In Favor of Two Tiered WebMake them pay.... ( old news - 04:22PM Tuesday Feb 21 2006) tags: bandwidth · Op/EdThe telecom Stock blog slams the NY Times editorial from earlier this week calling for regulation to prevent telcos from charging QoS broadband tariffs. Like former FCC head Powell's comments this morning, the new line from the industry seems to be that this is a battle between telcos and Google, and that consumers (who are to blame for wanting bandwidth) should just suck it up, pay more, and bask in the resulting glory. "Net neutrality is about big media against big telecom, not big telecom against the consumer, though that is not what the NYT and digital elitists would like you to believe," the piece states. "The reality is that different types of internet consumers exist, and they should pay different amounts for different types of service."To prove it, the author looks toward Japanese fiber data ( pdf), and notes that broadband users naturally fall into two categories: power users, and the rest of us. Because of this natural delineation, the piece concludes, "Tiered usage already exists so why is it wrong to charge for it?"This is now the second editorial we've seen that tries to reframe the debate in this way. But is the debate really about the fairness of making bandwidth hogs pay? Or is it about incumbents pulling a new profit stream out of thin-air to help fund inevitable (IP video cometh) network upgrades?
Related:- Measuring Caps By E-Mails Sent Doesn't Make Them More Generous
- AT&T Front Group Claims Internet End Is Nigh
- Backbone Analysis Puts Exaflood Myth To Bed
- AT&T Metered Billing Trial Hits Second Market
- Consumer Group Wants $44 Billion For U.S. Broadband
- Why Are ISPs Still Advertising Limited Services As Unlimited?
- ISPs Won't Admit Participation In New RIAA Plan
- Verizon's Open Development Initiative? So Far It's A Joke
|
 |  | jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
 ·Dreamhost
 ·Armstrong Zoom In..
| Re: We already pay for it? I can see it now:
"G$$gle-it!"
Google has released a new version of it's site, similar to Yahoo!'s portal, in which you can get the latest news and information. The new site boasts a new charge though, charging users $0.50 per page view due to the new tiered internet pricing imposed by telcos. An average user pays upwards of $40 per month for Google's service.
Does anyone want that?
Granted that is probably worse-case scenario, but could happen.
We (the consumer) pay for the pipe from our house to the internet. Companies such as Google pay intermediaries who own the routers, lines, etc for the pipe between their companies and the internet.
What else needs to be charged for?
If Google is charged for using SBC's lines, that means Verizon, MCI, BellSouth, Level 3, and a host of other companies could charge them as well. You can then say bye-bye to most of the internet's main websites like Google, Yahoo!, Amazon, etc. because they would almost surely go into debt from being charged by everyone; Even though everyone is already being payed by some degree by both consumers and businesses. The money filters through from one company or consumer to another in some way shape or form. | |
| | | 
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| Re: We already pay for it? said by jimbo2150  :I can see it now: "G$$gle-it!"
Google has released a new version of it's site, similar to Yahoo!'s portal, in which you can get the latest news and information. The new site boasts a new charge though, charging users $0.50 per page view due to the new tiered internet pricing imposed by telcos. An average user pays upwards of $40 per month for Google's service.
Does anyone want that? Granted that is probably worse-case scenario, but could happen. We (the consumer) pay for the pipe from our house to the internet. Companies such as Google pay intermediaries who own the routers, lines, etc for the pipe between their companies and the internet. What else needs to be charged for? If Google is charged for using SBC's lines, that means Verizon, MCI, BellSouth, Level 3, and a host of other companies could charge them as well. You can then say bye-bye to most of the internet's main websites like Google, Yahoo!, Amazon, etc. because they would almost surely go into debt from being charged by everyone; Even though everyone is already being payed by some degree by both consumers and businesses. The money filters through from one company or consumer to another in some way shape or form. Exactly, someone, somewhere is getting paid, and they want more now. USA, land of the Greedy Corps. | |
| 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Article Makes The Wrong Argument The telecom Stock blog article appears to argue that end users should be provided with different tiers of access, not that content providers should pay for access to customers. Aside from the token "The NY Times Sucks" blurb in the first paragraph, there's nothing in the article that supports the idea that content providers be punished.
