 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| What I don't get... The question I have is: why are execs continuing to make such statements and taking negative PR heat? Either try to charge content providers for reaching your customers and watch what happens (it won't work), or keep your mouth shut and avoid the blowback. | |
|
 | 
asdfdfdf
@Level3.net
 from:
3SGTE 
| Re: What I don't get... They are taking negative heat from the public, but the powers that be aren't showing any indication that there will be any repercussions.
I think they are putting out feelers, to get a sense of where the government will draw the line, if anywhere. | |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | hmmm..... Don't most of use the "internet" for the content? why should I end up paying xtra? (which I'm sure will be passed on to us)
--
BlooMe | |
|
| iotastorm
join:2006-01-24
Florissant, MO
| Re: hmmm..... Weeeeell.. actually the owners/user/leasor of the pipe usually pay for the pipe and are also charged for bandwidth per bit/byte used.
the real gripe is the other isp's whose users on dsl/cable are not paying the per bit/byte so they (isp's) feel somehow cheated that they can't get their slice of the pie.
If they charged the end user per byte/bit used, the isp would soon get very lonely and have a lot of unused equipment laying around.
God knows how they'll screech when IPTV-HD comes about with its bandwith requirements.
Watch a 1 hour TV show in HD get a $150 bill for bandwidth usage.  | |
|
| | russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | Re: hmmm..... Exactly. They want to double-dip. It's like if the post office charged people to send mail to you, then charged them again for you to receive the mail. | |
|
| | | 
T1 Rocky
join:2002-11-15
Dallas, TX
 ·Time Warner Cable
| Re: hmmm..... What if the highway department made the argument that they should get paid by Walmart because everything in their store was delivered via the roads and highways?
That is the argument for killing netneutrality. The only reason its being taken seriously is because there is so much lobbying coming from the AT&T/Verizon that has the politicians concentrating on the "tubes" and not what is really at stake. If net neutrality dies, we are at the ILEC's mercy to determine what the internet will be like from no on. | |
|
| | Plldwnyrpnts
join:2003-04-19
Chicago, IL
| said by iotastorm :Weeeeell.. actually the owners/user/leasor of the pipe usually pay for the pipe and are also charged for bandwidth per bit/byte used. the real gripe is the other isp's whose users on dsl/cable are not paying the per bit/byte so they (isp's) feel somehow cheated that they can't get their slice of the pie. If they charged the end user per byte/bit used, the isp would soon get very lonely and have a lot of unused equipment laying around. God knows how they'll screech when IPTV-HD comes about with its bandwith requirements. Watch a 1 hour TV show in HD get a $150 bill for bandwidth usage. Exactly! These idiots are looking for ways to have content providers pay more for something they're already paying for under the disguise that it will protect the end user. HA!! Raise your rates FOO! If you can't handle it, get out the the business.
ISPs charge each other to access their lines. Obviously some ISPs are on the short end of the stick and are crying about it. I remember Cogent being on the receiving end of some blockage due to the large amount of bandwidth they allow their users to consume (we use cogent at the office and all I have to say is...WOW!) | |
|
KevinKimmich
join:2006-10-19
Chardon, OH | The content providers already pay It will be interesting to see how this all pans out. Will the Internet remain a general packet switched network, or will it end up as fragmented fiefdoms where we connect to our ISPs little world of goodies that we pay for. | |
|
| Nightwchtr
join:2001-09-10
Falls Church, VA | Re: The content providers already pay If it ends up where I have to pay more for something I am already paying for then I am cancelling, this is getting ridiculous already. These people get more and more money while the people get ripped off. | |
|
| chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
| as I said before... they want to sale internet as they sale cable... BY TIERS of "Programing" forget about speeds...
