 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Skype is a very well priced VoIP/webcam service I've been using it for +3 years on my laptop, and at the most expensive, it cost me $36/year for unlimited US/Canada calling.
I would like it to work better on wireless phones, primarily for the International calling reasons ($0.19/minute to Canada = WAY overpriced). | |
|
Z80
1 point 77
Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika | Skype can pony up money and build their own network It's only a few tens of billions. | |
|
 | jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA
| Re: Skype can pony up money and build their own network said by Z80  :It's only a few tens of billions. I don't get it. The internet was invented decades ago, these companies LATER started selling access to it, touting all the cool things you can do ON THE INTERNET. Other companies start selling services that use THE INTERNET. Now these companies feel like they're not getting enough from us and now want to control the internet. Bait and switch... We consumers like the internet the way it is... Don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs... | |
|
| | 
SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17 | Re: Skype can pony up money and build their own network You've outlined the argument against allowing access providers become content/data providers. Thank you. | |
|
| |
| bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
| Great point: Skype shouldn't expect to make a quick buck by offering a service that effectively avoids the cost of the heavy lifting associated with their service, without paying a fee for the heavy lifting. I do think that the service providers need to switch to a more even-handed approach: Just meter all service above a certain marginal threshold. That should satisfy Skype, for text and voice, and appropriate compensate the folks doing the heavy lifting, for video and other heavy data. | |
|
| | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: Skype can pony up money and build their own network Oh the short sightedness.
Why don't we extend this and say that....
Yahoo has to build their own network.
Google has to build their own network.
Blizzard has to build their own network.
Acclaim has to build their own network.
Gotomeeting has to build their own network.
Should I go on or do you already see the shear stupidity in your comment? | |
|
| | |
Z80
1 point 77
Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika
2 edits | Re: Skype can pony up money and build their own network There is a distinct difference between the capabilities of a mobile and wired network. Just look at the capacity issues and the iPhone. People think you can keep sucking on a finite resource and not have service issues. Some people think that they can beat on a mobile network like you can a wired one.
You can't expect a mobile operator to be able to maintain the quality of basic service if they allow bandwidth heavy applications or applications that cannibalize the core business that is used to pay for the infrastructure.
You really want to see across the board 500MB or 1GB caps because a few people want to beat on a mobile network with streaming audio and video? Because that will be the result. If you have companies like Skype taking from both ends (providing service that consumes bandwidth AND taking other revenues from the telco), there will simply be no money for new expansion.
As for "I pay my bill". This infrastructure is funded by both voice and data revenues. If you slowly but surely kill off the voice revenues and the cash cow messaging, what do you think will have to happen? Service will go to crap and data costs will go up and/or usage capped even lower. It's a simple matter of economics. Termination fees aren't enough to fund a massive wireless infrastructure. | |
|
| | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: Skype can pony up money and build their own network I dont see any validity in your argument.
I will say this.... this "resource" should be able to work itself out through "natural selection".
2 things can cause this and should be the only 2 things allowed by regulation:
1.) If too many people use to much of the network causing poor quality, then people will leave the network freeing up more bandwidth for those that stay.
OR
2.) The company can "manage" this resource by raising their prices causing users to leave and/or improve their network allowing more to stay.
The problem is that the companies don't want to reduce the people or invest in the network at a rate they should because both of those things reduce their revenues. They would rather limit your access to maintain the network or even increase the number of users while still maintaining the same network. Add that to an industry that has very few players and all with the same goal and you really have no true competition encouraging network expansion at a rate that it should be expanding at.
Regardless, Skype does not use that much bandwidth and this truly has nothing to do with bandwidth consumption. This has to do with control of the use of bandwidth and those that provide the bandwidth not wanting to become simply dumbpipes. Unfortunately, that is what they truly are and the sooner they realize that the sooner the entire country will benefit and it doesn't matter if it is wired or wireless. | |
|
| | | | |
Z80
1 point 77
Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika
1 edit | Re: Skype can pony up money and build their own network 1. There is no natural selection, no money for adapting. Bandwidth intensive apps are a virus that would kill every mobile network.
2. a. No they won't. Service will get worse and then reach a horrid but semi-stable level of misery; at least until the next mobile killing app comes out.
2. b. Which was exactly my point, providers would have to rape all customers to pay for upgrades so they can support a few people running bandwidth intensive apps or 'leech apps' that cannibalize other core business revenues forcing increases in other services.
