 shashinka
join:2000-09-16
West Boylston, MA | ridiculous FCC please stop this bullshit! This is frackin crazy. I can't believe this. I wish the FCC would step in and say no frackin way. | |
|
 | 
a
@qwest.net | Re: ridiculous FCC please stop this bullshit! verizon, grow up, you are playin' w/ the big boys now & if you piss them off they might just buy you out, chew you up & spit you out in alpha / numeric order w/o hesitation. | |
|
| | altidude
join:2002-12-26
Ventura, CA
| Re: ridiculous FCC please stop this bullshit! said by a :
verizon, grow up, you are playin' w/ the big boys now & if you piss them off they might just buy you out, chew you up & spit you out in alpha / numeric order w/o hesitation.
Yep. That darn upstart Verizon better watch who they're messing with. | |
|
| | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| Not surprising.... Look, Verizon, AT&T, Bellsouth are spending big bucks to upgrade their networks. They are not doing this to sell you internet access; at least that's not their main motivation for doing so. They want to sell you "premium content", a.k.a. TV, premium channels, PPV movies, video on demand, etc. In other words, all those things Comcast and Time Warner have been making alot of money selling.
They certainly ain't gonna let you bypass their offerings by getting the same thing directly from ISP's over a high-speed internet connection. Not without compensation from the ISP, that is.
And if you think the FCC or another arm of the government will step in to mandate "network neutrality", you haven't been paying attention as to which political party controls the government these days. Would you call them "pro-big-corporations" or "pro-consumer"? Read the new bankruptcy law, if you are unsure. | |
|
| | | | 
TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO
| Re: Not surprising.... First off, when Clinton was president the same bs FCC decisions came down the pipe. Its not about Republicans or Democrats its about money. These telco monopolies are 2 of the 10 most profitable companies in the world. The spend far more on lobbying than they do on R&D.
Make no mistake, the FCC will give these monopolies what they want, they have yet to stand in their way. But we have a unique opportunity to put these monopolies in a hole now, that they can't get out of. The companies they want to block have the grand position of being the most popular Internet application service companies in the world. Maybe they should take Bells' advise and start charging SBC, Verizon, and Bell South to allow the their customers to access the application providers' content at broadband speeds.
Imagine the impact it would have on the Bells' bottom line if their customers could not browse to Ebay, Amazon, iTunes, Microsoft, Google, etc without paying a premium. Those customers would switch to cable so fast Bells heads would ring.
This is what happens when you allow the Bells' to dump their DSL services far below what it costs to actually provide broadband services. They want to dump their inferior services on the market and force the real content providers to pay the difference. | |
|
| | | | | 
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs: | Re: Not surprising.... There is that Word again. "monopolies"
I couldn't agree more !!!
We can't let the Bells do this..
Call your Representatives!!!
--
This is the Curse of Being a college graduate. | |
|
| 
AndyWarhol
Premium
join:2004-03-14
Broken Arrow, OK
clubs:
| GREAT IDEA!!!!! It would be totally awesome if the idea of "FREE CONTENT" just ceased to exist!!!!!! Then we would all have to pay for every single bit we put across any network!!!! FREAKIN SWEET!!! ::heavyonthesarcasm::
This crap is insane, their equipment can handle WAY more traffic than goes through them on average especially if they are a transit autonomous system (if they get bogged down, they piss off a lot of people, not just the ones on their network). If this crap actually went through it would turn the internet into one huge long distance phone service. When you make a long distance call, it crosses many different networks, and every time it does, an extra charge is incurred. I am sorry, but I ditched my land line from SBC (now AT&T) for a reason.... | |
|
| | 
SuperJoker
join:2005-11-21
Yermo, CA | Re: ridiculous FCC please stop this bullshit! Verizon and the two stooges are nuts, This is blackmail. | |
|
| | | |
| 
ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
clubs: | Just what we need...more FCC involvement.
And since when did Google become the big guys and Verizon the small company? | |
|
|
Joe INternet
| did anyone here actually RTFA? If you did then 99% of you can't read for content.... | |
|
| | RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN
| Re: ridiculous FCC please stop this bullshit! said by Joe INternet :
did anyone here actually RTFA? If you did then 99% of you can't read for content....
you mean there's more to the story than the biased DSLR headline? Gasp!!!  | |
|
| | 
JoeyDee
Premium
join:2004-07-23
Las Vegas, NV
 ·Cox HSI
| said by Joe INternet :
did anyone here actually RTFA? If you did then 99% of you can't read for content....
Ha! I didn't until you jabbed me. I think most of the folks here need to read the Washington Post article.
