  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 |  re:FCC chairman supports broadband data caps & UBB
| |
|
 | | | Re: re:FCC chairman supports broadband data caps & UBB Well, duh... he's gotta earn those kickbacks! | |
|
| | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: re:FCC chairman supports broadband data caps & UBB said by GlennAllen:Well, duh... he's gotta earn those kickbacks!
Any kickbacks are well in the future. Genachowski & major industry players are too smart to pay anything now and especially in cash. The payoffs, if they have in fact been promised, will come in the form of campaign contributions if Genachowski ever decides to run for office. Or in the form of lucrative consulting contracts or job offers 2 yrs after Genachowski leaves the FCC. | |
|
| | | | | Re: re:FCC chairman supports broadband data caps & UBB hello frnd | |
|
|  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Well, if we want to fail at everything, might as well be consistent... | |
|
| | Is the Internet hurting children? Yes, probably because so many parents abdicate their parental responsibilities. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Millenicom
 ·AT&T Southeast
·Verizon Wireless..
| The "Playbook" for Google Fiber I have read most of the "playbook" and am confused.
I thought Google Gigabit was to be a full FTTH physical plant to every house, apartment building, business building, government building, factory, store, diner, gas station, farm, and fruit stand inside the cities of Kansas City KS and Kansas City MO.
The "Playbook" says there is a need for WiFi mesh networks to connect under-served and non-served areas.
If the network is full FTTH, then there should not be any under-served or non-served areas.
What is Google really doing out there?
Are they just putting in some very large, very high capacity fiber optic cable rings? Seems like a giant middle mile project, if that is the case. Nice to have, but not meeting the original goal of a fully gigabit connected research and development municipal area for Google application developers to use. | |
|
| | Muni broadband provider files theft-of-service complaint... I guess the customers paying for service from the ISP in order to use the service that they're paying for just haven't been paying enough. (I think I would have filed a complaint with the DoJ for racketeering if I were the VoIP provider. The FCC ain't gonna do anything [appropriate].) | |
|
|  jack bGone FishingPremium,MVM
join:2000-09-08
Cape Cod
kudos:1 | Re: Muni broadband provider files theft-of-service complaint... I'm guessing Ed Whitacre has landed a job at this muni, this is exactly the kind of rubbish he's known to be capable of creating.
--
~Help Find a Cure for Cancer~
~Proud Member of Team Discovery ~ | |
|
| |
| rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Initially I had the same thoughts but after reading the entire article, it seems much more complicated. The two had a business relationship and it soured to the point of the utility temporarily denying access to leased facilities where the VOIP provider installed equipment.
The VOIP provider paid the utility for "Ethernet services" over which it provided its VOIP services. The article mentions that the utility only claims theft of service on behalf of one subscriber, who used the VOIP services through the utility-provided broadband connection. There is no complaint regarding the VOIP provider's other 2,250 subscribers.
The VOIP provider has co-located equipment and also provides IP transit services for the utility. This is a guess but I'll bet they provided service to one consumer by routing through the utility's "consumer broadband" subnet vs. the utility's "business network" subnet.
Since the VOIP provider provides IP transport services, the utility may not be able to stop it and that's probably why they filed the complaint.
Still guessing but the VOIP provider's other 2,250 subscribers probably pay the utility for a business-class service which can include a telephone component. The utility probably bills for all of the services and the utility and VOIP provider share the profits.
Still more guessing but what likely happened is the VOIP provider accepted a broadband subscriber who didn't pay the utility for the VOIP services thereby cutting the utility out of the billing loop. Since the business relationship was already sour, adding lawyers to a bit of smoke always yields fire.
I'm not sure who is right or wrong but the story doesn't describe a simple situation like Comcast filing a complaint against someone like Vonage who uses a consumer's existing broadband connection to provide dial tone services. | |
|
| | | | Re: Muni broadband provider files theft-of-service complaint... We seem to have two separate issues--one civil, one criminal (allegedly)--involving the same people that have gotten mixed up in the press (because the participants themselves seem to be "mixed up"). | |
|
| | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: Muni broadband provider files theft-of-service complaint... Possibly but my point was to get some who are yelling net neutrality to consider the situation is more complicated.
I'm not sure it's a net neutrality issue. The two had a business relationship where the VOIP provider was paying for services. Every business relationship has a contract with lots of fine print likely with lots of non-compete verbiage. This would take precedent over any potential net neutrality because the VOIP provider likely agreed they wouldn't do what they did.
Of course this is pure speculation but there's enough doubt here that I don't think we can yell net neutrality fire. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Muni broadband provider files theft-of-service complaint... Based on what I've since read now [elsewhere], I'd have to agree with you. | |
|
|
|