Want news and basic Internet ... $19.95
Want sports sites+ $ 3
Want Movies sites+ $10
Want to upload files $0.05 byte | |
|
Semi751
join:2006-01-03
Waddy, KY
| No cempetition Off course it will be passed on to the consumer, it's a simple principle. Should the computer gaming industry and software developer be required to pay tariffs to the micro chip makers because they fuel the need for further research and development of future products? The answer is no but sadly the same principle doesn't apply to internet content because there is no real competition in isps. If the average user had legitimate choices then these companies would need to upgrade in order to stay competitive. Broadband users frankly need competition and choices and this nonsense would cease. | |
|
| Semi751
join:2006-01-03
Waddy, KY | Re: No cempetition This message brought to you by- Spell Check! | |
|
| | 
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou | Re: No cempetition And the letter "o" | |
|
| | | Plldwnyrpnts
join:2003-04-19
Chicago, IL | Re: No cempetition LOL!! | |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| IDIOTS! "Best line: 'It's unclear whether such a tariff would be passed on to consumers through higher download fees.'"
That answer would be YES. So this benefits the consumer HOW?
"Like several American incumbent executives, Depaie apparently believes that content providers should subsidize the costs of expanding their network. "
Ok let me explain this to any idiots that agree with these twits. The reason why the the ISPs can charge $40 or more a month is because there is CONTENT people want to see. Without content people wouldn't use the internet. And ISPs wouldn't make ANYTHING. If anything companies like Google should be charging the ISPs a fee to allow their customers to view their content. ISPs should be THANKING companies like Google for giving them a revenue stream in the first place. | |
|
| 
Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA
1 edit | Re: IDIOTS! said by BF69 :Ok let me explain this to any idiots that agree with these twits. The reason why the the ISPs can charge $40 or more a month is because there is CONTENT people want to see. Without content people wouldn't use the internet. And ISPs wouldn't make ANYTHING. That's one way to look at it, with another being that the content companies have no business without access providers. It's a symbiotic relationship.
I can see both views, but I do get a laugh from those who seem to think it's alright for the pipe providers to have to cut profits to build out networks overloaded by the content providers' applications while the content providers reap all the benefits and don't have to lift a finger to help infrastructure (aka, "their lifeblood.)
Consumers may have problems either way. If Google (or whoever) gets charged, they'll either have to take a cut in profits or pass that on to consumers. Even though many seem to think Google is Robin Hood, I doubt they'll tolerate much of a profit loss. Similarly, the quickly rising bandwidth needs of the internet will require the pipe providers to expand their networks one way or another, so prices may rise for consumer access.
The whole "competition will lower prices" is great in theory, and even works occasionally in the real world. But in this kind of case when infrastructure needs are growing and will always continue to grow, price-wars for consumers will do nothing but limit expansion (even as users whine about the slow pace of progress but lobby for net-neutrality and low prices.) Reality has to kick in at some point. The money for advancement has to come from somewhere..
I don't know.. Since cost is going to be passed on to consumers anyway, is having guaranteed QOS for certain services so bad? Sure, that's against the "net-neutrality" fantasy world, but I'm trying to consider that "reality" thing here.
I'm not making a judgement either way because the way any of these policies are implemented will make all the difference, but calling people "twits" for looking at a different, very valid, viewpoint is ... well ... "twitty."
Adam | |
|
| | 
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| Re: IDIOTS! That could explain why the telco's want to be serve up TV and other services because they know if there in control of the content they can charge for it.
Also pipe providers should simply post how much it costs and how much they want in return in profits. Also you can't gain without sacrificing so I can understand what you mean by where the money would have to come from. At the same time if they don't want content providers getting so easily they should raise there rates for Kb and the solution is solved. As the content provider's themselves they are customers to that ISP and they can always say "I am going out of here with my wallet, your prices are too high, good bye."
It's simple and common sense but just like anyone they like to bring in a valid point and add something extra. To me it's increasing prices but on top of that locking in competition or being abusive on those prices to discourage it. | |
|
| | Plldwnyrpnts
join:2003-04-19
Chicago, IL
| Sure it's symbiotic. Just as my laundry detergent "dirt-o-way" needs a store to sell it.
But if the store finds itself in need of more room for more products, does it pass on the cost to expand the store to me and my detergent? Or does it drop my detergent from the shelf due to the size of the product? Or does is suck it up and take an immediate loss and later reap the rewards?
