I hate it when...

[George P Burdell]

This kind of crap keeps coming up

 

[1sikbITCH]

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/3ced445e-91c5-11da-bab9-0000779e2340.html

Ed Whitacre, AT&T?s chairman and chief executive, warned on Monday that internet content providers that wanted to use broadband networks to deliver high-quality services such as movie downloads to their customers would have to pay for the service or face the prospect that new investment in high speed networks ?will dry up.

Unless I'm missing something, all he's saying is that if companies like Google are going to offer lots of hi-bandwidth content, they're going to have to pay some of the costs of getting it to the consumer. Google videos is a huge hit. On the surface it doesn't seem unreasonable.

 

[FoBoT]

so who is getting free bandwidth? i am not

or the backbone operators are just looking for ways to raise revenue without charging the current customers higher prices?

 

[acemcmac]

Originally posted by: 1sikbITCH
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/3ced445e-91c5-11da-bab9-0000779e2340.html

Ed Whitacre, AT&T?s chairman and chief executive, warned on Monday that internet content providers that wanted to use broadband networks to deliver high-quality services such as movie downloads to their customers would have to pay for the service or face the prospect that new investment in high speed networks ?will dry up.?

Unless I'm missing something, all he's saying is that if companies like Google are going to offer lots of hi-bandwidth content, they're going to have to pay some of the costs of getting it to the consumer. Google videos is a huge hit. On the surface it doesn't seem unreasonable.

fvck that. Raise the costs of the connection to the end users if you can't make ends meet. A two tier internet flies in the face of every precident we have. This isn't the way the internet works. They just want the world to compensate them for their assinine buisness decisions.

 

[acemcmac]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
so who is getting free bandwidth? i am not

or the backbone operators are just looking for ways to raise revenue without charging the current customers higher prices?

EXACTLY.

Charge your customers more if you think you need that revenue so badly... I don't understand why the feds don't regulate this from happening.

 

[1sikbITCH]

Originally posted by: acemcmac

Originally posted by: FoBoT
so who is getting free bandwidth? i am not

or the backbone operators are just looking for ways to raise revenue without charging the current customers higher prices?

EXACTLY.

Charge your customers more if you think you need that revenue so badly... I don't understand why the feds don't regulate this from happening.

I do understand a bit better now, especially after reading this guy's take on it:

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=918

I agree, it is "double-dipping". This is regulated on telephone lines, but not on cable and fibre optic lines.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: 1sikbITCH
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/3ced445e-91c5-11da-bab9-0000779e2340.html

Ed Whitacre, AT&T?s chairman and chief executive, warned on Monday that internet content providers that wanted to use broadband networks to deliver high-quality services such as movie downloads to their customers would have to pay for the service or face the prospect that new investment in high speed networks ?will dry up.

Unless I'm missing something, all he's saying is that if companies like Google are going to offer lots of hi-bandwidth content, they're going to have to pay some of the costs of getting it to the consumer. Google videos is a huge hit. On the surface it doesn't seem unreasonable.

It's not like the 'content providers' don't already pay for their bandwidth. What they're saying is "hey, pay us more $$ so your packets don't dissappear on the way." It really is a protection scheme. If they aren't making a profit on their sale of bandwith, they're free to raise their normal connection charges. They know, however, that the market won't support higher rates, so they're trying to extort it from a small segment of the market that they know need it, not by offering them a service, but by implicit threat.

 

[FoBoT]

i agree with So , they see Google's IPO and current stock price and are like an ambulance chasing/tobacco company sueing lawyer, they see huge deep pockets and want to cash in

 

[Phoenix86]

Let them do it. Watch what happens to their customer base when they close content like google.

 

[MX2]

Originally posted by: George P Burdell
I hate it when...

I stub my toe

 

[Rogeee]

I hate it when you click on someone's link and you get this ;


Not Found (404)
The file that you requested could not be found on this server. If you provided the URL, please check to ensure that it is correct. If you followed a hypermedia link, please notify the administrator of that server of this error.

 

[ShadoWing]

me too but yea att and others should quit it.

 

[Zanix]

Originally posted by: 1sikbITCH

Originally posted by: acemcmac

Originally posted by: FoBoT
so who is getting free bandwidth? i am not

or the backbone operators are just looking for ways to raise revenue without charging the current customers higher prices?

EXACTLY.

Charge your customers more if you think you need that revenue so badly... I don't understand why the feds don't regulate this from happening.

I do understand a bit better now, especially after reading this guy's take on it:

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=918

I agree, it is "double-dipping". This is regulated on telephone lines, but not on cable and fibre optic lines.

So the moral is: find a loophole in the industry's regulations, then apply that loophole to a similar industry that hasn't yet regulated the loop! FTW! :|

 

[markgm]

I guess I just am not grasping something. Google pays for its connection to the Internet, and I pay for mine. Where is the free ride coming from? It sounds more like whoever I'm paying or whoever Google is paying isn't sharing the wealth. It's like when you tip at a restaurant, the server should pass a little something to the rest of the folks.