV editoralizes (in a "news" article): quote: The reality is that Internet providers can circumvent the problem by upgrading their networks in order to meet the demands of their customers.
And, in the article: quote: AT&T is investing $19 billion to maintain its network and upgrade its backbone network.
So... how is it that AT&T isn't doing exactly what KathrynV wants them to? And how is it that they're the bad guys? Oh... wait... the elephant in the room, only mentioned in the actual article, not the "news article" here on broadbandreports.com... NETWORK NEUTRALITY. Yes, folks, we need the GOVERNMENT to make SURE that AT&T invests that money in EXACTLY the way WE want them to. I would bet a lot of money that if suddenly AT&T said "we're investing $19 billion AND we agree with Net Neutrality legislation", that suddenly all these potshots taken at them here would disappear. | |
|
ziggyz Premium Member join:2005-06-09 Mesa, AZ 1 edit |
ziggyz
Premium Member
2008-Apr-18 1:00 pm
whats the point is right...hey since Al Gore claims to have created it, maybe we can hit him up for the $55B to keep his baby alive.
Sorry I didnt see the Al Gore comment until after I posted...Cheers | |
|
|
elijahblake
Anon
2008-Apr-18 1:35 pm
defintion to irony=i guess that means that by the time we get broadband in the country, the internet will no longer work. How ironic is that?? LOL | |
|
|
Good job ATT!I'm glad ATT is doing their part in preventing a bandwidth apocolyspse.
Keeping people on lower tiers, and not upgrading consumer level connections is a great way to keep bandwidth usage at a minimum.
Great job ATT!
/sarcasm :Slit:Slit:Slit: | |
|
DC DSLThere's a reason I'm Command. Premium Member join:2000-07-30 Washington, DC Actiontec GT784WN
|
DC DSL
Premium Member
2008-Apr-18 1:46 pm
The End of the Internet: Episode 1048576In this episode, Timmy has reached the last page of the Internet. Lassie goes off to find someone to make more pages... | |
|
| StevenB Premium Member join:2000-10-27 New York, NY |
StevenB
Premium Member
2008-Apr-18 1:52 pm
Re: The End of the Internet: Episode 1048576I expect price increases by a large margin in 2010. | |
|
| | MysticGogetaThe Robot Devil Premium Member join:2005-03-14 Katy, TX |
Re: The End of the Internet: Episode 1048576Basically all they plan on doing. They just want to bull shit there way around it by saying internet will quit working unless you pay us more. | |
|
nathill join:2004-05-03 Bloomington, IN |
AT&T rocksI live within the city limits of Bloomington, IN (around 70K plus Indiana University) and AT&T's only internet access plan for me is a 24K copper phone line. No UVerse, not even DSL. Thanks for the great service, AT&T. I guess I won't be slowing down the Internet very much, at least not through my phone line modem.... | |
|
jsb825 Premium Member join:2003-10-08 Exeter, NH |
jsb825
Premium Member
2008-Apr-19 11:18 am
whatever..... Sounds like it to me that this is just a method of saying WHAA WHAA see we need net nutrality.. Which we really don't the internet is not going to just STOP.. What a bunch of corporate idiots!!! | |
|
| 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2008-Apr-19 4:27 pm
Re: whatever.....said by jsb825: Sounds like it to me that this is just a method of saying WHAA WHAA see we need net nutrality.. Which we really don't the internet is not going to just STOP.. What a bunch of corporate idiots!!! Actually at&t would be arguing AGAINST net neutrality. | |
|
|
STOP... You Say?Well if everyone stopped paying them for their Sub Prime Service that should not take too long to make all the lights go out at AT&T.... Hmmm.... Nah it won't happen any time soon. | |
|
|
|