ISPs that house content providers are making their money on the amount of BW consumed by the provider via the contract that was signed for the service. The end users are limited by the ISPs on the amount of bandwidth they are alotted (comcast = 6mbps max). It is then the ISPs responsibilty to allow or deny (I shouldn't say deny but you know what I mean) access to spcific content that they feel their network cannot handle. This, of course, would cause 56k  user to leave ISP A and go to ISP B. ISP A doesn't want to lose customers so they try to extort content providers for more money to upgrade their network. They claim the end user would have to pay for the upgrades. Well, the end user (me) won't have any of that. ISP B is cheaper and they're already ready for the content that ISP A can't handle. BYE BYE ISP A!
Sounds like some ISPs just need to go out of business. | |
|
| | 
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
 ·CenturyLink
| said by Alpine :[I can see both views, but I do get a laugh from those who seem to think it's alright for the pipe providers to have to cut profits to build out networks overloaded by the content providers' applications while the content providers reap all the benefits and don't have to lift a finger to help infrastructure (aka, "their lifeblood.) Perhaps "pipes" should have to pay to offset the development costs of "content"...
I mean, fair is fair.
--
A is A | |
|
| | 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| If Google gets charged, I think they should turn around and charge the ISP for the privilege of allowing the ISP's users access to Google's content. The same holds true for any other content provider. It might just be odd coincidence if the bills happen to cancel each other out. | |
|
| |
asdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| "think it's alright for the pipe providers to have to cut profits to build out networks "
Since they own the networks, it isn't the slightest bit unreasonable that the pipe provides have to roll their own profits back into the build up of their own infrastructure. That's what all businesses do to grow. It's an odd world we live in when capitalists don't think they should have to put their own profits back into their own business.
"overloaded by the content providers' applications"
Overloaded is simply another way of saying that the pipe owners are not managing their growth properly in order to keep up with growing demand. This doesn't mean that they are being cheated or that the content providers are abusing them.
" while the content providers reap all the benefits and don't have to lift a finger to help infrastructure (aka, "their lifeblood.)"
They lift a finger the way any customer does: by paying for their service. What more should a company expect, we pay them in exchange for their building and maintaining a satisfying service.
"Consumers may have problems either way. If Google (or whoever) gets charged, they'll either have to take a cut in profits or pass that on to consumers....The money for advancement has to come from somewhere.."
If we have faith in Capitalism then we should want a clear signal sent to the market, rather than devious roundabout ways of recovering costs. If the pipe owners aren't making enough money to be able to build out then they should raise the price of bandwidth and everyone, from the googles of the world to the individual isp customer will pay more for a given amount of bandwidth. This is far superior to allowing the pipe owners to use QOS to subvert the way people experience their competitors content. To a large extent this debate is happening because the pipe owners want to use their control of the pipe to undermine competition in spaces such as video. Do they recover costs in a neutral way, by charging for pipes of different sizes, or do we allow them to discriminate based on the type of applications and content.
"Since cost is going to be passed on to consumers anyway, is having guaranteed QOS for certain services so bad"
Yes it is bad for a number of reasons.
1. It gives these companies every incentive to use their control over the pipe to corner the market in the content and services that they want to deliver.
2. It allows them to hide real costs by not passing them on directly to those who are responsible for the costs, (especially their video customers, which is the main reason they are upgrading their networks, i.e. they want to get into the video content delivery business). They want to socialize the cost of their video service and take it out of the backs of all internet users. Let their video customers shoulder the cost of their video service upgrades.
3. The company has little incentive to build out beyond what is necessary for their own video service. If they have a juicy new revenue model based on having those with deep pockets paying additional money for the privilege of being given preference on the network, why would they undermine this revenue by creating abundance and lessening the pressure on content providers to pay. If we weren't bandwidth limited QOS wouldn't be much of an issue. In other parts of the world, where speeds of connections are far superior to ours, this isn't an issue. The needs of the market there are being met by providing bigger pipes, not by extorting money from deep pockets by maintaining scarcity. | |
|
| |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by Alpine :That's one way to look at it, with another being that the content companies have no business without access providers. It's a symbiotic relationship. How about this analogy. Does RCA( or insert other TV manufacturer ) charge my cable company a fee because they make the TV I watch cable on? I mean without the TV, cable is pretty useless isn't it?
As you'd say TV makers need the cable/satelite guys for content and the cable/satelite guys need the TV makers. Except they don't charge a fee to each other.
