 chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA | same logic...can work the other way... Well... are they willing to foot the bill (relatively speaking) for all the content they do not develop but their customers are seeking? come on!!!!! | |
|
 | 
Noah Vail
Serial Thread Killer
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
 ·Verizon BroadbandA..
 ·VoicePulse
| Re: same logic...can work the other way... I guess it will be ok.
However, since my tax money pays for the operation and maintenance on a number of Root Zone Servers, I'll need to be compensated for any root DNS hits that Virgin's network incurs.
NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd. | |
|
dadkins
Land of Confusion
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
 ·Comcast
edit:
April 14th, @11:25AM
| WTF? Subscriber pays monthly bill for - what exactly?
Content provider pays for their connection monthly(?) - for what exactly?
How is this/these paid for ISP connection(s) needing more money all of a sudden for - whatever - to get sent across it/them?
Greedy money grab(extortion) is all I see.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
| degauss1
join:2001-07-02
Hillsboro, OR
·Axvoice
·Comcast
·ViaTalk
| Re: WTF? Well stated.
ISP's want to be content providers and reap the rewards? Fine, drive content and find a way to make money from it. Don't extort money from others' hard work. Just make sure the plumbing keeps the flow going.
If they don't want to provide Internet service the way it's intended to be (open) they should not be permitted to provide it at all. | |
|
| | backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
·Rogers Hi-Speed
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Re: WTF? That's all this is about,
Microsoft has proven time and time again that just because they are the big guy on the block that their offerings just aren't up to par with what others offer.
Same with cell phones. I use my cell phone for calling only because of the prepackaged nonsens and silly binding locked phone software that sucks.
Why do these companies think they can just buy functionality and users apperciation and respect? | |
|
| 
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
·Comcast
| As content increases and the "pipes" get clogged there a few paths that can be taken:
- Make the provider a dumb pipe. The provider will be required to increase the size of the pipe and offer faster service plans as content demands increase. Of course the providers will charge far more for these plans to recover the cost of network upgrades to avoid network congestion at peak usage times.
- Allow the provider to use QOS or other mechanisms to throttle the pipes. But since the way the provider chooses to allocate priority to services/traffic may not match what each user wants, the pipe will need to be opened up to competitive providers. This method would work best if the last mile is again a dumb pipe and the providers can only wholesale out last mile service to competing ISPs.
- Bill by the byte. High usage = higher fees for both content providers feeding the pipe and users on the download side. Clogged pipes reduce profits so bandwidth providers will have a natural incentive to increase bandwidth. Of coarse now heavy users will no longer be subsidized by light users. However the "advertising supported content model" just does not work under this system as the user starts paying to download the advertising.
- Do nothing and let the providers operate without neutrality requirements. High demand applications will drown in their own bandwidth use. Of course they will disrupt all network traffic, but low bandwidth applications will be least impacted. The providers will do little to support any new bandwidth gobbling applications but their own, that is unless the content providers pony up for priority access. High bandwidth application development stagnates as rollout of new bandwidth expansion by the providers does not make any financial sense.
Now who gets to pick which path we take?
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 | |
|
| | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: WTF? said by halfband  :Now who gets to pick which path we take? Bill by the Byte or better yet by overage tiers. | |
|
| | | karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Re: WTF? Yes yes yes, you keep saying 'bill by the byte'. But name ONE ISP in the US that does that. Look at it this way..
If grandma only uses 1GB/month, does that mean her bill will only be $11.00. I mean, she only used 1GB. That cost the ISP a total of $0.10 dollars (10 cents). So they charge a base fee of $10.00, and then charge grandma $1.00 for bandwith. Now, BIG P2P user does 300GB/month. Charge him $10.00 + 60.00 for bandwidth, so he pays $70.00 a month.
Once they do THAT, then I will accept the 'bill by the byte model'. But they will NEVER DO THAT, because lets be fair, their revenue would DROP by 90%, because the only ones who WOULD use their service would be grandma, and everyone else would go to an ISP without caps.
Bill by the byte will NEVER work. I won't pay for Ads, I won't pay for SPAM, and I won't pay for DDOS attacks.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
|
| | | | espaeth
Misanthrope
Premium
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | Re: WTF? The problem with that argument is that the base delivery charge is closer to the existing price than $10. I'd guess base fees would be around $30-35.