I am wondering why the Bells are trying to confuse the two issues of dealing with high end users and charging content providers. <sarcasm>My guess is that they want to convince the public that high end users are evil so that the rest of the people will support charging content providers.</sarcasm> But what do I know? 
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! | |
| | 
brooklynman4
join:2004-09-07
Brooklyn, NY | Re: Article Makes The Wrong Argument Thats why the stocks aint doing that great cause of crap like that | |
| | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| It has to be a talking point, being circulated via think tank. I've seen it a handful of times in the past two weeks, and you're right. These are different issues.
At first I thought the confusion was accidental, and the authors were mis-reading the whole debate. I'm starting to think it's an intentional obfuscation campaign so the real debate (charging all IP service providers a new, previously un-billed tariff for priority service) is muddied.... | |
| | | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
edit:
February 21st, @05:23PM
| Re: Article Makes The Wrong Argument pnh102 and Karl have it precisely right.
Much of the recent argument here has been whether or not there is justification for charging "power users" more than light users for more intense use of the same bandwidth. If there is a justification (and I'm firmly in the camp that believes there is) then the real question becomes "how big is that justification".
IF the "increased charge" is placed on the end user (where I believe it belongs) then ISPs can fairly compete for users, both "light" and "power" users, by tailoring their networks and peering arrangements to suit the traffic they expect. Some ISPs may choose to seek out "light users" and some may seek the "power users". Most importantly, competition will be direct and pricing will be a big factor. Meanwhile, content providers (including new content providers) will be free to offer content supporting only their direct costs--their own servers and their own connections to peering points. Whatever difference exists between the costs of "power use" and "light use" will be accurately reflected in the marketplace (and even the possibility of "zero" increased cost will be reflected as well.)
IF, on the other hand, the "increased charge" is diverted to the content provider space, then all of the competition is made much more fuzzy, and much more pricing power is placed in the hands of the big telcos. Competition will be much more devious, with a new ISP or a new content provider needing not just to cover its own costs, but to figure out a way to participate in the great slush fund of kickbacks that the whining Baby Bells control. In this case the Bells win because they can shift prices around as much as needed to temporarily underprice whichever market segment is seeing competition. Additionally, since they are only paying themselves, even if they "charge" their own content divisions for "access", they have a tremendous subsidy potential which will enable them to eventually dominate content as well.
Realistically, while there is some increased cost for "power" usage, it shouldn't be all that much--but if we let the big ISPs charge somebody else for it, then we'll never really know what that cost is--just like we didn't know long distance was cheap until the breakup of Ma Bell forced the baby Bells to allow competition in the LD space and not use it as a cash cow to be milked.
There you have it--the real reason that the Baby Bells are deliberately confusing these two issues is that this is how they can prevent vigorous competition at the end user level. Looking for the first time at a major revenue source that they cannot control outright, they are desperate to prevent real competition because they know they are too fat and lazy to really compete.
calvoiper | |
| | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: Article Makes The Wrong Argument I would agree with you 100%. I firmly believe that it should be the ISP that the customer has direct contact with imposing restrictions and that customer can make the decision based on those factors whether or not they do business with that company.
ISP's pay for their connection to the internet just like the rest of us. Their bottom line depends on the amount of bandwidth every user on their network uses. The more they use, the more they have to pay to get them where they want to go. Therefore, I feel they are well within their rights to shape their user's usage anyway they want; be it throttling (recommended), termination, caps (charges for exceeding) or "tiering". As long as the consumer has a choice in doing business with them AND as long as the consumer if fully aware of the 'limits' imposed by the ISP before hand. I would even go so far as to say EVERY agreement is grandfathered. In other words, they just can't pull the 'ol legal bait and switch by giving you the world today, but them taking it all away tomorrow with a new TOS. | |
| | | | | | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Article Makes The Wrong Argument I don't have a vested interest at all. (I had a small amount of stock in the old Level3, but it was washed out in the bankruptcy.) I don't work for any player in this game.