And don't say it's different. In the old days TVs had dials and went up to channel 83. Because of cable, TV makers had to make TVs remote controlled and have tuners in them that go beyond channel 83.
How about today? TV stations are broadcasting shows in HD. TV makers have to start making HDTVs. We all know the good old CRT TVs are cheaper for them to make and makes them a higher profit per unit, but they have to abandon these type of TVs.
Did they pass these costs on the the cable companies or did they just eat the costs as part of doing business like everyone else? | |
|
| | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
| said by Alpine :I can see both views, but I do get a laugh from those who seem to think it's alright for the pipe providers to have to cut profits to build out networks overloaded by the content providers' applications while the content providers reap all the benefits and don't have to lift a finger to help infrastructure (aka, "their lifeblood.) LOL, I mean, I have to laugh. "Pipe providers have to cut their profits to build out networks"? Uh, it's like this. If I want to SELL you a service, then I have to PROVIDE that service for you to buy!.
LOL, I mean come on. I want to sell you a new car, but it's unfair that I have to cut profits by actually building an actual car to sell to you?
Tell you what. I have a business model where I want to get into the trash collecting/recycling business. However I don't have any money to actually buy any equipment, hire any employees or provide any service.... so I'll just let the city service come pick up your trash, and you can send me a seperate check to my P.O. Box for $75 a month. Sounds like a great business model to me.
Let's restate this one more time: The content on the internet is why people pay for access to the internet. If the internet had nothing on it, their would be no reason to PAY for service connecting to it.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Re: IDIOTS! said by KrK :LOL, I mean, I have to laugh. "Pipe providers have to cut their profits to build out networks"? Uh, it's like this. If I want to SELL you a service, then I have to PROVIDE that service for you to buy!. Not only that, but you always need to invest money in a business for it to thrive. Especially in the computer/Internet industry where the alternative to continually refining and improving your product (be it a network, a browser, or a computer component) is finding yourself out of business. | |
|
| | jobr
join:2004-10-21
Halifax, NS
| But the point is that their viewpoint is *not* valid. Content providers already pay large amounts of money for their connections and presumably you pay for your connection as well. If your ISP can't make a profit from the prices it charges you, it has a flawed business model.
ISPs charging content providers for access to their network would be like Bell saying to Telus' business customers "I've heard that your calls to our residential customers might soon start dropping. That'd be a real shame but I'm sure some cash coming our way could remedy that, if you get my drift."
For phones that sort of behaviour would land them in court pretty quickly, but apparently it's okay for internet connections. | |
|
Corvus
Flaming Tards Since 2003
Premium,VIP
join:2003-11-26
| Someone has to pay With Youtube and other video services booming traffic on the web and the incoming new revolution of movies rent from the web, CEOs are kind of nervous. Someone has to pay for bandwidth and for now, the PR job is for trying to not charge directly the customer, passing the bill to the content providers. Will it work? I have doubts. So what's next? Oh yeah, billing the customer for what he use, pay per bits is going to be the new reality of ISPs.
--
Conservatives define themselves in terms of what they oppose.
---George Will | |
|
| MAR_03_2002
Premium
join:2002-03-03
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Someone has to pay said by Corvus : So what's next? Oh yeah, billing the customer for what he uses, pay per bits is going to be the new reality of ISPs. Burn witch burn! You have spoken the truth you are not allowed to say. You will have to pay for being a heretic.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
| 
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| You seem to be ignoring that fact that all the content providers are paying by the megabyte for their traffic. So they are alreadying paying. It's ridiculous for a content provider to get charged twice, considering they aren't getting unlimited connection like the home user. | |
|
| |
Corvus
Flaming Tards Since 2003
Premium,VIP
join:2003-11-26
| Re: Someone has to pay said by insomniac84 :You seem to be ignoring that fact that all the content providers are paying by the megabyte for their traffic. So they are alreadying paying. It's ridiculous for a content provider to get charged twice, considering they aren't getting unlimited connection like the home user. I know that but the problem is still there, who will pay between the two: consumers or content providers charging the consumers? I'm just pointing out what's the point of the CEOs.
--
Conservatives define themselves in terms of what they oppose.