If someone wants to use Skype, the natural selection is for those Skype users to go find their own Skype friendly service and if they can't find it, then Skype will be the one who has to adapt. | |
|
| | | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: Skype can pony up money and build their own network Skype is nothing more than an application that uses standardized protocols to operate in an IP network. There is no viable reason anything that adheres to those standards should not be allowed on an IP network.
2a. No it wont because that will cause the networks to earn less money so they will have not choice but to upgrade.
2b. You claim providers would have to rape all customers. I get a good laugh out of that because 1. they are raping all customers already 2. they have BILLIONS in PROFITS (not revenue) each QUARTER. Both Verizon and AT&T could update their entire networks and pay cash to do it within 2 years. So don't come here with the sad story of how difficult and hard it would be for them to satisfy the demand.
Go peddle your bag of dong somewhere else. It wont fly here where we are smarter than the average person on these topics. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Z80
1 point 77
Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika
1 edit | Re: Skype can pony up money and build their own network 2a. Skype would cannibalize voice revenues. Cuts in revenues = No upgrades
2b. Yeah, cause telcos are known for not taking price increases or gouging customers /sarcasm
Go peddle your "upgrades come from thin air" dung somewhere else. It won't fly here because we are smart enough to understand simple economics and differences in wired and wireless network topology.
Your choice is to subscribe or not subscribe. Every other decision belongs to the wireless operator. If your provider doesn't allow Skype, go get another provider, there certainly is no shortage of them. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: Skype can pony up money and build their own network I would be willing to bet you would argue the MPAA and RIAA need to change their business models to stay relevant and yet you come here and say it is OK for the monopolistic broadband providers not to have to change theirs? I dont think so.
They are dumbpipes trying to still be content providers because that is how it use to be. They need to come to the realization they are dumbpipes and move on. The sooner they do that, the better for EVERYONE.
There WILL be a day that they do nothing more than supply bandwidth. Sure they may have another spin off that does the content, but they will be separate entities and will be competing on the merits of their product and not trying to control the packets to please their stock jockeys. No matter how they try they will not control the internet and AOL is a perfect example of what happens when they do try.
I'm entertained at your ending statement implying that there is so much competition in every market that the industry will regulate itself and will flow toward the wants and needs of the consumer instead of the consumer having to sacrifice their wants and needs at the will of those in control of the network. Nice try, having 3-4 choices which all provide the EXACT same service and make no attempt to truly compete brings no benefit to consumers. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
Z80
1 point 77
Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika
1 edit | Re: Skype can pony up money and build their own network I don't give two squirts of piss about the racketeers at the RIAA/MPAA.
3-4 choices isn't enough for you? Then gather up some investors and build this magic wireless dumb-pipe multimegabit network with infinite capacity. Everyone here thinks it is so easy and cheap to run a wireless network and can't seem to comprehend the distinct difference in capacity between wireline and wireless networks. They endlessly expect infinite capacity, high speed and unrestricted use for $50/mo. Sorry, that isn't the real world. There is not the capacity, nor the money to build it, especially if those apps are the ones that wipe out a good chunk of telco revenues.
In the meantime, you have 2 choices with AT&T, take it or leave it. Every other choice belongs to AT&T. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | 
Bobbox1980
@cox.net
| Re: We the PEOPLE own the spectrum You forgot one very important thing:
The PEOPLE own the wireless spectrum, NOT the companies who license the spectrum.
The PEOPLE get to dictate the terms on which the wireless operators are allowed to use the spectrum.
Ideally all of the FCC licensed spectrum would be used as WiFi, then we would have a hell of a lot more bandwidth available.
Wireless should be a dumb pipe just like wired internet. Yes burstable and minimum bandwidth would be lower than wired in the present situation but there would surely be enough bandwidth to use Skype or another VoIP app to make calls.
The current FCC licensed spectrum regime is government licensed duopoly, triopoly, and quadoply. If a dozen or so record companies can get found guilty and fined for price fixing the costs of CDs, how difficult is it really for 4 companies to collude together on things like text messaging?
Don't be an apologist for the telcos. Remember, ARPU x customers = revenue. All a telco cares about is increasing revenue and profit. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
Z80
1 point 77
Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika
1 edit | Re: We the PEOPLE own the spectrum The "PEOPLE" don't get to dictate terms. The FCC does and did.