The point is that "speed" and "capacity" are two different things, with different costs. As a simplified example, consider an independent ISP in a small town. The ISP connects with its end users, hubs all traffic at its office, and buys a "big pipe" out of the boondocks to the Internet "cloud".
To increase speed to any user, without increasing capacity used by that user, the ISP needs to upgrade its connection between the hub and the end user. That more expensive connection can accurately be reflected by an increased price for the higher speed.
Now let's consider the case where the users don't need more "speed", but they are going to use the speed they have far more intensively. In this case, the end user connection remains unchanged--but the "big pipe" needs to get bigger to handle the increased traffic.
(And don't tell me the big pipe should already be big enough--NO ISP totally builds a 100% "clear through" network to its peering points--it just doesn't make economic sense not to share some facilities.)
So the question is, when shared facilities need to be augmented, do you charge everyone, or do you just charge those who are causing the augment?
Now, I firmly believe what I've just written--but the important thing is that EVEN IF I'M WRONG, the ONLY way we'll know is if we keep the big ISPs from charging content providers and let ISP competition go after the end user directly. If ISP business costs are covered for some ISPs by hidden "content provider kickbacks", then we'll never really know if these "big pipe augments" needed higher revenues or not, will we?
The big ISPs need to pass their claimed increased costs along directly so cheaper ISPs can compete with them, rather than hiding them in slush fund swaps conducted by the "big player club".
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | Talis
join:2001-06-21
Houston, TX
| Re: Article Makes The Wrong Argument said by calvoiper :So the question is, when shared facilities need to be augmented, do you charge everyone, or do you just charge those who are causing the augment? I understand your argument, but disagree with your conclusion. In my mind the question is, what exactly has the ISP sold to the user? If I purchase a 1.5m connection and I use that connection 24/7, why should I be charged more than you, who may have purchased the same 1.5m connection but only use it 1 hour a day? The ISP sold me the bandwidth. Why am I not allowed to use it? Why is it my problem that their infrastructure can't meet the demands of what they sold?
If they aren't selling capacity, what are they selling? | |
| | | | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Article Makes The Wrong Argument They're selling the ability to OCCASIONALLY use very fast downloads without CONSTANTLY using them.
It's not unreasonable for an ISP to restructure its service offerings to more directly address different types of customers.
As an example, someone who wants fast downloads of web pages, but then spends several seconds looking at them, would want capacity without necessarily wanting to use it 100% 24/7. Likewise, someone who wanted to play an MMORP Game or watch a movie without advance downloading it, but for only a couple of hours a day, would be a customer of a service that provided broadband but didn't include 100% usage of the capacity 24/7 in the base price.
I understand that some folks are justifiably angry about "all you can shovel" plans that haven't delivered--but that's a separate issue from allowing an ISP to more clearly spell out TO THE END USER what they will deliver for a given price.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| Tom, someone using a 768k line maxed out 24x7 should be paying more than someone using the same 768k line for may be 1-2 hours of the day. That's the argument.
Of course providers have tried to enforce this in the past with caps but have been mostly shot down.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber | |
| | | | | stlpmpnu
join:2001-03-13
Saint Louis, MO
| I don't think its right at all a user pays for a certain speed just because they actually use it does not justify them being charged more. There network that are over crowded is not any of the customers concern they pay for it they should get it. If they want to put on caps then they need to be 100% clear about it. | |
| | | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Article Makes The Wrong Argument I agree that any plan which deviates from the now common "all you can shovel" approach should be clearly spelled out to the end user. My main argument is that offering other such plans should be possible, just as various cellphone calling plans are available.
(And yes, over time it may develop that there would be something like day/evening/night rates which work to level out the demand curves of the shared facilities.)
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | 
NogustaX
@sympatico.ca
| Calvoiper... very well written. Spin is in.
Unfortunately the telecom & cable backed ISPs are used to being able to redefine words. "Unlimited" means whatever we feel like letting you have at a given time.
Very good theory (and likely the truth) that the whole point is to reduce if not, for all realistic purposes, outright block competition. | |
| | JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| said by pnh102 :My guess is that they want to convince the public that high end users are evil so that the rest of the people will support charging content providers.</sarcasm> But what do I know? It is a word game. Kind of like "tax cuts for the rich". You know the person saying it is full of it but it still sounds good. Once RBOCs convince the public that these big bad media companies are getting a free ride, it is game over.
