Cisco Wants a National Broadband PlanProvided it embraces their two-tier tollbooth Internet vision ( old news - 10:07AM Friday Dec 22 2006) Last week, Cisco Senior VP Charles Giancarlo trotted out America's weak standing in several global statistics, then issued a call for a national broadband plan. What starts as a reasonable request for some kind of unified country broadband policy (since, well, we lack one), quickly becomes a call for deregulation and a criticism of network neutrality: "We also cannot tie the hands of the Internet through additional regulation, such as 'net neutrality,' which eliminates the ability of the Internet to support new applications."Cisco shares the incumbent profit vision of a "two-tier Internet"; note a recent company whitepaper (pdf) by Cisco that explores their desire to turn the Internet from "basic highway" into a "personalized toll way." Last June, Cisco CEO John Chambers argued that the two-tier Internet provided a "high probability of reasonable return."Bloggers like David Isenberg and Doc Searls had plenty to say about Giancarlo's editorial. "If Mr. Giancarlo wants to fight regulation, he should watch how his cableco and telco buddies lobby for laws to prohibit competition by citizens whose only practical choice is to work with local and regional governments toward getting better broadband that those carriers fail to deliver," argues Searls.
|
  Anonymous Premium join:2004-06-01 IA 1 edit | 'Toll way'? Why not?
Since they would be making 'toll booths'.  | |
|  |  |  PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04 Banks, OR
| Re: In response to.. said by spewak :"We are greedy, we want to make a ton of money and that is the way it is!" Well, duh. Cisco is a publicly-traded, for-profit corporation. The reason it exists is to be "greedy" and enhance shareholder value as much as it can. If the execs didn't act this way, they'd be out on the street in short order. | |
|   pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Typical This reminds me of how GM, Ford and Chrysler are trying to push the US Federal Government to nationalize health care because it helps to get those companies out of the messes that they created for themselves.
Cisco seems to be learning well from this. There's nothing in it for them if they take the risk and get into the broadband deployment racket, but since the Federal Government has unlimited funds (us), its ok for us to assume that risk. They get all the reward, of course. -- Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|  |   NOCMan Verizon Fios User Premium join:2004-09-30 Flower Mound, TX
| Re: Typical I'll take that push for a national health care system. It's needed reguardless if it would save businesses some money. On the backend they'd pay higher taxes either way.
The only concern with a national health care system is that it has to have a reliable system of checks and balances to make sure that the healthcare is reliable and reasonable. -- Ubuntu Tips »www.ubuntutips.org | |
|  |  |  DialupFool
join:2005-01-05 North Jackson, OH
| Re: Typical said by NOCMan :I'll take that push for a national health care system. It's needed reguardless if it would save businesses some money. On the backend they'd pay higher taxes either way. The only concern with a national health care system is that it has to have a reliable system of checks and balances to make sure that the healthcare is reliable and reasonable. Ummm no. We will pay higher taxes. Businesses DO NOT pay taxes. They simply roll up the cost in the product they sell or service they provide. If you think different your living in a dream.
As far as CISCO , maybe I'll buy some more shares, they have been doing well this year.
Later
JimC | |
|  |  |  |   pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Typical said by DialupFool :Businesses DO NOT pay taxes. They simply roll up the cost in the product they sell or service they provide. If you think different your living in a dream. EXACTLY.
I was reading an article recently about how businesses impacted by the minimum wage hikes will have to raise prices now and/or fire people. I couldn't help but laugh as the people being fired probably voted for the pay hike. -- Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|  |  |  |  |  Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26 North Andover, MA | Re: Typical Except that historical evidence doesn't support this at all. Not to mention the "raise" is actually just to bring the minimum back up to what it was the last time it was "raised" after affecting for inflation. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |   pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Typical said by Ahrenl :Except that historical evidence doesn't support this at all. Not to mention the "raise" is actually just to bring the minimum back up to what it was the last time it was "raised" after affecting for inflation. If what you said is true, then no business would be offering any work for the current minimum because they would not be able to hire workers legally at that wage. The fact that workers were willing to work for the minimum means that that that amount was high enough to attract workers to the job.