The "PEOPLE"'s only choice is to read the AUP and agree to it, or say no and take their business elsewhere.
Stop expecting the telcos to crap wireless network capacity. Remember ARPU is negatively impacted by competing services like Skype. The more Skypes there are, the lower the ARPU. The more customers you have, the more capacity you need...you can't make up for ARPU by adding customers. In order to recover lost voice revenues the telcos would be forced to raise data rates, or cap to limit the 'benefit' of the Skypes and you all would be back whining like schoolgirls again. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
| said by Bobbox1980 :
You forgot one very important thing:
The PEOPLE own the wireless spectrum, NOT the companies who license the spectrum. Z80 already pointed out the failure of your logic here. Let me just expand on it a bit. The people want service providers to provide service. To get investors to be willing to invest their money building a service for the public, it is necessary to make the operation of that service more profitable than any other use of the money to be invested. That's why service providers don't just bend over and give consumers whatever they want. Service providers wouldn't exist unless the financial obligations to investors was paramount; customer satisfaction is important, yes, but as a tool to achieve profit. That's the balance. It isn't one sided, just focused on the customer's wants. It is a two-way street: The consumer gets some, and the investor gets some. And remember that the investor always has somewhere else to invest their money, and so that balance between what consumers want and what investors want must always result in the investor getting a better deal than someone else is offering the investor, just like it must result in the consumer getting a better deal that someone else is offering the consumer.
If someone else is offering you a better deal, then take it.
said by Bobbox1980 :
Don't be an apologist for the telcos. Don't be a naive apologist for consumerists.
said by Bobbox1980 :
All a telco cares about is increasing revenue and profit. All consumers care about is their own selfish desires. Everyone plays their own role in the system. | |
|
| | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | The only stupidity here is your lack of comprehension and critical reasoning. Read what I wrote again, for meaning, and open your itty bitty little mind to the idea that something else might matter other than your own personal wants. | |
|
| | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: Skype can pony up money and build their own network Personal wants has nothing to do with it, simple common sense does.
The shear stupidity of your comment was clearly illustrated by my examples. What you are stating is that every company that provides a service over the internet should have to help shoulder the cost of the infrastructure these "dumbpipes" provide in addition to paying for the bandwidth they already pay for to reach those customers. OK, take the mask off... your the AT&T CEO arent you? | |
|
| | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
| Re: Skype can pony up money and build their own network said by Skippy25 :Personal wants has nothing to do with it, simple common sense does. There is nothing more common on the Internet than people asserting that their own personal wants are exactly what "common sense" is. If the "sense" was indeed "common" then there wouldn't be any significant disagreement. Just calling your personal wants "common sense" doesn't make it so.
said by Skippy25 :The shear stupidity of your comment was clearly illustrated by my examples. A self-fulfilling personal attack; how original.
said by Skippy25 :OK, take the mask off... your the AT&T CEO arent you? And there you go flipping out yet-another of the rhetorical tactics people attempt to use when they really cannot defend their self-serving assertions: Accuse the person disagreeing with them of working for the company that they're whining about. Just this week I've been accused of working for Time Warner Cable, Verizon, Comcast, Disney, NBC Universal, and now AT&T. I don't work for any of them. Rather, the fact of the matter is that your comments are motivated exclusively by your personal self-interest while my comments are motivated by the need to discuss what is actually the reality. | |
|
| | | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: Skype can pony up money and build their own network I did not accuse you of working for them, I did accuse you of pushing the same thought as "Big Ed" that made the stupid and false claim that Google was getting a free ride on AT&T's pipes and making the implication that they either need to pay them a toll to reach their customers or build their own network to reach them. Which is EXACTLY what you claimed. | |
|
| |
bostonkarl
@mda.mil
 from:
ross
| "Skype shouldn't expect to make a quick buck by offering a service .... blah blah blah"
I pay the telco already for my data connection. I pay for this. The telco is paid. THE TELCO GETS PAID BY ME FOR THE DATA CONNECTION I USE.
I pay Skype who in turn pays the telco for the exchange termination of my calls. The telco is paid again. THERE IS A PAYMENT TO THE TELCO.
The telcos gets paid. The telcos simply wants to get paid more for nothing of additional value. The telcos need to seriously STFU and deliver data over the data plans that people pay for -- that's what folks want. We want data connectivity to whoever and however we want. That's what we pay for.