Thanks....  | |
|
| 
aztecnology
O Rly?
Premium
join:2003-02-12
Murrieta, CA | Google should charge them for having users access Google's network of servers, content, email, etc... | |
|
|
Chiloco
@twtelecom.net
| How about if they want to complain to the big companies about getting their content to customers then they (the telcos & ISP) should provide the speeds to the customers that they are paying for. If I pay for a 3MB Down and 384K up line then damit I should get 3MB down loads and 384K up speeds minus the overhead for normal network degradation. I do of course realize that there are limitations in network speeds of "you can only go as fast as the slowest link in the loop." But come the hell on Execs, if I am downloading from Microsoft they for sure have more than just a freaking T-1. They must have something like a OC-43 or even bigger pipe. Also the same goes for all the other IP providers out there they have to have more than a T-1. Just think of what Google, eBay, even DSL Reports for that matter. Enough said. I am sure that some one here will find fault in anything I have said. | |
|
|
datowerguy
@clallampud.net
| Let verizon charge google
more customers for me.
I only bill on how much not where or when.
LOL
Google will eat' em
Verizion will go through google like sh** through the proverbial goose.
Ivan Seidenberg should adopt the native name of "running with scissors" | |
|
| 
Kompressor
Premium
join:2002-02-12
Huntington Beach, CA | Verizon should have to pay Google for all the Verizon customers using Google's web sites, services, software and bandwidth. | |
|
smellyfeet12
join:2004-08-21
Saint Louis, MO | ummm what do they think we pay them monthly for? | |
|
| 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: ummm said by smellyfeet12  :what do they think we pay them monthly for? The opportunity to extort protection money from anyone who wants to communicate from the Internet to you.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | xrobertcmx
Premium
join:2001-06-18
Sterling, VA
clubs: | Re: ummm There you have it. | |
|
WaxPhoto
I AM SAM
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Roanoke, IN | Time to... Unleash the Google Panda Army on these CEOs. | |
|
| Xzar
join:2003-02-16
Yaphank, NY | Re: Time to... The Spec Ops are all ready going :P. | |
|
Ender_W
Does Microsoft Mean Small And Squishy?
join:2002-09-14
Saint Louis, MO
| Stupid. They just want a bite out of Google's apple. This is a big step in the wrong direction. Just wait till its $.25./search so that the search engines can pay the stupid bill to money grubbing idiots like these. And I'm REAL sure that Google is eating up all their bandwith. If thats the case, then their networks are even bigger jokes than the idiots running them
--
There is enough youth. How bout a fountain of smart... | |
|
| shashinka
join:2000-09-16
West Boylston, MA | Re: Stupid. Exactly, then they will be charging VOIP for access or higher priority. Application Discrimination. How can this foster competition or growth? It will only hamper it. Didn't they fine a provider for blocking vonage, what is the difference here? | |
|
| |
| | |
| | | gateguy
Premium
join:2001-02-12
Reisterstown, MD | Re: Stupid. I hope that was a tapeworm in that Apple that Billy took a bite from.
--
Lean to the left. Lean to the right. Repeat.Now that is wobbling | |
|
acyd
join:2005-06-01
Eatontown, NJ
| Greed It's some greedy BS but can they actually do it? Sure they can. Deprioritizing traffic is easy when you own and run the network.
"Either pay up or we traffic shape you into oblivion, Vonage (Skype, Google, Packet8, etc, etc"
The spam will get priority over people's Voip services I can see it now. | |
|
|
|
Yeahwhatever2
@orthocentersav.com
| Re: Go Google. Umm... don't people like google, and MSFT pay to be on their network in the first place. Hello!! So let's see here... I will charge you something like thousands of dollars a month so you can have the good fortune to be on the "network", but oh wait a minute, you actually want to use the "network"; well then that's gonna cost ya. Next in line... the end user; oh yeah we are all end users when it comes to internet access; so we are going to bump your $30-40 to $90-100 /month so you can actually use the "network". New bill: $40 network access fee; $30 network usage fee; $20 "content" fee.. oh and lets not forget the FCC fees and garbage. Nice! Whatever! | |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit |  Verizon/Google already discussing compensation
»www.techweb.com/wire/networking/175801739According to Seidenberg, Verizon and Google are already talking about how such compensation might be structured, striking a tone far more diplomatic than AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre, who last year openly criticized Internet application providers like Google and Voice over IP provider Vonage Holdings.