Energy (both electric and gas for the service fleet) and people aren't getting any cheaper. | |
|
| | | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| WISPs bill by the byte for overages. Many have them its just that smaller-local companies you don't see in the media about it. There is one in Central Ohio (NocWireless) who allows a certain amount of gigs per month after that you pay. I don't see where that is a problem. If you use the service you should have to pay for what you use.
But as far as spam- use gmail or another alike service that blocks 99% of spam. I have my own domain and i don't receive spam on it. It was hosted on googleapps and then i moved it over to hostgator.com for hosting- still the same thing no spam. Everyone cries that they want something but yet they're not willing to pay for what they want. Want content then pay for it by paying for the byte; a higher priced internet connection or easy- get an unlimited dial-up account.
Problem solved.
And yes i'm all for billing by the byte. | |
|
| | |
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| Re: WTF? said by dadkins :That's dirty! Not really, it's simply another method to generate revenue. The key will be to see which content provider is the first to break and pay extra. If someone does pay the fee, expect a chain reaction leading to the ISPs winning. If nobody steps forward to pay extra, consumers can expect to see their monthly rates increase even more to compensate. | |
|
| | | |
dadkins
Land of Confusion
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| Re: WTF? said by openbox9 :said by dadkins :That's dirty! Not really, it's simply another method to generate revenue. The key will be to see which content provider is the first to break and pay extra. If someone does pay the fee, expect a chain reaction leading to the ISPs winning. If nobody steps forward to pay extra, consumers can expect to see their monthly rates increase even more to compensate. No, it is dirty!
Raise the rates for service - fine!
Stating that unless the content provider pays more, speeds will be throttled is blackmail! aka extortion.
That's bullshit!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
| | | | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | Re: WTF? If you think its fine for providers to raise their rates. That's fine. But when they do; how many people that think that its a bunch of BS that they did this and how unfair it is? Are you going to be one of them? | |
|
| | |
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
·Comcast
edit:
April 14th, @02:28PM
| said by dadkins :Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you think that everyone everywhere will max out their pipes 24/7/365. I probably was not clear. This is a problem with realtime viewing of video streams. The big growth in net content will be video streams at higher resolutions than the current youtube rate. And the biggest problem is with peak time demand for these streams. The existing net can handle most everything else now with speeds like comcast provides. Oddly enough P2P and some of the other methods of getting movie downloads are not the problem because they are not time sensitive streams, you queue up your downloads and watch later, slow peak time downloads are not an issue unless it stretches into days. [The major bittorrent issue is limited upstream on the shared part of cables last mile and has nothing to do with distribution neutrality.] As the network is used for more "video on demand" like content, the peak time delays cause problems that viewers are going to find unacceptable.
The true content manufacturers love the idea of both purchase by the view or subscription streaming video and advertising supported video streams [similar to the existing free tv channel model] since both bypasses the current distribution network moguls. They are developing more applications to sell their content over the net as each day goes by.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 | |
|
| |
| |
dadkins
Land of Confusion
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| Re: WTF? Exactly!
If they cannot provide a *REASONABLE* amount of use(bandwidth/traffic/data transfer) for the amount they sell the services at... something has to give!
If the *USER* is saturating the pipe, suggest/sell them a business class line(more $$$).
Charging the content provider for "normal", paid for speeds of data transfer is bullshit!
There is a shitload of free/low cost content out there that the subscriber can get ATM.
Seeing as the bills are being paid, by all parties involved, throttling normal speeds by the ISP unless more money is paid is extortion!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
| 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| said by dadkins :Subscriber pays monthly bill for - what exactly? Apparently.... Nothing.
This is only happening because the Corporations are greedy and want to keep increasing profits by finding new ways to extract cash from their existing setup.... AND the fact that there is limited or little competition. If there was sufficient open competition they couldn't get away with this crap because 1) Consumers would switch and 2) The content providers would too.... but... when you have little choices, all similar, then they know you have nowhere to go and they can put it too you.
It's all about profits. ISP's want them to grow, but they don't want to spend money upgrading or acquiring new customers. They just want to raise rates where ever they can.
Because of the lack of a competitive market, we will need regulation to prevent abuse. Unfortunately the Politicians don't get it, and seem to be coming down on the side of donates money to their campaigns....
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| | 
TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Wesley Chapel, FL
| Re: WTF? said by KrK :said by dadkins :Subscriber pays monthly bill for - what exactly? Apparently.... Nothing. LOL What? Networks ain't free. | |
|
| | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: WTF? said by TechieZero :LOL What? Networks ain't free. If you believe some of the statements some of these companies are stating that content providers must pay them in order for them to build or upgrade their networks, then that means you also have to accept that the consumer based fees DON'T pay for the network....
