 wirelesswoes
join:2004-02-12
Hialeah, FL | If anyone can do it... Google can! Now with Google backing this, we don't need to worry anymore. | |
|  | GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| Re: If anyone can do it... Why do you say that? The network owners will simply state that its their network, which is not tariffed, and as such open to their implemented use the way they see fit.
As a cowsumer, you are not paying for the network-side performance, but rather the access-side of performance which is limited to cowsumer 'best-effort'. And the may be a minimum effort requirement, but I doubt they'll cross that line.
Maybe you should consider starting NetNuetralISP.net and start your own business and operate it to a better success than these current network owners are doing. I bet everyone on DSLR would support you. | |
| | | 
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| Re: If anyone can do it... As a cowsumer, you are not paying for the network-side performance, but rather the access-side of performance which is limited to cowsumer 'best-effort'.
You can bet the 'net fast-lanes' costs will be passed down to consumers. So, yes, we'll be paying for that, too. | |
| | | | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| Re: If anyone can do it... said by tsu  :As a cowsumer, you are not paying for the network-side performance, but rather the access-side of performance which is limited to cowsumer 'best-effort'.
You can bet the 'net fast-lanes' costs will be passed down to consumers. So, yes, we'll be paying for that, too. The consumer WILL PAY for getting more bandwidth intensive applications. This so-called net neutrality battle is more about how they cut up the consumer pie. Who will get the bigger cut - the content providers or the ISPs. So rest assured, this battle isn't about helping the consumer, no matter what the pundits say. They are just supporting 1 side or the other in the fight. So BBR just comes down on the side of the content providers and not the consumers.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
| | | | |
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Re: If anyone can do it... So BBR just comes down on the side of the content providers and not the consumers.
That would, of course, be a matter of opinion. It could be seen the opposite, depending on how you believe things will work. | |
| | | | | Talis
join:2001-06-21
Houston, TX
| said by TK Junk Mail :The consumer WILL PAY for getting more bandwidth intensive applications. You are either misrepresenting this or have no idea what net neutrality is about. It has nothing to do with providing more or less bandwidth to the consumer.said by TK Junk Mail :This so-called net neutrality battle is more about how they cut up the consumer pie. Who will get the bigger cut - the content providers or the ISPs. Please expalin to me how network neutrality has anything to do with how a content provider will make more or less money. Which pie is it you are cutting up?said by TK Junk Mail :So rest assured, this battle isn't about helping the consumer, no matter what the pundits say. They are just supporting 1 side or the other in the fight. So BBR just comes down on the side of the content providers and not the consumers. How can giving network providers control over the content traveling on their networks be GOOD for anyone but the network providers? Tell me what consumer benefits I will gain by letting the telcos determine which sites are more responsive than others? Or which content I can view? Or which VoIP provider I can use? I don't understand your reasoning at all. | |
| | | | | 
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| You seem to view the internet as a place where we are all consumers and a small handful of companies are isp and a small handful are content providers.
But the content providers are everywhere. This is the transformation that the internet has produced. BBR is a content provider. You and I are content providers. Bloggers and tech sites are content providers. You are probably smirking on hearing this, but you spend a lot of time here at BBR, so you apparently attribute some value to this content relative to say traditional copyrighted entertainment content.
The content providers should get the pie that they create. The telcos provide a communications service and they should be compensated for this, but it doesn't give them a right to the pie. If your phone company demanded a cut of your profits when you called your broker, because you used their network to make the call, you would tell them to go F themselves. If they tried to demand a cut of the money made from a sale when someone ordered a pizza over the phone the pizza business would tell them to piss off. Their owning of the network doesn't give them any right to a piece of the business activity that happens over that network. It only gives them a right to be compensated for the communications service they provide.