The market will sort itself out, if it doesn't, subs will find other avenues to get their information/entertainment fix. | |
| | | | | vinnie97
join:2003-12-05
Mesquite, TX
| Re: Bring on the "charge by byte" model Those won't be the only unhappy ones. I think you forgot about legitimate bandwitdh usage and menial things like instant messaging and other software that requires network connectivity just to function. Thoes bytes will add up and quickly escalate beyond the prices of broadband service today.
Sickening idea. | |
| | | dc_analyst
join:2006-02-21
Washington, DC
| The promise of the Internet is based in the fact that it gives equal media power to all.
In this medium, citizen journalism can thrive. This (hopefully) provides a counterbalance to the anti-democratic tendencies of the corporate media.
Charging a premium for upload bytes destroys this potential. It will shift the balance of power to those who have the most money - allowing them to use media to gain political favors and generate even more money and power.
I agree that heavy users should be charged a premium for "fatter pipes", but there should be equity between upload and download bytes.
Ultimately, creating a disincentive against uploading hurts innovation. For example, users wanting to send video-mail will balk at the additional cost, and this (and other potential new) technology will never take-off. | |
| | | | Chulategui
join:2003-11-08
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
| Re: Bring on the "charge by byte" model said by dc_analyst :Charging a premium for upload bytes destroys this potential. It will shift the balance of power to those who have the most money - allowing them to use media to gain political favors and generate even more money and power. I would sure hate to see that get started. | |
| | | 
bear73
Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly Skies
Premium
join:2001-06-09
Grand Forks Afb, ND
·Midcontinent Commu..
| Your plan will hurt the on-line game players also. Look at the XBox and 360, other nex-gen consoles, MMO games, multiplayer FPS games. What about VOIP? how about video messaging/teleconferencing? (I'm talking about family and SOHO type.) A better method to get the pirates is good investigative work. Watch where all the big uploaders are, then look at them.
--
If ya gotta go, Go with a SMILE! | |
| | | 
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| tsk tsk..
Someone's not to happy the telco's are about to be bitch slapped by congress! Ha ha ha.. and you said it would never go anywhere. Net Neutrality is a telco's nightmare come true, as it moves power back to the customer. Net Neutrality means none of the plans to 'charge by the byte' will work. Net Neutrality means that the ISP's need to provide what they are selling. Net Neutrality represents the end to telcos/cableco's double dipping ideas.. It's.. a NIGHTMARE to a paid shill like you, cause why should they pay you anymore to troll message boards?
(isn't your alter ego better known as 'taylor'. If so, you forgot to mention that internet thieves will end up in prison to become bubba's ass bitch).
--
Sure the internet has lots of porn and piracy, but I'm sure there's a downside to it. | |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | Re: Bring on the "charge by byte" model When exactly did the cable companies join in on this argument again? So far, I've only heard AT&T/SBC, Bell South, and recently Verizon/MCI.
You keep talking about greedy cable co's in on this and I have yet to hear a word about it. | |
| | | 
lucky644
Premium
join:2002-02-04
| said by TK Junk Mail :We can solve the whole problem. Start charging users by the byte transferred. With upload bytes costing about 10 times what a download byte costs. That way you kill 2 birds with 1 stone: make the hogs pay a higher price; and kill off the P2P users with high fees. Hollywood(RIAA, MPAA, etc) will be happy; the internet providers will be happy; and the content providers who push info will get a discounted byte rate for pushing downloads. The only people that will be unhappy will be the music and video thieves serving up copyrighted material. www.fileplanet.com
www.vonage.com
www.skype.com (video/voice)
video.google.com
These are just SOME legit things that require a lot of bandwidth depending on usage. Want more?
www.steampowered.com
www.xbox.com (xbox 360)
www.nintendo.com (upcoming revolution)
www.direct2drive.com
These 4 are all directed at gamers, all of which are legit uses. All of which you can purchase full games and download them right off the internet.