---George Will | |
|
| | |
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| Re: Someone has to pay Honestly the best solution for business is to charge home users by the megabyte. This would shrink traffic down to a level where you wouldn't have to upgrade anything. (And they would be heavily profiting from piracy as that is the bulk of the traffic) But they introduced unlimited, so they are stuck with it.
If they were as smart, they would charge big bucks for 15mbit connections, but they aren't. In the end these big companies are screwing themselves. They are refusing to pass any costs to the home user(something they can do) and instead trying to charge someone else who has no relationship with the home user's ISP at all(which they should never be able to do). If the telecoms have to run with very low profit for a few years, oh well. They are responsible for the low broadband fees. | |
|
| | | | 
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Re: Someone has to pay And what would this MB charge be? .10 cents per MB? If I have to pay 'by the bit', then I pay ONLY for bits I request. That means no ads, no spam, no popups, no nothing. I sure as hell wouldn't pay for traffic I didn't specifically request.
"I just the other day got...an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday, I got it yesterday. Why? They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material"
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
|
| | | | |
Corvus
Flaming Tards Since 2003
Premium,VIP
join:2003-11-26
| Re: Someone has to pay said by karlmarx :And what would this MB charge be? .10 cents per MB? If I have to pay 'by the bit', then I pay ONLY for bits I request. That means no ads, no spam, no popups, no nothing. I sure as hell wouldn't pay for traffic I didn't specifically request. This has nothing to do with the ISP, it has to do with content providers which by the way mostly pay their bandwidth using ads...
--
Conservatives define themselves in terms of what they oppose.
---George Will | |
|
| | 
danclan
join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| said by insomniac84 :You seem to be ignoring that fact that all the content providers are paying by the megabyte for their traffic. So they are alreadying paying. It's ridiculous for a content provider to get charged twice, considering they aren't getting unlimited connection like the home user. mmm no not all content providers are paying ber megabyte. They can lease or purchase their own direct line to a peer and pay a per month peer fee that may or may not be volume dependent an any way. Many large (google) do not pay on a per meg charge they simply have multiple large connections into multiple isps and pay a fixed monthly fee. Large content providers can even create their own ring and peer and sign a peer agreement with another isp and be done etc etc etc...so no not every company (any company hosting a web site is a content provider... the distiction is in the volume of said content) pays on a per meg basis. | |
|
| | | Plldwnyrpnts
join:2003-04-19
Chicago, IL
| Re: Someone has to pay In Google's case, are they using a lot of bandwidth with the "text" they upload? I can understand video and voip being an issue but text? A few images?
Those peer aggreements you speak are making someone money. It's obviously the ISP that signed the aggreement. ISPs are funny in that respect. They sign contracts with each other to connect to their networks and then regret it. | |
|
| |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
1 edit | Pay per bit? Hmmm.. maybe in some fantasy alternate reality. If the pay per bit model is so good, why don't ISP's use it right now? I mean, I download over 500GB/month, yet I STILL only pay 35.00/month. I must be an EVIL person, using that much bandwidth. It's got to be all illegal stuff to!
As I say, prove it. The pay per bit model will never fly. I already pay per bit. I PAY for a 10mb/10mb connection to the internet. How I choose to use that pipe that I pay for is my decision.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
|
| |
Corvus
Flaming Tards Since 2003
Premium,VIP
join:2003-11-26
| Re: Someone has to pay said by karlmarx :Pay per bit? Hmmm.. maybe in some fantasy alternate reality. If the pay per bit model is so good, why don't ISP's use it right now? I mean, I download over 500GB/month, yet I STILL only pay 35.00/month. I must be an EVIL person, using that much bandwidth. It's got to be all illegal stuff to! The pay per bit isn't used because you're still in the minority; even by consuming such huge amounts of data you're still not eating a too much important percentage of all bandwidth used by all users combined. But, the day you'll be the average or close to it ISPs won't have other choice than to either charge you more for an unlimited access or charge you per bit to not hurt users still downloading few gigabytes per month.
--
Conservatives define themselves in terms of what they oppose.
---George Will | |
|
| 
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| Poppycock. They aren't nervous, just greedy and sad that the internet's "tubes" weren't built out and sold like the railroads of yesteryear-tariffs and charges for each and every little section of track everywhere.