If the telcos want to provide a video service over their network let them separate out that bandwidth and provide video, like the cable company does. The cable company doesn't mix up their video service and their internet access. If they are allowed to mix that traffic up with internet traffic and then implement quality of service to subvert transport of competitive applications and content and give advantage to their own services, what they are providing is no longer an internet access service. If the public is hostage to their behavior because it has few other places to go for internet service, then the state should proactively act to either build out a public infrastructure or create conditions that enforce a competitive environment through some combination of things such as divestiture, spectrum reform, public/private partnerships with companies other than the telcos/cablecos. | |
| | | wirelesswoes
join:2004-02-12
Hialeah, FL
| GhostDoggy: I hope your post was in jest.
Anyways to further add to my .02 cents...
I pay $60 a month for internet access, Google pays $x for the bandwidth they consume.
My money goes towards paying the ISP for the right to access websites. Google's money goes towards the right to use x amount of bandwidth.
In what way, shape or form should the telcos have any right to charge an addtional fee for "faster access".
I hope Google slaps the telcos silly like they did the DOJ.  | |
| | | | achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| Re: If anyone can do it... said by wirelesswoes :I pay $60 a month for internet access, Google pays $x for the bandwidth they consume. Who is paying for the transport? Access and transport are two different things.
You, Google, Amazon, E-Bay, etc, all pay for access...
--
Bring back chicken and potato chips - Vote Perot! | |
| | | | |
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Re: If anyone can do it... Up until this issue was brought up, access was transport.
What use is access if there is no transmission? | |
| | | | | | achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| Re: If anyone can do it... said by tsu :Up until this issue was brought up, access was transport. What use is access if there is no transmission? Access (»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_networks) and transport, a/k/a IXC (»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IXC) inside the telecom industry, are dependent on each other; however, they are two very different components.
Most end users and companies pay for just access to the "Internet". The only time you start to pay for transport is when you pay for a Private line, ATM/Frame PVC/SVC, or a PIP CAR.
Most people tend to forget that their DSL line is not a direct link to Google, but is only an entry ramp onto the network backbone that takes you to Google's entry ramp.
A simple trace will show access and transport networks. Comcast, DSL, OOL are all examples of access. UUNET, AT&T, Sprint are examples of transport.
The names and players have changed a bit since merger mania, but most people also don't realize that, for example, when MCI and VZ merged, local and long distance operations still need to operate as two different entities under FCC regulation.
--
Bring back chicken and potato chips - Vote Perot! | |
| | | | | | |
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Re: If anyone can do it... Like I said. What use is access if there is no transport? | |
| | | | | | | | achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| Re: If anyone can do it... said by tsu :Like I said. What use is access if there is no transport? What's the use of a light bulb without electricity, what is the use of a car without gas? Sure, we can go on all day with this argument; however, here the common argument with this topic is "x already pays $y for their access..." which only addresses one piece of the pipe.
Who's paying for the transport?
I am not trying to argue for or against QoS on the Internet. I can see both the pitfalls and the benefits of such an arrangement. The main question here is, does anyone making the above quoted argument really understand how the Internet actually works?
--
Bring back chicken and potato chips - Vote Perot! | |
| | | | | | | | | backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2 | Re: If anyone can do it... Who's paying for the transport?
I would love to see a grass roots campaign by the people to withold the payment of thier internet bills for a few months. That would show these corporate types who ownes the internet
The people! | |
| | | | | | | | | | achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| Re: If anyone can do it... said by backness :Who's paying for the transport? I would love to see a grass roots campaign by the people to withold the payment of thier internet bills for a few months. That would show these corporate types who ownes the internet The people! You would see a lot of people lose their access, that is about it. Remember, most consumer accounts are either sold at cost, or even below cost.
Most of the money that is made in access/transport is with companies that are paying big dollars for their access and PL, ATM, FRAME, or PIP networks.
And, the networks that use to carry data over the Internet are privately owned, operated, and maintained. They are owned by their respective companies.