The shills need to tone down the whining. We the bill payers see that the telcos get paid ---- monthly. | |
|
| | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Re: Skype can pony up money and build their own network Why do you fear paying for the amount of service you use? It sounds to me that you're just trying to rationalize your Skype fanboi perspective. | |
|
| | | | |
| | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Amazing.
They should just shut your Internet access off. After all, every website you go to is just sponging off of the "heavy lifting" of your last mile provider, right? I mean they should all have to build their own networks... or pay twice, three times, 4 times, whatever... And what about online merchants! How dare they make a profit off the backs of the "Heavy lifting" done by the last mile providers. Why, everything on the internet is just looting/stealing/sponging off the work of great companies like AT&T and Comcast!
I have a question for you: What do the last mile providers owe the content providers for them doing all the "heavy lifting" and creating the content people buy Internet access to use?
I haven't heard AT&T running to compensate ebay, or Google, Or BBR, or Myspace, or BoA or anyone else who generates the services people buy Internet access to use. Why should the last mile providers get all the money while the "heavy lifting" is done by everyone else?
That dog doesn't hunt.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Re: Skype can pony up money and build their own network If you are unable to tell the difference between regular web surfing and video teleconferencing with Skype, then you know nothing about the technology you're making wild-ass assertions about. | |
|
| | | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Skype can pony up money and build their own network Data is data.
Period. | |
|
| | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Re: Skype can pony up money and build their own network No. 10 bits is not the same as 1000000000000 bits. 
Not the same.
Not. | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Re: Skype can pony up money and build their own network So then you're in favor of metered usage. Thank you for being honest about that. | |
|
| | |
Z80
1 point 77
Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika | Yeah, no difference in network load between a 60kB web page and a constant audio stream. /sarcasm
You must differentiate between the capabilities of wired and wireless networks. | |
|
| | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: Skype can pony up money and build their own network Oh, so now we are going to start regulating the use of the internet by the amount of bandwidth something uses?
Should we also start regulating how big a website can be? Maybe we should say a homepage can't be larger than 250k and it can't allow users to extract more than 250kbps. | |
|
| | | | |
Z80
1 point 77
Premium
join:2009-08-31
Amerika
2 edits | Re: Skype can pony up money and build their own network This isn't "The Internet", this is a private network connected to it and its use has to be limited to what it can handle without causing disruption to other users. Wireless services have a shared network topology that doesn't allow for hog applications, and they can be expensive which doesn't lend themselves to permit applications that would cannibalize the revenues used to build and maintain these wireless networks. In order to provide 0.768-2Mb 3G to everyone they rely on the fact that most people aren't using the network at the same time, FAR more so than traditional wired networks like cable HSI. But the more you have people constantly streaming data, even if it isn't a big stream on a per user basis, it can quickly saturate capacity.
But then the argument is, "Well, they spend billions more and upgrade". Fine, but where does that revenue come from? These networks rely on revenues not just from data services, but also the voice services they carry. If AT&T were to allow applications that cannibalize their voice business they won't have the money for any upgrades and worse they have to raise data prices and/or implement draconian usage caps and overage fees on currently "unlimited" services like iPhone data plans.
AT&T Wireless, Verizon Wireless or any of these other cellular companies aren't public domain entities. They are private corporations with private networks with their own terms of service and acceptable use policies that all subscribers agree to when they sign up.
You as a potential subscriber have the choice to read the TOS/AUP and if you don't agree, don't sign up. | |
|
| tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| said by Z80 :It's only a few tens of billions. When google, microsoft and others wanted to make a play for wireless the government said "NO" and it didn't exactly cost very much from the telco lobby to make that happen either.. they were clearly against that happening because they know they profit from wireless taxes (and wireless licensing).. as that is becoming the new lifeblood in what was a monopoly wireline business. We essentially have what we had with wireline.. consider if you will, the prepaid business model... that is equivilent to the calling card business... no doubt the wireless carriers still profit from that model as well. There's even profits to be made in the UNLIMITED wireless provided they word the offering correctly. Unlimited probably would have never been possible when there were 15 or more wireless carriers in the market.. now that there's under 8 main players, roaming agreements are cutting costs for all carriers. The other less known secret about roaming is cell tower companies can resell roaming directly with carriers, cutting out the middle-man on an as needed basis (think voip & the internet as a model).. thus undermining roaming agreements as necessary (when cheaper than the geographical roaming cost to a major carrier). The old days of not having a cell phone work are slowly ending in metro/suburban areas. One other thing, regulators are also partial to the geography business model. For example, you WON'T see Verizon suddenly expand their wireless footprint far outside the dozen or so states in which they do business, except for roaming. This means if they let ONE company in, inevitably that means at least two that cover the whole country.