While Seidenberg said Verizon "intuitively" believes that the Internet should be open to all applications, he also said that "we need to make sure there is the right economic model," especially in regards to so-called "free" or advertising-supported applications, which generally do not offer any direct compensation to the network service provider.
Seidenberg said. "But it's also incredible when you see the innovation that a Google, a Microsoft or an AOL can create. In the long run, Google won't work without us, and we won't work without them."
I guess the idea isn't so farfetched after all. It looks like Google and Verizon are already discussing how compensation can be structured.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page | |
|
| 
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| Re: Verizon/Google already discussing compensation said by TKJunkMail :While Seidenberg said Verizon "intuitively" believes that the Internet should be open to all applications, he also said that "we need to make sure there is the right economic model," especially in regards to so-called "free" or advertising-supported applications, which generally do not offer any direct compensation to the network service provider. I guess the idea isn't so farfetched after all. It looks like Google and Verizon are already discussing how compensation can be structured. What old Ivan doesn't realize is that all these "free" sites do indeed pay their hosting provider for bandwidth. Why should they pay someone again when they've already contracted with someone to deliver the bits?
I suppose you support capital gains tax as well, right? Why not tax the profits twice? 
--
enjoy zesty ranch man-flavored baby tacos responsibly | |
|
| jp10558
Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY
| What I don't get is how this can work contract wise... I mean, we pay our ISP for bandwidth, who then purchases it from an upstream provider all the way to a Tier One provider selling it to whoever. On the other side, Google is doing pretty much the same. The two tier one providers usually have peering arrangements.
Wouldn't this sort of thing break the peering agreement to carry Tier1 A's traffic for free cause Tier1 A carries my traffic for free?
And if per chance at the top both me and Google go to the same Tier1 provider, wouldn't this sort of thing break the agreement they have with one or the other of us?
--
Opera 8.5(Build 7700); Windows XP Pro SP2;Athlon 64 3400+; 1GB PC3200 DDR; 1M/128k DSL; NOD32(Version 2.5.25); Outpost Pro 3;Proxomitron 4.5j Grypen 12/29/05(Opera mod),GPG ID:0x0A1C6EE3 | |
|
|
pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
Premium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
clubs: | Pay? Are these exec's on drugs?
sure looks like it to me.. very bad, mind altering drugs at that. | |
|
| 
Sr Tech
Premium
join:2003-01-19
New Fairfield, CT
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Pay? All Execs are on drugs, that's how they get where they are...
Seriously
I don't have Verizon but my theory is that Verizon (and every other carrier) expects their customers to use their home page to search and since no one does they are not reaping any of those pennies on searches. Most of the Execs make a bonus on how well they or the company performs they figure that they are loosing out on that extra money themselves. Hey it is just a guess but I would bank on that they are making a stink because they feel it is hurting their pocket.. | |
|
| |
sin eater
@swbell.ne | Re: Pay? Most senior executives are deranged. It includes the push that got them where they are. You would probably find that most are not nice people.
Been there, done that | |
|
vic102482
Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD | Well what are users paying for? Users pay for the service so shouldnt they get full speed access (vs. limited access) to websites?
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! | |
|
fredwilson12
join:2005-04-20
Sacramento, CA
| Write your representative Regardless of when the greedy telcos start implementing this, at some point they will eventually try to get laws passed to backup this up. If you live in the US, write your representative to let them know how you feel:
»www.senate.gov
»www.house.gov
It always helps to be polite and have a clear message, and make sure you provide links to articles that quote the greedy executives. I already wrote my representative and linked a couple articles (including the washingtonpost.com), and you should do the same too! | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
cOOLguy0
join:2002-07-25
Torrington, CT | RICO Act Damn, this is like Paulie Walnuts, T, or Christofah shaking down neighborhood businesses, but on a different scale | |
|
phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD
·Comcast
| Maybe I am dumb... ...but for the sake of debate, let us assume that ALL and I mean ALL, entities like Google, Microsoft, etc, etc, etc do actually pay the ISPs the fee. What exactly would change? If everyone pays for prioritized packet handling... wouldn't the net change be zero?
Well, the net change in the speed at which a customer accesses a site might be zero but the net change for ISPs would positive... and pretty significantly positive at that.
I've said it before and I will say it again... if an ISP can PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that by offering prioritization to content providers it WILL NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE degrade the service of those content providers who refuse to pay, then I can accept this model of the internet.