I know that in much of metro DC, no employer hires unskilled workers legally for $5.15 an hour. The average entry-level job goes for at least $8-$11 an hour (which is not much for this area). -- Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|  |  |  |  PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04 Banks, OR
1 edit | said by DialupFool :
Ummm no. We will pay higher taxes. Businesses DO NOT pay taxes. They simply roll up the cost in the product they sell or service they provide. If you think different your living in a dream. I guess you failed Economics 101. 
While this line is an oft-repeated simplist platitude spouted by right-wing talk show hosts, anyone who's passed freshman microeconomics should know it is not this simple. Just because the cost to produce a good increases, does not mean that the price a seller can obtain for the good will increase by an identical amount. Saying so ignores the effect in the market of the resistance on the part of buyers to higher prices.
Typically, an industry-wide increase in cost (from, say, higher price for raw materials or increased taxes) results in somewhat higher prices, less goods sold, and less profits; i.e., both the consumers and shareholders bear the burden of the cost increase. | |
|  |  |  |  |   garagerock Premium join:2002-06-14 Louisville, KY
| Re: Typical Feel free to start working 100+ hour workweeks without overtime, and while you're at it, bring your kids into work as their small hands will be useful getting small pieces of coal out of the ground. Yeah, I love it when people blame unions for everything.
Now, with that hyperbole out of the way, everything is a two way street. They didn't have to be "forced" into the unions demands-they could've just relocated! (which, BTW, is the solution to all problems here on dslreports...don't have broadband? Move! ) | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  kdandaoc
join:2003-10-13 608052427
| Re: Typical What a fool...I do believe that person needs a history lesson. In the 1940s and 1950s the big three car companies made the deal with the devil. Instead of giving thier workers salary increases, they chose to offer benefit packages. Every time a new collective bargaining agreement would pop up, the 3 would sweeten the benefit package because at the time, it wasn't through the roof like it is now. The healthcare costs have been rising annually 20% since Hillary care in the early 1990s. Now the the 3 are trying to bail out on what they are contractually obligated for. (that mentallity would have you in favor of the ISPs not obligating thier contracts via throttling, invisible caps etc.. in other threads) So don't blame the unions for the exccessive greed of the corporations! | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |   Michieru2 zzz zzz zzz Premium join:2005-01-28 Miami, FL | This BS message was brought to you by jduffy. If it does not have jduffy on the label, it's not genuine BS. | |
|  |  |   pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by jduffy :The car manufacturers did not create the mess. The unions FORCED the mess onto the auto manufacturers. It is not fair to blame the unions for all of this mess. The union will always fight for the maximum it can get for the workers. The management is supposed to protect the shareholders of the company. In this case, the management agreed to cut checks that it could not cash, knowing that it could lead the company to the brink of ruin as a result. The management is now looking for a quick and dirty way out of the mess that it helped to create.
Fighting the union, and putting up with the consequences of doing so would have been cheaper for the company and would have helped to preserve some sense of financial sanity.
I'm not deflecting blame from the unions for this situation, as they probably also knew they were asking for too much, but it still takes two to tango. -- Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|  |  |  |  PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04 Banks, OR
| Re: Typical said by pnh102 :The union will always fight for the maximum it can get for the workers. The management is supposed to protect the shareholders of the company. This is tough for management to do, given that the union effectively has monopoly power in the market for supplying labor to a union shop. A power that they are more than willing to protect with intimidation and violence.
Sorry, the thuggery that union members engage in, and are even proud of, combined with unions' almost universal defense of mediocracy (e.g., everyone gets paid the same no matter how bad they are at their job; only the entertainment unions are the exception), get them no respect in my book. | |
|  |  Kearnstd Elf Wizard Premium join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ
| no this is more like a company that builds Toll Booths trying to lobby for all the interstates to become toll roads because they would of course benefit from selling all those nice new toll booths.
Cisco is that toll booth builder, the ISPs are the toll booth lobby. Cisco supports the ISPs because they know the ISPs will have to buy millions maybe even billions in router hardware to make the two tier internet happen smoothly. -- [65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|  |  Kearnstd Elf Wizard Premium join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ
| the union isnt all bad(great healthcare at UPS). the problem is in a Union Shop you cant get rid of the slackers and only keep the workers. and then there is the whole Seniority thing, you could be a totally crap worker but if you have more years then me and i bust my ass and always do complete and accurate work. you have a better chance at a promotion. -- [65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|   wilbilt Pronto Resurrected Premium join:2004-01-11 Oroville, CA
| Cisco Technologies.... ...are certainly innovative, but there is no infrastructure to support them on a widespread basis.