* The last thing the wireless industry wants is for a VOIP company to come in and create a CHEAP, unlimited wireless service at around 1/2 price of what is already in the market $15-25 with no taxes, fees and surcharges. Major carriers argue that they are a regulated utility and that the wireless voip wants to play in the Wireless Broadband backdoor to create an uneven playing field where only they are exempt from regulatory fees/surcharges. | |
|
WhatNow
Premium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC
| Watch your data rates go up. Let Skype build their own network. If the wireless companies lose the revenue from voice and SMS then look for the network to move to charging more for data. All these companies that game the system may win the battle and lose the war.
If the money is not there then the network will not be improved as fast and you will see the problems the iPhone usage caused to spread and your charges go up. | |
|
|
See 32 replies to this post |
|
atttechnical
@charter.com
| Awww. Poor telcos! Do wireline cable and DSL providers prohibit Skype use?
Granted wired network are less likely than wireless to have capacity issues with a similar service, but Skype didn't build the wired networks either so obviously infrastructure ownership is not the real reason why Verizon Wireless and AT&T don't want it on their wireless networks.
The biggest reason why they don't want Skype is because it's a direct threat to their voice revenue stream. I don't blame them for defending their intellectual property, but let's get real. Revenues are the reason telcos feel threatened not infrastructure.
Blame AT&T for a poor network. Don't blame Apple or the millions of subs who pay an expensive data plan to AT&T every month on contract.
If wireless ISP's want to start charging for every little application that uses bandwidth over their networks..... wait a minute, they already do. We (consumers) already pay an artificially exorbitant price that borderlines on extortion. They are already making billions and billions in revenue off of us.
Don't feel sorry for the telcos. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
Cloneman
join:2002-08-29
45436
| Really? and what has skype done to help so far? Getting in the way? You've got to be f*ing kidding me.
If you want them to get out of way, how about telling us why SkypeIN and SKypeforiphone are still blocked in Canada. It sounds like Skype wants to put pressure on telcos only in markets where it sees fit.
Might be a good idea to be open about why they are restricting services to certain areas for no reason if they want the general public to back them in fights against the giant telcos.
My 2c. | |
|
| |
bostonkarl1
join:2003-07-09
Arlington, VA
| Beware the shills Yup, the telco shills are out. And they seem to fail to mention that the copper laydown was founded on federal funds... That's your and my tax dollars, folks.
I pay for data service. It shouldn't matter if my data is sent and/or recieved as sound, text, pictures, or whatnot. I'm already paying for the service.
Now, I understand that in the wireless domain, sure, there needs to be reaonsable caps. I have no issue with ~5G/month currently imposed on "unlimmitted" service, other than the term "unlimiitted". And that the wirless phone companies obviously collude on pricing. But, I pay for my data plan. The telco gets paid.
I also understand that I need to pay for voice data to be terminated at an exhange if I connect to the telephone infrastructure. Guess what, that's what the VOIP fees (what I pay Skype) do in part. So, once again, the telcos get paid for terminating the call.
So what are the telcos whining about. Oh, that's right, they want more money for content that people don't want. They aren't Google. They aren't Amazon. They aren't iTunes. | |
|
| raybrett
join:2001-02-20
Saint Louis, MO
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Beware the shills Out of curiousity, exactly what does "the copper laydown was founded on federal funds" mean? Are you talking about deployment in the late 1800s or more recently? I remember a period after WWII when rural phone companies had access to very low cost government loans, but I don't remember the Bells being given those loans. That may still be the case. My recollection is that the Bells had to use a combination of private loans and equity to pay for the deployment of their network. | |
|
| | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: Beware the shills Spin it how you want but telco's have built their networks (all of them) on the back of consumers and tax payers through government granted monopoly power and through out right government incentives from the very beginning and will be able to continue to do so because of the barriers of entry into the industry.