--
Bring back chicken and potato chips - Vote Perot! | |
| | | | | | | | | | backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
·Rogers Hi-Speed
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
edit:
June 7th, @02:51PM
| Re: If anyone can do it... interesting... but i still don't believe that the telcos and cable cos of the world would have the cash flow without the consumers to support their activities (proving this would be difficult for me )
Besides that was not the point i was trying to make was that if everyone had an egocentric view of the internet it would cease to exist.
| |
| | | | | | | | | | achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| Re: If anyone can do it... said by backness :interesting... but i still don't believe that the telcos and cable cos of the world would have the cash flow without the consumers to support their activities (proving this would be difficult for me ) Actually, Mass Market, or consumers, have always been break-even or negative margins for the past ten years I have been in the industry.
I think the Cable Companies pull a healthy profit, mostly because most of their base is MM, but telcos make their money on business accounts.
A good example is to compare the price of a business grade DSL @ 756k and a consumer DSL @ 1.5M. With some markets, the price is 3 to 4 times higher for business services.
Granted, you get more customer support under a business account, but the lines and equipment are all the same.
--
Bring back chicken and potato chips - Vote Perot! | |
| | | | | | | | | | backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Re: If anyone can do it... sorry for the late edit on the last one 
ok but in percentage of business what would you say the consumer market represents of the total businesses total sales? Break even or not it is not relevant unless we know the
%.
Another interesting point i would like to add is we must keep in mind all those atm transfers and CC's are consumers transfers also, eventhough another firm is representing them. IMO, the cable and telcos are piggybacking on the old DARPA network (forgive me if my internet history is bad) which is also purchased with public funds. | |
| | | | | | | | | | achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| Re: If anyone can do it... said by backness :Another interesting point i would like to add is we must keep in mind all those atm transfers and CC's are consumers transfers also, eventhough another firm is representing them. IMO, the cable and telcos are piggybacking on the old DARPA network (forgive me if my internet history is bad) which is also purchased with public funds. Actually, you are confusing the term ATM. ATM is actually a protocol (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) and has nothing to do with Automatic Teller Machines or Credit Card transfers.
As for the DARPA network, that network has been replaced long ago by private vendors and wouldn't come close to handling today's traffic demands.
--
Bring back chicken and potato chips - Vote Perot! | |
| | | | | | | | | | backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Re: If anyone can do it... anyway i'll just get to the point. Free access to market is the founding princple of the united states. Do you honestly believe that telcos and cablecos are impartial enough to decide this on thier own? or as you have already pointed out are they slaves to those who pass data across thier networks? Internet Business ideas need to be accessible to all across the internet for there to be a level playing field otherwise the haves will always have and the have not's will forever remain. (again this is not one of the founding principles of the usa). | |
| | | | | | | | | | achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| Re: If anyone can do it... said by backness :anyway i'll just get to the point. Free access to market is the founding princple of the united states. Do you honestly believe that telcos and cablecos are impartial enough to decide this on thier own? or as you have already pointed out are they slaves to those who pass data across thier networks? Internet Business ideas need to be accessible to all across the internet for there to be a level playing field otherwise the haves will always have and the have not's will forever remain. (again this is not one of the founding principles of the usa). The United States has always been a "have and have not" society, hence capitalism.
If the Telcos or Cablecos are able to decide what to do with their unregulated networks is their choice, and again, is one of the building blocks of capitalism.
My point, as I stated above to a different post, is that most people do not understand exactly what the Internet is, what is involved to move data from point A to point B on the Internet, and who installs, maintains, and pays for those networks in which that data flows.
I am undecided on the whole QoS issue with the Internet, but felt the need to point out to people that the network truly is not public domain and it does cost money to run the network.
What will happen will happen. We will either see QoS enter the market place and it will either work or fail, or QoS will never happen and the Internet will continue to work or fail.
The only constants that exist with the Internet is that the demand for bandwidth continues to grow as we see more intense content being delivered, and the current network is finite. If either of these variables out balance the other, it will not be pretty.