Now they want us to build it out so they can profit. I say, if Cisco wants to play, they should bring their own ball.
If they build it, we will come. -- We were taking a vote when the ground came up and hit us. | |
|   deadi Premium join:2001-08-26 Perry, OH
| Sounds like crap to me I like the internet the way it is, no need to change or "personalize". The internet is free, everyone is equal and should stay that way.
What applications is he referring to? This doesn't sound consumer friendly.
reading on...... -- We learn through the exchange of information, tell me more...... | |
|  |   Varlik Without Honor You Will Never Be Free Premium join:2002-01-06 Anderson, SC
1 edit | Re: Sounds like crap to me You know what they say if it Looks like Crap, Sounds like Crap and Smells like Crap it probably is. And I can smell Cisco's Crap 1000 miles away. Do we need a national broadband policy? Yes. Is this the plan for that policy? Hell No. Cisco's plan would kill Americas broadband growth.
You're not going to get those who haven't jumped ship to broadband to do so with this. More importantly you're not going to get those who haven't even gotten on the internet at all to do so at any speed if they know that their are toll booths waiting for them everywhere along the information superhighway. -- "Sir SIR! We don't use DHCP servers. We only use IBM & Microsoft servers." From there my call to tech support went steadily downhill.
--Don't bother telling us that we're too loud. Cause there ain't no way that we'll ever turn down. | |
|  |  |   TScheisskopf World News Trust
join:2005-02-13 Belvidere, NJ
·Sprint Broadband D..
| Re: Sounds like crap to me And you can be sure that buried somewhere in Cisco's draft US Broadband Plan is massive tax breaks for companies.
Like Cisco, for instance.
Massive tax breaks, to be followed shortly by layoffs, off-shoring of jobs and massive executive bonuses. Plus more money from consumers, through new tarriffs and rate hikes.
So goddamn predictable, these guys. | |
|  TechLarry
join:2002-02-02 Fairfax, VA | Self-indulgent... We have to remember, this is the company that will end up selling most of the hardware to support this grand vision.
You always have to consider the source.
-Larry | |
|   doubleandtriple
@verizon.net
| more speed please?, but not much more price shouldn't the marketplace determine what speed and price customers get... I don't see why the original plan of the internet can't be commercially viable.. part of the lure of making the internet a commercial "PRODUCT" was the ability to make a PROFIT.. but there's a line some businesses want to cross between making PROFIT and PRICE GOUGING for the packet data under thinly veiled euphemisms such as: "prioritization, artificial caps, throttling, shared network infrastructure, XDSL, build-out limitations, franchise fees, co-location//reseller schemes to defraud the customer, etc"
Part of the problem is, much of the "free ride" businesses got when the internet was a GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED NETWORK is by-in-large OVER, and companies have to build the network using next generation fiber links which they must "BUY/LEASE" or "BUILD" and maintain! And.. did I forget to mention... the Federal government snaps their fingers, and prints some money for things to get done.. for companies, it's not so easy.. but still, the model will work, IF companies are willing to "OVERBUILD" based upon the premise that customers will pay an increasing share of the cost for internet access. Companies such as Verizon and AT&T have flown the trial balloons (low priced DSL) and noticed that people are cost conscious (in their eyes: CHEAP!) about this product and have a better sense of what it SHOULD cost.. There is such a thing as balancing the build-out of the network with the scale of prices.. once there is a larger bulk of backbone ready for decreasing prices.. then increases in speed should trickle down to the end-customer, through raised speed caps/provisioning. And..... you should EXPECT that people will want to use it for 3rd party data such as VOIP, P2P, 3rd party VIDEO, etc, etc, etc. Thus building into the network the ability to use the internet as you would use an "unlimited phone line" to talk as much as you want.. there HAS to be oversupply scale to meet this demand (similar to the 56k modem days) | |
|  |   digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09 49533 | Re: more speed please?, but not much more price I wonder what happened to all the dark fiber that was laid during the telecom overbuild in the early part of the decade? | |
|  |  |  amungus Premium join:2004-11-26 America clubs:
| Re: more speed please?, but not much more price hey, I thought you were Karl, the news guy, with the same avatar! ...can't wait for next season of BSG btw 
...what happened to the dark fiber you ask? I thought Google bought it all up and that they were already 2 steps ahead of everyone else  | |
|  brianiscool
join:2000-08-16 Miami, FL | cool
I am all for it if I can set up a toll : ) Can I ticket people for speeding too fast? | |
|   jslik That just happened Premium join:2006-03-17 clubs: | Is this where... ....we need to make a Senator Stevens "Tube Way" or "Tube Booth" joke? | |
|  |  Kearnstd Elf Wizard Premium join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: Is this where... do his tubes have an EZPass lane for my trucks? | |
|   danza Premium join:2002-08-23
| Well I guess this is the ideal internet | |
|  |  amungus Premium join:2004-11-26 America clubs:
| Re: Well Yep. Good pic.