Your idea that the only people who use large amounts of bandwidth are only by "music and video theives" is just stupid, ridiculious and ignorant.
My GRANDMOTHER uses 40GB alone on emailing pictures/videos, talking on skype and msn video and online radio.
Come on, you're just being silly. | |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | Re: Bring on the "charge by byte" model www.vonage.com require alot of bandwidth?
You really need to go back to internet use school there bud.
VoIP doesn't take that much BW.... almost a dial up modem speed is all. | |
| | | | |
lucky644
Premium
join:2002-02-04
moderated:
February 22nd, @04:08AM
| Re: Bring on the "charge by byte" model said by fiberguy :www.vonage.com require alot of bandwidth? You really need to go back to internet use school there bud. VoIP doesn't take that much BW.... almost a dial up modem speed is all. "depending on usage"
It's just one legit way that can be included into the pile of other stuff you can be doing to rack up your bandwidth. | |
| | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by TK Junk Mail :We can solve the whole problem. What problem?
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008! | |
| | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: Bring on the "charge by byte" model Exactly. | |
| Djinnmage
join:2004-03-14
Fairfax, VA
| don't tiers already exist? Last time I checked, most broadband providers offer a couple different piers of bandwidth to subscribe to. I don't see a problem with that. Now charging EXTRA because you choose to use that bandwidth more than the guy next to you, now that's just plain wrong. | |
| |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: don't tiers already exist? Actually, it's not "just plain wrong".
All ISPs have some shared facilities--no ISP builds a full, dedicated pipe to every peering point for every end user.
As bandwidth usage per customer goes up, these "shared facilities" have to be augmented. Since usage patterns vary among users, the light user who only uses his bandwidth for relatively infrequent "bursts" of data (e.g., to load webpages with lots of pictures that he looks at for a minute or two before loading the next) ends up using a lot less of the peering facilities than the "power" user who downloads videos 23/7 or constantly plays interactive games.
Some people think these increased costs are trivial--but we'll only find out if ISPs can compete directly for different types of users. If the pricing schemes are confused by content provider kickback schemes like the Bells are proposing, we'll never know how big this differential really is--or even if it exists at all in a meaningful sense.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| 
TelecomJunky
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Kansas City, MO
| That's exactly right There is no debate about making bandwidth hogs pay, its about leaving small independent content providers with sub par network access to the customer.
I guess this editorial guy wants AT&T to not drop its ads with his employer.
--
-----»hotcarl.diaryland.com | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: That's exactly right said by TelecomJunky :There is no debate about making bandwidth hogs pay, its about leaving small independent content providers with sub par network access to the customer. Honestly? There is a balance. For those that hog, there are those that don't. There are those that take things to the extream and then there are those that use very very very little each month.
No, I don't beleive in making those hogs pay. I believe that if they impact the performance of others, you remove or throttle them. Everyone pays for access to the internet. But, to say that a hog is taking too much from the system, let's not forget that other side of things too and those who DON'T even come close to using hardly any transfer per month.
This is a silly argument and a bunch of B.S. - it's spin and nothing more.
I am in favor of protecting the average user from the hogs, but I am not for over charging hogs - just leashing them and pulling them back into reality. Additionally, sure, a two tier system would be great... but only for the end user side. They should be running more frequency services. Those that want to be heavy users should be moved to another tier and those that are more in the residential use should remain. Those that do want to use more, should be moved or leashed. | |
| 
pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
clubs:
·Comcast
| two teirs.. one for the rich, mega deep pocket site and one for everyone else..
not a good idea.. what's gonna happen to the little guy.. the independant web hosting providers? do we suffer with crap connections to the telco customers or will we be forced to pay twice for out bandwidth? i sure hope this get dropped like a hot rock and those with the power (congress?) stop this attemtp dead in it's tracks.
--
Webmaster Steve
- - - - - - - - - - - -
»ppnhosting.com
»sphenterprizes.com
»pokemonpalace.net | |
| | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: two teirs.. said by TheSaint :This is just yet another attempt at the telcos trying to cash in instead of building out. Google provides what people want, SBC and others just can't seem to fathom that. There has yet to be a legit argument in favor of two-tier that actually helps the consumer. Once again, this is just think tank speak through and through. Yes, they can fathom that. The problem is that SBC and others now want to provide that themself.