--
Bring back chicken and potato chips - Vote Perot! | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
wwdubbia
join:2002-06-03
Clinton, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
edit:
June 7th, @03:49PM
| said by backness :interesting... but i still don't believe that the telcos and cable cos of the world would have the cash flow without the consumers to support their activities (proving this would be difficult for me ) Besides that was not the point i was trying to make was that if everyone had an egocentric view of the internet it would cease to exist. telcos have one of the highest profit ratios going for their switched minutes; add on to that various fees and such, and cash flow is the least of their worries.
bandwidth = gravy | |
| | | | | | | | | | backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2 | Re: If anyone can do it... again profit ratio means nothing.
you need to present statistics that say that the business side of the internet is greater than the consumer side in dollars or in terms of % of sales and i will conceid the argument | |
| | | | | | | | |
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
edit:
June 7th, @03:03PM
| Who's paying for the transport?
The customers?
You surely don't imagine that our fees do not in part pay for the peering agreements, do you? | |
| | | | | | | | | | achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| Re: If anyone can do it... said by tsu :Who's paying for the transport?The customers? You surely don't imagine that our fees do not in part pay for the peering agreements, do you? In part, yes, but not in whole. Transport costs are usually absorbed in a number of ways with different mediums in which the data is transfered (public FRAME networks with multiple vendors who use the networks for point to point data transfers).
The problem is that most people forget the transport piece of the whole equation, and that it still costs money which access will pay for some, but not all.
Again, I see both benefits and pitfalls to this whole argument, and I am pretty much undecided about if it is a viable option.
My only point I am trying to make here is more of an educational point that there are multiple pieces to the Internet equation that often people tend to forget about.
--
Bring back chicken and potato chips - Vote Perot! | |
| | 
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL | It will be a court battle. I doubt courts will find in the favor of ISPs because the effect would eventually be censorship and a violated of interstate commerce.
If it happens, why even have broadband? | |
| | | | |
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Re: If anyone can do it... Unfortunately, this is probably true.
It's also something that will show that the government isn't supportive of business unless business is "supportive" of their bank accounts. | |
| | | wirelesswoes
join:2004-02-12
Hialeah, FL
| TKjunkmail: Yes congress isn't pleased with Google because Google had the balls to stand up for the rights of their users and the courts agreed with them.
Google is more powerful than a lot of people give them credit for; it doesn't matter what Congress thinks of them at this point, they have the backing of millions of consumers and Billions of dollars helps as well. 
The telcos will lose the war. | |
| | |
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
 from:
TK Junk Mail
| I agree with you there, and with the comment in the news item about lack of lobbying muscle.
The libertarian attitude and distrust of government by the tech community has its benefits, but we are also seeing its limits. Tech people have stubbornly believed that there was always a technical solution to route around power. They never wanted to engage in politics. That view was shortsighted and we are going to pay a very high price for it. | |
| | Megladon1
join:2003-09-05
Minneapolis, MN
| No, what this really means is, Google is going to be paying for you to have the fastest possible connection to them. But now rather then pay the isp's for this, they're now going to be paying political figures for this. They pay in the end, and we always end up paying for a big company like them paying. | |
| | | | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | Is what it all boils down to. the big boys want this sooooooooo bad.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| Primis1
join:2005-06-13
Coldwater, MI
| Of Course They're Going To Back Net Neutrality Duh.
They're one of the prime "offenders" in terms of adding bloat to the web by launching anything and everything they think of, all of them resource- and bandwidth-intensive. Don't get me wrong, some of the stuff is cool and useful, but in some cases it's not and they're just wasting time and bandwidth throwing ideas, services, and apps out there and seeing if they stick.
So of course they're against the idea of tiering, it'd destroy everything they're trying to do and everything they've built on up until now.
I mean, come on... how in the world is this news? | |
| |
See 14 replies to this post | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Google Should Take Pre-Emptive Unilateral Actions Google is in the best position to stop this problem before it starts.