Common sense tells me that without changes to a network, an ISP will never be able to prove this... so for now, I will in no way support it. | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
Premium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
clubs:
·Comcast
| pay? part 2 as a service (hosting provider) whay should i have to pay more for [insert ISP here] to access my clients sites since i'm ALREADY bying overpriced bandwidth now? Do they expect us to pay 5, 6, 20 times to as many ISP's just so that all people who may want to access our network get equal (speeds) access? It's gonna kill us small timers and honestly i don't think ity's gonna fly with end users at all.
thats just insane and any service provider who impliments it will be, in the long run, shooting themselves in the foot. I know that i'd change in a heartbeat to get an open access provider who feel that your payment is enough to give you full access to the internet.
--
Webmaster Steve
- - - - - - - - - - - -
»ppnhosting.com
»sphenterprizes.com
»pokemonpalace.net | |
|
kba4
join:2001-10-23
Canton, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
| google should become an ISP then they'd have final say. and most other greedy ISP's out there would be forced to change or give up.
so basically verizon is realizing a little late that their FIOS network might not be able to handle the bandwidth they claim. it's not google's fault that google can afford high capacity lines and servers. it's verizon and every other ISP out there who is to blame- overcharging customers and not reinvesting the money in their networks. i'll admit that FIOS sounds awesome but it sounds like in reality it was poorly thought through and won't be able to handle the demand. sad.
--
illegal wars, prisoners with no trials, and state controlled media. welcome to the land of the free! | |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | HAH! I knew Verizon wasn't all goody touchy feely as other posters had them out to be in FiOS-related threads! How you all feel now?! SUCKERS!
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! | |
|
JJV
Premium
join:2001-04-25
Seattle, WA
clubs: | Dont they realize? If it wasn't for content providers they wouldn't have any customers? | |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Excellent! I hope all the telco executives keep repeating this. I hope the cable execs jump in and start spouting this crap too.
Right now, the FCC has the excuse that "strong rules for network neutrality are not necessary because nobody is violating it".
The more obvious it becomes these morons are serious about monetizing their pipes for EVERY application that comes along, the sooner we will get EFFECTIVE rules that prevent them from doing this.
Rant on, you monopolists. | |
|
SillySamuel
@68.87.x.x | Alrighty then... McDonald's, Starbucks, and Walmart should have to pay the States for road repair since a large portion of automobiles are driving to these destinations. | |
|
| kderby
join:2000-02-09
Bellingham, MA | Re: Alrighty then... Bingo. | |
|
| yabos
join:2003-02-16
Ingersoll, ON | Not to mention the extra weight(on average) of the people that go to McDonalds putting more wear on the roads. | |
|
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| this is outta hand how can they even 'debate' this? what about Yahoo??? Where would the 'net be as we know it today, without them?
so what if google is the top search engine right now? It's not like their pages are inordinately large or graphically intensive. They pay for their bandwidth, we pay for ours. Ours meaning customers of isp, or direct customer of a phone company. Either way, it usually goes through the backbones, who already charge their subsidized isp's, who then charge us.
They make their dime, the hosting people make theirs, and the system works. If you consider that, the isp's are actually making money on BOTH ENDS ALREADY! Consider that for one moment, they've covered the infrastructure (in many places, not all) and have a steady revenue that is paying them back (or should be...) from BOTH endpoints... the client, and the server. I just don't understand where they think more cash suddenly appears from in the middle.
If google does this, it would only be because of some kind suggestions by some very *nice* people............
I don't get it. I really really do not get it. the 'net used to be FREE. Free FROM this idea of overly greedy executives (who already outsource their support in some cases!) and corporate entities. Free TO do whatever the hell you want to do online as long as it's not dangerous to anyone. Whatever happened to that sense of the Freedom that this fracking internet was built on anyway.
What's next, I get charged to host a site, AND have to pay to have its content 'prioritized'??? Over WHAT exactly? Meanwhile some pencil necked jerk that does NOTHING all day and gets a paycheck that HALF OF could go to an AMERICAN support worker, or to feed the poor? I say these freaks all need to get some SUNSHINE before their faces melt off from lack of nutrients.
This is outrageous, I agree w/previous poster about how Vonage blocking was deemed wrong. Guess why, because for one, it is perfectly legal and unobtrusive DATA. Just because it *depends* on the nice latency that high speed delivers makes it NO different from say, streaming some pay per view pron.
What about gaming?
Hate to bring up this flame, but sharing. Yes much of it is probably somewhere less than legal, but there sure as heck is tons that IS legit.
What about pay music/video services?
What about the small guy with a small website?
What about BBR/DSLR???
Where's Waldo? | |
|
|
See 11 replies to this post |
|
|
|
|
Verizon CEO Wants Google to Pay
·
·
·
I keep scratching my head on this one..