It only took them, what, forever, to realize that there IS money in content - something they far ignored. Now they want to be the carrier of data AND the provider of content. Google, MovieLink, Vonage and all (if you have noticed the targets) are all competing with services that the incumbant wants to provide, and, can't compete with. What do you do? Price them into the range of your own product and then tell your own customers about reliability and performance issues on how your product as SBC is better than Vonage.
Sure, they opened their lines to competitors for CLEC phone service - but who remained chaper? the ILEC. Same on DSL.. why go elsewhere for DSL when the bottom line was the ILEC was the same if not cheaper and they were able to get their DSL on faster and respond to their needs faster.
It's called "cripple the competition" is what it is. Taking it tot he level of the internet content provider level is a VERY BAD THING! If you ask me, this takes us right back to AOL 1.0 and 2.0 - we will have Online services, and not the internet.
I can see it now:
SBC User: Hey, if you want to find out about widgets, just google it..
Bell South User: Sorry, we don't have google, and I can't find anything on Yahoo. Can you send me something in email, a link maybe?
SBC User: I tried, but my email was bounced. Sorry. Too bad you didn't live in SBC territory.
This country, fortunately, does make mistakes and then does ultimately learns from them. Cable was regulated, then deregulated, then regulated and deregualted. There's one example for you. | |
| GujuGuy67
join:2003-07-28
Garland, TX
| The Real Drawback We Face I am not against telecom companies from charging companies for preferentail treatment. From the way I understand it is that companies that do pay up will receive priority. However, what needs to be clarified is whether the telecom companies will be giving priority on the user-to-user basis or on their network as a whole. If it is the latter, then I retract my previous statement and do not support the idea because I do not want some grubber encroaching on my bandwidth, but I am pretty sure it is the former.
All that being said, the thing that is probably more important with this issue is the backlash on the telcos (and cable) companies and in turn us, the consumers. What is going to happen if all of these companies just decide they have had enough? There are of course three possibilities:
1. The internet companies make us pay for access to their service.
2. Providers finally lower raters. This one is probably the most unlikely.
3. Internet companies may cut off service in protest. Example: What if Comcast (or Time Warner, Adelphia, Cox, AT&T, Verizon, or whoever) recruit both Google and MSN to pay fees for priority service? Obviously, the company that pays more will receive priority above the other. These contracts are not going to be public and so companies will have to pay for exclusivity because there would be no sense in paying for a second tier of service (i.e. MSN to Google). Thus, companies will have to pay a hefty load. | |
| | |
CT42
@bridgeband.net
| it is called Lost leader pricing for marketshare These big guys are crying foul and they are the ones to blame. If Wal-Mart starting selling TV's below cost and then tried to get the Networks to pay them for selling the TV's we would all laugh. Now that these guys have dropped there price to $9.99 DSL they are crying. Simple raise your price if it cost more to provide. This is a Marketing issue not Googles | |
| 
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| I thought they WERE Already Charging for it power users, and the rest of us. Because of this natural delineation, the piece concludes, "Tiered usage already exists so why is it wrong to charge for it?" I mean, I know that I pay more for my 6.0/768 than the 1.5/512 subscribers pay. So, what am I missing that these geniuses aren't?
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
| | cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA | Re: I thought they WERE Already Charging for it That you are using you're 6.0/768 for 3-4 hours a day (just assuming here) is much less than someone who is using the same 6.0/768 for 10 hours a day.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber | |
| | |
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Re: I thought they WERE Already Charging for it said by cmaenginsb :That you are using you're 6.0/768 for 3-4 hours a day (just assuming here) is much less than someone who is using the same 6.0/768 for 10 hours a day. Varies. I run servers. So, my use of my lines is less than the overall usage of my lines. Then again, I pay for a service that allows for my type of usage.
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
| srobmw
join:2005-10-01
New Windsor, NY | Tiers One of these days all the ISP's will wake up and realise that without the satellite, catv, and telco's they would CEASE TO EXIST.