First, this issue needs to be clarified. If an ISP wants to devote X% of its network to its own content, then that's fine, no one should care about that. If an ISP wants to charge content providers for access to the ISP's customers, then that is not cool, as these costs are already paid by the content providers as well as ISP customers.
Google should slow down or block traffic from any ISP that advocates the idea that it should have to pay them for access to their customers. Google should also put a page up for those customers recommending ISPs to whom they can switch. Make it easy to switch by offering them a GMail account and such. I personally believe that many people online have respect for and trust Google, and will probably follow through on this advice. If enough people switched as a result, this idea would be dead, as the ISPs to which people switched would know they switched because of this issue, and will not try to implement the same idea.
--
Tancredo 2008! | |
| |
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Google Should Take Pre-Emptive Unilateral Actions said by pnh102 :Google should slow down or block traffic from any ISP that advocates the idea that it should have to pay them for access to their customers. Google will NEVER do that because all their profits come from clicking on ads they serve up. And they will do nothing to slow down or block any customers because that would cut down on their money. They may still fight the ISP's tooth and nail, but it won't be by blocking customers.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
| | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
| Re: Google Should Take Pre-Emptive Unilateral Actions Google will do it if they have no other choice. One of the nice things about being majority owned by two billionaires who've already sold enough stock to remain billionaires, is that they can take a hit to shut one of these monkey's down. The more I read about this issue the more I feel the whole thing should just be setup like a basic utility. Let independent ISP's offer access, the large telcos should lose their gifts of public right-of-way and ingenuity (it's not like they invented any of this stuff either). Public sympathy for these companies is nil anyway. | |
| |
wwdubbia
join:2002-06-03
Clinton, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by pnh102 :Google is in the best position to stop this problem before it starts. First, this issue needs to be clarified. If an ISP wants to devote X% of its network to its own content, then that's fine, no one should care about that. If an ISP wants to charge content providers for access to the ISP's customers, then that is not cool, as these costs are already paid by the content providers as well as ISP customers. Google should slow down or block traffic from any ISP that advocates the idea that it should have to pay them for access to their customers. Google should also put a page up for those customers recommending ISPs to whom they can switch. Make it easy to switch by offering them a GMail account and such. I personally believe that many people online have respect for and trust Google, and will probably follow through on this advice. If enough people switched as a result, this idea would be dead, as the ISPs to which people switched would know they switched because of this issue, and will not try to implement the same idea. so you're saying Google should prove their argument for net neutrality by doing the exact opposite? | |
|
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Crooked politics Google is learning first-hand what it means to not pay your "protection money." | |
| Antonlm
join:2004-09-15
Birmingham, AL
| Does google really care about the avg consumer? I really don't have a dog in this fight. But some act as if google is their big brother who's going to fight that bully that's been picking on them or something. Before some put google on the status of defender of all that's holy, remember, google is in it to make/save money like any other corporation. They try to make decisions that benefit their stock prices and shareholders, just like the telcos do. | |
| | 
odreian615
join:2006-01-18
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Does google really care about the avg consumer? "I really don't have a dog in this fight. But some act as if google is their big brother who's going to fight that bully that's been picking on them or something. Before some put google on the status of defender of all that's holy, remember, google is in it to make/save money like any other corporation. They try to make decisions that benefit their stock prices and shareholders, just like the telcos do."
Thankyou Amen | |
| 
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Mission Viejo, CA
clubs:
edit:
June 7th, @03:52PM
| Time To Grow Up Brin needs to remove the kid gloves and realize that he's a billionaire CEO guppy swimming with sharks. If the subject matter of net neutrality was up for discussion seven years ago, Google wouldn't even be around today to have a say so because seven years ago, Google was just a gleam in Brin's contact lens. The telcos anointed as gatekeepers of the net would have squashed Google like a bug and the company would have been over long before it ever had a chance to start anywhere. | |
| | backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2 | Re: Time To Grow Up isn't that the best argument for net neutrality? innovation | |
| | | | |
|
|
Google President Pushes for Net-Neutrality
·
·
·