how-to block ads
|
vknight775
join:2001-12-08
Etobicoke, ON
|  More like a drip
Personally, I can't see myself becoming more of a broadband fan in the future. The net was built for people to exchange ideas and information. Then, corporations took it away from us, and use it to sell us things at every turn. They have this "if you don't view our ads, don't use our service" mentality that just makes me sick.
Now the broadband monopoly is putting the squeeze on us.
- "No, you can't run FTP/Web Server/Game Hosting/PTP servers on OUR network, although you pay us for your "always on" connection."
- WTF? Then what CAN I do??
- "You can buy products from our TRUSTED PARTNERS."
- But I don't want anything from your partners. I simply want to communicate with like-minded people.
- "Too bad. You have 24 hours to make a purchase, or we're closing your broadband account. You'll be forced to pay out the remainder of your service contract."
Okay, this was a little dramatic, but it's not that far-fetched.
I need to end this rant. Bottom line is, as the handful of major broadband providers continue to squeeze the pipes (and our wallets), this "Tsunami" will never happen. Quote me on that.
--
"There is only one thing I hate worse than a lawyer. And that's a lawyer who has a seat on Capitol Hill." | |
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
 ·VOIPo
| I like the drama, and I'd agree-- it's probably not too far-fetched. According to the way some feel, all the ISPs would have to do is add a clause into their TOS requiring the purchase of equipment/goods/whatever from their "trusted" partners. Not buying from them? Violation of your TOS. Viola, your service gets cancelled.
said by vknight775  :
Bottom line is, as the handful of major broadband providers continue to squeeze the pipes (and our wallets), this "Tsunami" will never happen.
Absolutely. If you think back, what was one of the components that really started this massive migration toward everyone being online? One word: competition. Mom and pop ISPs jumping up all over the place, offering more features and/or lower prices. Market forces drove prices downward and brought more people online.
As long as a few major players control all the broadband services, massive broadband adoption just won't happen. Prices will remain high, true broadband applications won't be developed, the true potential of high speed networked computing won't be realized, and, yes, AOL will grow fatter.
We need small mom-and-pop ISPs to get back into the picture. We need to give the "little people" ways to compete with the ILECs when it comes to offering broadband services. Assuming the technology gets further developed, and prices on the high end equipment become/remain reasonable, wireless ISPs may be just the ticket...
--
Cox cable: the hallmark questionable business practices and lousy cable service! | |
jkreuzig
Whatever
join:2001-07-11
Yorba Linda, CA
|  said by NOVA_Guy :
As long as a few major players control all the broadband services, massive broadband adoption just won't happen. Prices will remain high, true broadband applications won't be developed, the true potential of high speed networked computing won't be realized, and, yes, AOL will grow fatter.
We need small mom-and-pop ISPs to get back into the picture. We need to give the "little people" ways to compete with the ILECs when it comes to offering broadband services. Assuming the technology gets further developed, and prices on the high end equipment become/remain reasonable, wireless ISPs may be just the ticket...
As much as I dislike AOL, they are (or were at one time) an example of how to become a major player. AOL started as a NOTHING company. They built their business on a model that included making internet access easy for the masses. They had, at the time, reasonable prices, and a perception of being easy to install/operate.
As I have said in another thread, I believe in the "JUST GIVE ME THE DAM BANDWIDTH" concept. I am hopeful that somebody will figure out that they should operate an ISP like a utility. Provide the users with inexpensive, always on connection and LEAVE THEM ALONE. The ISP could also provide email, but that's about it. You say you need usenet news servers? Google groups solves that and doesn't cost anything extra. ISP's should be getting out of the content delivery business, and concentrate on being in the CONNECTIVITY business.
Can you imagine your electricity being provided like your broadband service? "I'm sorry sir, but your washing machine uses too much electricity. You need to unplug it or you are in violation of your TOS. If you fail to do so by Jan 31, you could be subject to civil action and/or criminal prosecution"
-Jim | |
redtwister
@21stcentury.net
| reply to NOVA_Guy
You are overlooking some issues. small ISp's used phone lines and basically had modem banks and firewalls. And connections often sucked ie lots of drops, redials, etc. We have to get out of the small business mentality and think on a macro level, but with a peer-to-peer mentality.
A lot of Broadband requires major infrastructural changes, like laying large quantities of new cable. Here in Chicago SBC is trying to squeeze RCN and other phone/Internet providers by charging 33% more for access to the phone lines, switches, etc. ie to the infrastructure that they own.
As long as this stuff remains privatized there is no way to keep the telecom companies from trying to smash every competitor and from us getting scammed on costs and services. Do you want to be trapped with Verizon or SBC????
As for things like price and innovation, if we leave that up to private companies, anything that becomes big enough to be popularly desired will be controlled by corporations who are looking at their profit margins and stock portfolios. Don't forget, cheap service providers often pay their workers very low wages, provide few benefits, treat their workers poorly in other ways, have high personnel turnover, etc. I know folks who work in the business and I don't think that service users can ignore that their unthought-through calls for less cost and more speed is met often by squeezing the workers, by making them work faster and harder for less money. Guess what that does to service for us and the lives of the people who work for those companies? Both go to heck. We need a targeted demand for universal, high quality service and infrastucture. That means taking it out of the hands of the corporations.
What we need is truly publicly managed communication infrastructures. I don't mean state-run, per se. Although Social Security is a model system in terms of efficiency, using only 1/2% of its total budget for running the system (any private company would want at least a 10-15% rate of profit, prolly more like 20-30%), I am not for depending on the government. But the fact is that the infrastructure restructuring would cost so much that it only makes sense as a public venture. And by infrastucture, I mean all the cable, switching, routing, hub equipment, etc. Everything from backbone to residential lines. That way folks in the sticks could finally get high speed and it could be done uniformly throughout the country. Also, it should handle video, voice and data signals so that TV, computer, and phone (ie all major communications) could be handled on one single infrastructure (obviously, it would have to be heavily redundant as the Internet originally was.)
Support for 1GB link speeds per 300 people should cover any needs we have right now and in the forseeable future 
Then there is no question of what type of broadband, reliability, etc. And everyone should be able to get raw access (phone, data, TV) to their home for the same cost per each service (on a single data jack type, too.) You will need transceivers for two of the three devices, but we need that now, so no big deal.
Let other special services, like hosting, off-site firewall services, etc. be handled privately. Those operations can buy more data lines and get IP licensing as they do now and charge or not charge customers as they see fit for those special services.
But communications should be universally accessible regardless of income. Why should poverty mean lack of access to communication? Then again, if people didn't have to pay so much for cable, phone and internet, maybe folks would also be a little less poor. Maybe if the folks handling the infrastructure got paid well, a few less folks would be poor.
How do we get there? Now that would be an interesting conversation.
Cheers. | |
|