It is complete and utter nonsense to argue that content providers are somehow getting a free ride-they are paying out the ass for their connections, or their ISP's are.
quote:
Someone has to pay for bandwidth
Again, the content providers already are paying for bandwidth.
What's next? If this new reality of complete greed takes hold, massive disconnect is next. | |
|
| 
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| I think what's going on here is that the broadband operators are starting to realize that they are starting to approach maximum penetration, so there will be fewer and fewer new light users to help offset the bandwidth costs of the heavier users.
They are probably coming to the conclusion that the cost of bulk bandwidth is not going to drop significantly to match the increase in traffic.
So, they're trying to find a way to make up the shortfall by making somebody pay, and not their customers.
In some ways this is a new incarnation of the portal, which didn't work very well. After all, that's how AOL and Compuserve started out ... portals to information that they controlled themselves ... then portals to the internet.
Then we had the MSNs and Yahoo!s of the world co-brand with various ISPs to provide portalling and therefore reduce the costs to the ISP. Well, that's not working too well. Rumours abound, but it appears that it hasn't been the good deal for the ISPs that they were hoping (surprise, surprise) and some may not renew their portalling agreements.
So, the goal is to find some other poor sucker pay for the bandwidth, because the customer won't directly on his monthly fees.
Look at Rogers ... they are just waiting in the wings with a per GB excess bandwidth charge.
While at the moment, it really would be double dipping (after all we are currently paying for the bandwidth we consume), but the day when bandwidth costs won't be covered by income is rapidly approaching.
Basically, it comes down to the problem that ISPs have had since the early 90s ... content is constantly outstripping the cost of the available bandwidth. This is why I think the use of internet for phone, and essentially broadcast video is an expensive waste. | |
|
| | 
MysticGogeta
The Robot Devil
Premium
join:2005-03-14
League City, TX
clubs: | Re: Someone has to pay I agree, but I believe they should cap 100GB a month after that they could charge extra this would be a more sensible idea.
--
Team Discovery-Join the fight | |
|
| | bbiab
join:2004-05-26 | But we already have tiers. Why is this existing mechanism not a continuing solution? They have always charged customers more (or have for some time now) for the higher tiers. | |
|
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
| said by Corvus :With Youtube and other video services booming traffic on the web and the incoming new revolution of movies rent from the web, CEOs are kind of nervous. Someone has to pay for bandwidth Ok just wanted to make this clear: They DO pay for bandwidth.
It's not like YouTube, Google, ebay etc just exist out there "for free" and people can come and go at will with nobody to pay for the service.
There's a meter running, and they already DO pay. These telecomm execs are just getting greedy; They want them to pay again to fund their infrastructure costs.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| |
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Re: Someone has to pay said by KrK :There's a meter running, and they already DO pay. These telecomm execs are just getting greedy; They want them to pay again to fund their infrastructure costs.
They pay for their bandwidth to their connectivity providers. We pay for bandwidth to our connectivity providers. The problem is that the amount of bandwidth we are consuming is skyrocketing compared with the bandwidth we have been paying for, and the consumer will not pay a lot more and the price of bandwidth is not coming down sufficiently. So, it comes down to who will pay ? The ISPs are saying that the consumer won't pay for the additional bandwidth costs, so we'll make the information providers pay. There is some logic in this except you know that's gonna bounce back as fees to the user. Like a $5 per month access fee to google to your hearts content, or a $10 per month access fee to youtube etc. The costs to the consumer will far exceed the cost of paying the ISP for the bandwidth. Yes, the info providers are paying for bandwidth to distribute the information. They pay to get it onto the internet, not for us to retrieve it from the internet. That's our fee to our ISP. | |
|
| | | bbiab
join:2004-05-26 | Re: Someone has to pay hmm, tiers? | |
|
| | | |
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Re: Someone has to pay At the moment, tiering is based on speed and not amount of download.
Personally, if they start charging for bandwidth, it should probably be like 100GB free (at any speed) and then advance purchase additional blocks of say 10GB for $5, or pay after use for say $1 per GB. | |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
|  ...?
...they already do. How much more greedy can we get?