Perhaps one shouldn't slap the hand that feeds, or, build your own network all the way to the end user. | |
| ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| The Telcos just want to extort a percentage of every internet business's income for use of the Bell infrastructure, over and above the fees already charged for access. The Telcos wish to establish de facto monopoly control over other peoples infrastructure and content they do not own, and did not pay for. They are extortionists and thieves, plain and simple. | |
| | srobmw
join:2005-10-01
New Windsor, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: The Telcos just want to extort The telco's have no control over other peoples infrastructure, only their own.
As stated earlier, if everybody thinks its so easy, let them build their own network. But they wont because nobody wants the headache.
And thats the real reason there will always be a tri-opoly. | |
| | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: The Telcos just want to extort said by srobmw :The telco's have no control over other peoples infrastructure, only their own. As stated earlier, if everybody thinks its so easy, let them build their own network. But they wont because nobody wants the headache. And thats the real reason there will always be a tri-opoly. They don't right now, but if the Telcos are allowed to extort businesses doing business via the internet and their tiered pricing scheme becomes a reality, the Telcos will effectively have wrested control over those businesses' infrastructure, along with the type and amount of content that will be allowed, and the quality of the service rendered. The Telcos' actions in this, and in every other aspect of their expeditions beyond the bounds of telephony, are equivalent to the thuggery one associates with the mafia. Don't hand me any more of that Telco BULLSHIT about how they built their infrastructure on their own and it belongs to them, regardless of the damage they do to the public good in an attempt to preserve a monopoly that no longer reflects the national interest. That's a fairy tale! Rate payers paid for every god damned bit of it, over, and over, and over again. It's about time we nationalize the "Telco" last-mile infrastructure in the name of maintaining a right to access the internet, largely built with taxpayer dollars, over state of the art technology at the lowest possible cost without having some fucking Telco troll exacting a toll for every bit/packet transfered that in some ethereal way touches their "magic" pipes/switches. I don't think there would be any shortage of companies stepping up to build new capacity and install new technology if they weren't held-up at the "last mile" choke point by recalcitrant monopolist Telco bandits. Let them keep their telephony network, and their internet pipes beyond the CO, but make the CO and all circuits to customer premises public domain. Let them compete for business on an equal footing like everyone else. Then if you don't like their monetized-packet business model, shitty customer service, or restrictive no-server, blocked ports, internet policies, you can dump them and they'll get the message. They also won't be able to rely on taking a bite out of everyone else's pie to survive. Personally, I would like to tour a Telco Museum in the not-too-distant future where the bones of the extinct carcass of this monopolistic dinosaur have been flayed, scraped and reassembled for public display as a lesson to all who might think about usurping and perverting the public trust. | |
| | | | srobmw
join:2005-10-01
New Windsor, NY | Re: The Telcos just want to extort I suppose the telcos are responsible for 9/11 as well. Get off it. | |
| | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16 | Re: The Telcos just want to extort Are you forgetting this landmark documentary:
The Final Proof | |
| | | | | | srobmw
join:2005-10-01
New Windsor, NY | Re: The Telcos just want to extort At least now you're showing a sense of humor. | |
| 
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | Classic trash "journo" This entry doesn't make any sense, the writer's interests are smelling from here. He forgot to address most of the things we listed here, so I don't really see how this one insignificant blog entry made it to BBR's news list... | |
| | | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA | Re: GRR!! It's not about usage. It's about prioritization. Even if a network isn't clogged high usage sucks up resources. Prioritization allows those resources to be maintained for certain apps even when people are maxing out their connection. | |
| 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | G$$gle(tm), Yah$$(tm) The HBO(tm) and Cinemax(tm) of this net thingie | |
| | jbalsle9
join:2006-02-10
Denver, CO
| Re: G$$gle(tm), Yah$$(tm) said by dvd536 :The HBO(tm) and Cinemax(tm) of this net thingie What the heck does this mean? Are you kidding or are you actually saying you believe this tripe?!
No, Google and Yahoo arent the ones creating this issue. The damn telcos are the ones creating it. Why, I have no effin' clue. But blaming Yahoo and Google for providing a service they pay for bec |
|
|
|