That's the thing... that everyone's so afraid of. The 'net is wide open. It can be checked up on, but not entirely regulated. This is more about control (and profit of course) than it is about "services" or "next gen" or "safety" or any buzzword. It comes down to being either a FREE place, or a controlled place.
Phrases which contain words like this are just outrageous: 'net neutrality,' which eliminates the ability of the Internet to support new applications."
Um, sorry, nothing so far has "eliminated" any abilities here. The notion of "new applications" is contorted here to mean that the current system is a catastrophe and that therefore NOTHING works, which is obviously not true...
We have no excuse to let companies such as Cisco dictate to us what we should or should not need, or do with ourselves.
It is sad that so many people would rather let themselves be spoonfed a Disneyworld intarweb, an AOL-ized channel bar of "content" and be content. This idea is what drives ideas such as a two tiered (really, a ONE tier) approach... a major division, and conquest of idiocy, by idiots, for idiots.
If they really want to recreate the "inArweB" like AOL tried, and force it down people's throats, it is only because people let them. | |
|   rcm
join:2004-02-16 Pulaski, TN | Internet The internet is fine the way it is now. It's not like the Service providers and cisco aren't making money. They just want to make even more money. Greed at its finest. | |
|  |   brooklynman4
join:2004-09-07 Brooklyn, NY | Re: Internet Hey if they building a ball park then what the heck. | |
|   dslextreme Premium,VIP join:2001-02-23 Canoga Park, CA | The unfortuante thing is that Cisco's only real political motivation is to sell more next gen gear with the ability to throttle certain traffic. They could care less about net neutrality in general. | |
|  |   companydemands
@verizon.net
| Re: The unfortuante thing It IS if your scheming with the gate-keepers (ISP's) to tier and partition the internet into higher prices for priority traffic such as VOIP, IPTV, GAMING, etc. There is a VESTED INTEREST in making higher prices for certain kinds of traffic, making not a "dedicated link" but having everybody on the link, and for these HIGHER PAYING customers, they get a "PASS" on traffic from certain "host" packet sends. Yes, net the ANTI-NET NEUTRALITY-- contrary to the way the internet existed for well over a decade..
Early days of ISDN dedicated links and PreDsl equipment supported a scheme where BUSINESS (aka commercial) data gets for an ULTRA_HIGH cost vs residential data (virtually none). Until recently (past 10 years), residential customers were all-but passed over in favor of lucrative business contracts... those MUCH HIGHER PROFIT margins are going by the way-side and ISP's (mostly telcos, but cable companies are just as greedy) want that money back!! (and then some!) | |
|  severach
join:2002-09-12 Jackson, MI | Cisco Multi tier is fine with me as long as I'm on the top tier and Cisco is on the bottom tier. The voices in my head tell me that's not what Cisco is asking for. | |
|   joako Premium join:2000-09-07 /dev/null | Wrong Comparison Perhaps they should have compared iPhone WIP330 instead? Either way both devices are telephones, Cisco used the name first. -- Am Heimcomputer sitz' ich hier, und programmier' die Zukunft mir | |
|  | |  |
|
|