--
"You do not secure the liberty of our country and value of our democracy by undermining them, that's the road to hell." - Lord Phillips of Sudbury. | |
|
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| fee fi fo fum I smell the greed of an ISP man...
Like Karl said, either have the gumption to try that (and see that it does not work) or keep your trap shut.
Further, if ISP's don't wish to sell people 4+ megabit connections, don't!
Still don't understand this gripe.
What on earth are all those fancy new routers, switches, fiber links, etc. even there for in the 1st place?
...to send an email 2ms faster?
..to simply game using what, 20-40KB/sec???
So what if somebody actually wants to use their connection at full blast. | |
|
pat_lc2000
join:2006-02-04
Ottawa, ON
| Videotron Videotron is the worst of any major provider for their bandwitdh cap. At a whole 20gb a month (hard cap) they are really behind the times. They charge the highest setup fees in the industry.
They also have the most outdated systems of any of the major providers in North America to my knownledge.
Basically Videotron today is what all cableco's want to be in the Future. | |
|
| Capharnaum
join:2006-06-19
Montreal, QC
| Re: Videotron No surprise coming from Videotron, one of the worst service provider in North America.
The worse is that this comes at a time where Videotron is making record profits.
Might I suggest (once again) that users dump Videotron for a better provider? | |
|
| 
bouchecl
join:2004-09-13
Quebec, QC
| Setting the record straight said by pat_lc2000 :Videotron is the worst of any major provider for their bandwitdh cap. At a whole 20gb a month (hard cap) they are really behind the times. They charge the highest setup fees in the industry. They also have the most outdated systems of any of the major providers in North America to my knownledge. Worst of any major provider in the industry? I don't think so! Their service is much faster than Rogers or Shaw, the other two major cable ISPs in Canada (see »/archive). They're way ahead in the implementation of their VoIP services. Stop reading the Toronto papers for a minute!
I acknowledge their hard caps are low and enforced (but at least they don't throttle BitTorrent) for the regular service, but their "extreme" service has no cap. | |
|
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| Blowing hot air It's amazing how these execs blow hot air. If it wasn't for the content the backbone providers wouldn't have a leg to stand on and the same goes the other way around. Why can't we all just work together to provide the most meaningful experience for everyone.
Neither would make money without the other. This unless companies like AT&T provides both the content and the backbone together. | |
|
canuck999999
join:2004-04-19
| Funny You want to know what the really funny part about this is? Unlike in the USA where there is heated debate about this issue, in Canada it will probably go through our Parliment rather quietly. Fortunately for Canadians most of the people in the House of Commons seem to have enough brain cells left to see why this wouldn't be such a great idea, at least I hope they do anyways. | |
|
|
bouchecl
join:2004-09-13
Quebec, QC
| Re: Funny It will not go to Parliament. Don't you have civics classes in Manitoba?
By law, these decisions are delegated to the CRTC. This administrative tribunal would call for position papers from the public, hold hearings wait for a while before deciding something. The members of the Council have been known in the past to rule against incumbent companies, and can be convinced, if a good argument coming from the population, is made. The council also reacts favorably to arguments protecting the Canadian industry against percieved or real threats from abroad (the satellite grey market, Canadian content quotas on the radio, rules forcing cable operators to simulcast a Canadian channel when a domestic and US channel are broadcasting a US-network show, etc.)
Of course, the decision can be overturned or suspended by the Governor-in-Council (the Cabinet in popular parlance), but this seldom happens. Then, it can go to the Federal Court first, then the losing party can appeal to the Supreme Court. | |
|
| | canuck999999
join:2004-04-19 | Re: Funny Of course we do, that doesn't mean I took any though, or maybe I took them and forgot, it has been a while since I have been in a classroom. | |
|
squid7
Premium
join:2006-09-02 | If they can't compete... they should surrender their franchise and make room for a company who knows how to run their business without double dipping.
Customers are already paying for content delivery whether they get it delivered or not. | |
|
andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| Crazy This is crazy.We allready pay for the right to download and whoever is on the other end pays for thier service to upload,so really 2 companies make money from each single byte (or 1 company makes double if they have both the uploader and downloader as clients) | |
|
|
|
|
Videotron Wants Content Providers to Pay