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| | | |
TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Wesley Chapel, FL
| Re: WTF? said by KrK :If you believe some of the statements some of these companies are stating that content providers must pay them in order for them to build or upgrade their networks, then that means you also have to accept that the consumer based fees DON'T pay for the network.... I believe that it's their network and they can charge for it anyway they damn please, and it's our decision as consumers to pay for that, or not. | |
|
| | | | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: WTF? said by TechieZero :I believe that it's their network and they can charge for it anyway they damn please, and it's our decision as consumers to pay for that, or not. Yeah that works great in a competitive market where providers and consumers have lots of choices.... So they go to ripoff mode, and we walk. Pure and simple.... but in today's climate, it's not like content providers can tell certain backbone providers to get lost, and it's not like consumers can "walk" on the Telcos or Cablecos (sure they can... once... maybe twice... then they're done)
So your model folds up at this point.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| | | | | |
TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Wesley Chapel, FL
| Re: WTF? said by KrK :Pure and simple.... but in today's climate, it's not like content providers can tell certain backbone providers to get lost, and it's not like consumers can "walk" on the Telcos or Cablecos (sure they can... once... maybe twice... then they're done) So your model folds up at this point. Content providers can walk or stop. Everyone has a choice. Through technology and/or need, competition will then develop as other delivery methods are created. Government intervention only serves to stifle this type of growth and development as it did with the break up of the Telcos. | |
|
| | | | | | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: WTF? I'd say the breakup fostered innovation and competition, and only the dismantling of the rules and the dropping of regulations lead to the reversal. | |
|
mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28 | Customer response: Dear Virgin,
Here's my payment for this month's access, minus the throttling fee of 50%.
Thanks!  | |
|
BabyBear
Keep wise ...with Night-Owl
join:2007-01-11
edit:
April 14th, @11:38AM
| Apples & Crumpets Does it really matter what the CEO of a U.K. ISP believes when it comes to net neutrality? After all it can, and probably will be different for each country. After all U.K. citizens don't mind all kinds of things that "upset" us here in the US.  "Favoritism for certain companies in the industry" certainly has been the norm and not just in the communications industry either, but part of the point of net neutrality is the information has to be treated the same and not given favoritism for corporate partners, etc. and that is what your customers want(whether they know it or not), so it is not B.S. The reason why we shouldn't get it from the ISP's is the true B.S.  | |
|
| 
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | Re: Apples & Crumpets When it gets out of control like when the railroads were doing it in the 50's expect the govt to step in and bash heads ... I hope  | |
|
| |
TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Wesley Chapel, FL
| Re: Apples & Crumpets said by gaforces :When it gets out of control like when the railroads were doing it in the 50's expect the govt to step in and bash heads ... I hope Right...so that the government can heavily subsidize whats left at the taxpayers expense. Socialized Internet is what we exactly need.  | |
|
| | |
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
·Cruzio Internet
| Re: Apples & Crumpets When we had subsidized telephone and power it was available to almost everyone.
The privatization of the telecom infrastructure has made it available only to the chosen few who have the most money.
--
There is no greater sign of a general decay of virtue in a nation, than a want of zeal in its inhabitants for the good of their country. ~ Joseph Addison | |
|
Stickme4myriches
@yorku.ca
| People will have to fight for their right to a free Internet ISP's are access providers to the internet. They do not own it or your private data. I really hope people stand up against this tiered version of the net these money grabbers want to implement all over the world it seems like.
Bandwith limits are their excuse for changing their profitabiliy scheme. Goverments are going to have to step in and regulate this because in most cases, these money giants hold a monopolistic grip on internet access in their own respective regions. | |
|
jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
clubs: | mofia sounds like you need to pay up more for better protection(speed) | |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs: | When When a media company owns the ISP...
They own you.
--
Reach out and Tap someone! | |
|
blips
join:2001-04-17
Addison, IL | . .....coming soon soon to your local North American ISP. | |
|
bluebsh
join:2003-11-23
Indiana, PA
| Humm So whats really going on is Virgin Media is loseing money to other companies like Hollywood / BBC / Sky / who knows... and since they are a media company and an ISP they are going to charge more to compete against them on their network... sounds like what got MS introuble to me | |
|
|
|
|
|
What Net Neutrality? UK ISP Defends Throttling