They wouldn't exist if the government didnt step in at the beginning to help them any more than the highway would exist if the government didnt step in and help. Whether that was through outright money handed to them, tax credits, loans or profit protection does not matter. Even to this day we pay more for service than we should and that is simply because a vast majority of us have absolutely no good alternative in who we get service from. | |
|
| | | WhatNow
Premium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC
| Re: Beware the shills Have you seen the pictures of the early days of telephone systems. The monopoly was given when people got tired of not being able to talk to their next door neighbor because they were on xyz telco and you were on abc telco in much the same way the wireless are with plans where you can call cheaper within the system. Our family paid more for a 4 party line in a single town telco then our friends less then half mile away paid for a private line with Ma Bell.
No one would make any money on hardwired plant if everybody on your block used a different ISP and each had to provide a complete infrastructure. Can you see 10 different cables in the ground or on the poles. There is barely enoung room on the poles for power, telco and cable.
If the last mile was so easy then why did all the telco startups that only had to sell and bill while using the telcos infrastructure. The reason was because it is more expensive then you realize.
The deal with the telco and cable monopoly was you had to provide service to everybody that wanted the service in your area. I lived in a city where a developer could sell the sub division to the highest bidder well the people that bought the homes were not happy campers when Bell South told them we do not service your neighborhood. The developer stuck the money in his pocket and the long term customers were stuck with his choice.
Sometimes the more choice you have the more you pay. A lot of give me choice sounds good on paper but does not work in the real world because you need a critical mass of customers to survive. | |
|
| | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Re: Beware the shills I am not going to argue with the state of the network or why they had to step in. I would go so far as to say they need to take over all networks and have 1 nationwide network to every home and every business. I would say that based on examples you gave yourself.
I have dealt with the networks and the businesses enough to know what it takes. I also know of developments that basically extort their customers and I would agree with any laws, codes, or mandates that eliminate them. The developers and providers should both be fined for even doing it to begin with because it was done in bad faith to restrict consumer choice and thus increase consumer cost. | |
|
|
| Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| Re: Telcos and our soil Not only our soil but the internet wouldn't even exist if if wasn't for the efforts of Universities and the U. S. government. Every ISP is making a buck off the backs of such efforts and yet some act like the internet belongs to them and their greed. If they say they want deregulation then let's get rid of the USF and any other subsidies, the tariffs imposed by bought and paid for utility commissions, the bought congress critters and state legislators and reduce the high cost of entry for potential competitors to really level the playing field. | |
|
N1
@mycingular.net
| I don't get it... I read through the comments here, and I keep seeing these "Oh no, if they become dumb pipes, or people keep beating on wireless networks with these data applications, your service will diminish and costs will go up." Why? Why can't telcos just, you know, improve their service? Look at Japan. In one city, there are more mobile users than most areas in the USA. Among those mobile users, most are going to be using data applications. Their phones have live video streaming. They access youtube equivalents just like we do.
So why can't the USA have that? Why can't our network infrastructure support that sort of stress?
Oh yeah, because there's not enough competition here to warrant any actual service improvements. They just keep raising prices while proclaiming some bull about a bandwidth apocalypse.
Ugh. | |
|
| elementzero
join:2006-11-05
New Palestine, IN
| Re: I don't get it... I might also add that they charge less (at least in my experience). Additionally, Japanese internet is on average twice as fast, and when I lived in Japan I had access to 50/50 mbps service for under $50. I hear KDDI just rolled out 1/1 gbps service to compete with NTT, recently, too.
The difference between Japan and America is Japan forced the telcos to share their lines with other companies. This basically turned the telcos into service companies -- you pay for the internet service and the provider. The service comes from one of a couple telcos; one of many providers supplies the internet access, speeds, e-mail, and other features.
Of course, it's a lot easier to do such a thing politically in Japan because Japan used to have nationalized telcos. America's telcos, though of similar size and power, are private monopolies.
On the wireless side, Japan is just a very small country (though its mountainous terrain doesn't make it so easy as sticking a cell tower in a field like here in the US), so it's a lot easier for a small company to reach a huge potential user base and offer competitive pricing/features. It's also partially helped along culturally, as Japanese people tend to use computers so seldom that many people don't know how to use Word until college; instead, they use cell phones, and so cell phone features are a big area of competition. | |
|
Timmn
join:2000-04-23
Tinley Park, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
| I see a bigger issue... If the internet providers are allowed to block a service like Skype, then what's to stop them preventing access to other services?
Better yet, what's to stop them from blocking access to web sites they don't happen to like for one reason or another? | |
|
|
|
|
Skype Wants Telcos 'To Get Out Of The Way'
