 
cameronsfx
join:2009-01-08
Pensacola, FL | Eventually Someone Makes a Better Wheel If Intel is backing Google OS, might be a real achilles heal to Microsoft. Microsoft needs Intel more than Intel needs them. | |
|
 | me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Re: Eventually Someone Makes a Better Wheel It depends on if google's OS is good. If it IS good MS may have some trouble, if it sucks ms will be just fine. | |
|
| | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: Eventually Someone Makes a Better Wheel Chrome isn't really an OS. It's just another GUI experience for Linux. As such, it isn't really an OS at all. | |
|
| | |
El Quintron
Could you spare a consulting gig?
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON |  Big Telco is getting their PR Wheels Rolling
Looks like the lobbying for UBB and Throttling is in full motion.
--
Working to bring you closer to a Bell and Rogers free household. | |
|
| |
|
| 
Homer J
Mmmm, Free Goo
join:2000-10-05
Springfield
| Re: Paying for use is fair I normally find the Washington Times to be much fairer than the Washington Post has ever been. This lady is completely off base though. I wonder how much the providers paid her for that glowing review. The poor provider needs to charge grandma 50/mo and the more normal user even more. Charge grandma a lot less and it may seem fairer, not at 50/mo. | |
|
| |
El Quintron
Could you spare a consulting gig?
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Acanac
| Re: Paying for use is fair That's mostly my issue with pay for use, the low users won't be saving any money and the real users are going to have to take out a second mortgage to use the internet.
If anyone thinks Ma and Pa email are going to pay less than 50/mo they must be kidding.
--
Working to bring you closer to a Bell and Rogers free household. | |
|
| | | 
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: Paying for use is fair said by El Quintron  :That's mostly my issue with pay for use, the low users won't be saving any money and the real users are going to have to take out a second mortgage to use the internet. If anyone thinks Ma and Pa email are going to pay less than 50/mo they must be kidding. Exactly. Are ISP are going to charge millions of light user $10 or $20 a month. Their aren't enough heavvy users to compensate for that. | |
|
| | | | sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH | Re: Paying for use is fair You can get 100 mbit connection, TV and phone access for a total of $40 in South Korea. | |
|
| |
| |
Homer J
Mmmm, Free Goo
join:2000-10-05
Springfield | Re: Paying for use is fair Her perspective has basis in the facts the providers choose to tell her. That article was very slanted to their favor and was not balanced story, just a puff piece for the providers. | |
|
| | sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
| Wow. She was part of the FCC? Holy cow.
This is exactly why the FCC has been so horribly screwed up the last 8 years. I can't believe someone like her, a corporate shill, was on the freaking FCC.
God she apparently was nominated by Bush. | |
|
| |
| | Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
 ·Comcast
·Embarq
| Re: Paying for use is fair  If we want to retain a privately owned broadband network we must go back to the Bell System Cost/Payment Structure. Before the Bell System was destroyed, Independent Telephone Companies received subsidies through Toll Separations. AT&T Long Lines paid all telephone companies including the Local Bell Operating Companies a fee for terminating calls on the local telephone companies network. Sometimes AT&T Long Lines was philanthropically minded in that they would claim that more incoming calls were terminated on an independent telephone companies network than actually were in order to slip the independent extra money if they were having financial difficulties.
In order to supply ISPs funding to expand their networks to carry the added traffic created by companies like Netflix, Netflix should pay the ISPs a reasonable fee for carrying their traffic. I am sure that the company that delivers their movies on physical media does not do it for free. | |
|
| | | sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH | Re: Paying for use is fair Um...Netflix already pays for bandwidth. It's the ISPs' responsibility to use the money they're already paid by their subscribers to expand the networks. God knows they make more than enough profit to do so without double dipping on Netflix. | |
|
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| what a dumb bitch.
Most broadband consumers would be astounded that some members of Congress want to block our ability to pay for broadband Internet use in precisely the same way we now pay for other commodities: Pay more if you use more; pay less if you use less.
Yeah well unless she can show me where all these companies are going to LOWER the prices for those that use less then she's totally off base. What the ISPs want to to do charge more if you use more and keeping charging what they are now even if you use less. If ISP had to actually charge less for those that used less they would make MUCH less revenue and they know it.
She is either a shill for the ISPs or a complete moron. Possibly both. | |
|
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL |  News Corp faces growing storm over phone-hacking allegations
 Same here except George Bush created it and made it legal and Barack Obama ratified the dirty deed, which is being done by the NSA. | |
|
|
|
|
|
Friday Morning Links
Paying for use is fair
·
·