 |
 |   Skeedatl Ah, push it - push it real good Premium join:2007-12-26 The Cloud | Re: I don't get it! Because the ISP expects you and Google to pay 2 and 3 times over to deliver the same data. | |
|
 |  |  PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04 Banks, OR | Re: I don't get it! Because the ISP's also sell things like TV and voice, and get big bucks for them. When Google/YouTube offer things over IP that cannabalize those services, the ISP's want to be compensated with a cut of the action. | |
|
 |  |  |   Skeedatl Ah, push it - push it real good Premium join:2007-12-26 The Cloud | Re: I don't get it! They have competitors...my violin is playing for them. | |
|
 |  |  |  |   batterup I Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ clubs: | Re: I don't get it! Don't worry pay per bit is coming and then you can watch all the Google HD you want. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  brad
join:2007-09-06 Etobicoke, ON
| Re: I don't get it! said by batterup :Don't worry pay per bit is coming and then you can watch all the Google HD you want. Then I'll move to another ISP that isn't gouging me. | |
|
 |   morbo Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22 00000 clubs: | greed and entitlement issues by telcos, mostly. although they will claim it is every other excuse imaginable... | |
|
 |  |   Skeedatl Ah, push it - push it real good Premium join:2007-12-26 The Cloud | Re: I don't get it! Guess you didn't get the memo...they're the new Bridge Troll.
But unfortunately for them, Google is the third Billy Goat. | |
|
 |  eljay001
join:2004-03-17 South Portland, ME edit: July 23rd, @11:42AM
| It's typical in big and old companies like AT&T and the Bells. These companies think they walk on water and THEY will tell the people what they want. If these companies don't wise up then they'll lose customers to something better. | |
|
 |  |   DavePR
join:2008-06-04 | Re: I don't get it! AT&T is a Baby Bell; Southwestern Bell aka SBC. | |
|
 |  EPS
join:2008-02-13 Hingham, MA
| The big problem is the "I pay for mine" section- ISPs realize that their payment model is based on an internet connection not always used and for text and pictures, not things like Flash and video.
The problem is that the existing competition makes significantly raising prices or lowering speeds to what can be offered more realistically very difficult, which is what competition is supposed to do. They therefore looked at the website owners as easier targets, as well as things like caps, where they can still advertise higher speeds but make sure the people aren't using them too much. | |
|
 |  |   KoolMoe Aw Man Premium join:2001-02-14 Annapolis, MD clubs:
·Speakeasy
| Re: I don't get it! I disagree. I think there is very little actual competition in most markets, and what there seems to be decently addressed with speed increases (why would they want to lower speeds?). Their model works fine as they continue to over-subscribe their connections anyway.
This is all just looking to make more profit, which is fine, but their attempted reasoning is fallacious. KM | |
|
 |  |   KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| I disagree. They pay for their consumption, so if I connect to say YouTube and watch a ton of videos that means Google has to pay their providers for the bandwidth I consumed.
Which is part of the reason charge by the byte is a pure rip-off for consumers. They want to follow the Cell phone model--- make people pay for both MAKING the call and RECEIVING the call---- IE pay twice. Hell if Net Neutrality fails that could become paying THREE, FOUR, or even more times. -- "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!) | |
|
 |  |
 |  hottboiinnc Kyle
join:2003-10-15 Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| it doesnt. People on here and Google like to cry Net Neutrality when its not a such thing.
They don't understand that Net Neutrality is charging another company such as Search or video or IM extra to be "faster" on one company's network.
But as stated here many times it is not a problem the US faces. Canada does not face this either. They just face Bell getting tired of letting others use the network they manage each and every day at a price instead of others building out a WISP that could be huge by now but nobody wanted to do it up there really; except the people here on the WISP board.
But there will be a day that we have caps the same as they do and most other countries, a day where we do not have resellers on the Bell or Cable Networks, and if any companies want to still play they'll need to build out their own network or be forced to explain to their customers and their employees that they decide to take things the easy way and use all they could from the Bells and Cable Cos (TWC areas) and that they can not offer services and everyone must be laid off. | |
|
 |  |   batterup I Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: I don't get it! said by hottboiinnc :They don't understand that Net Neutrality is charging another company such as Search or video or IM extra to be "faster" on one company's network. Net Neutrality is different things to different leeches. When a law is passed to let all bits and bytes through the same we will pay per bit just like we pay per kilowatt.
Google had the chance to put up and buy the 700 Mhz spectrum and then open it up the leeches and they didn't do it. Put up or shut up, they didn't put up so shut up. | |
|
 |  |  |   KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK | Re: I don't get it! Notice to newbies to the forum. Batterup is a long time, fervent believer in Ma Bell. He believes it goes from God, to Ma Bell, to ... etc etc with you and I at the very bottom. | |
|
 |  |  |  |   batterup I Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: I don't get it! said by KrK :Notice to newbies to the forum. Batterup is a long time, fervent believer in Ma Bell. He believes it goes from God, to Ma Bell, to ... etc etc with you and I at the very bottom. Notice KrK has not only his own opinions but his own facts. See; »Re: Agree 100% »Re: Agree 100% | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |   KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK | Re: I don't get it! Thanks! | |
|
 |  |  |  hottboiinnc Kyle
join:2003-10-15 Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| i know this. But it wouldnt be DSLR if it wasn't for the weekly articles on what Google things is right or what they have to say.
Especially when the story about Google being sued never hit the front page. Thanks Karl for censoring the news for us. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  hottboiinnc Kyle
join:2003-10-15 Toledo, OH | Re: I don't get it! my point is that when ever bad press hits Karl's beloved Google it never hits the news here. the emails get deleted in his inbox as his IMs. or they just "don't get delivered" for some reason. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |   MysticGogeta The Robot Devil Premium join:2005-03-14 League City, TX clubs: | Re: I don't get it! If you don't like it don't visit the site. Theirs plenty of news websites out there that you can visit and troll on. -- Team Discovery-Join the fight | |
|
 |  |  higginslads
join:2008-02-15 Madison, NJ
| Here's what's slated for Canada:
"In the upcoming weeks watch for a report in Time Magazine that will attempt to smooth over the rough edges of a diabolical plot by Bell Canada and Telus, to begin charging per site fees on most Internet sites. The plan is to convert the Internet into a cable-like system, where customers sign up for specific web sites, and then pay to visit sites beyond a cutoff point.
From my browsing (on the currently free Internet) I have discovered that the 'demise' of the free Internet is slated for 2010 in Canada, and two years later around the world. Canada is seen a good choice to implement such shameful and sinister changes, since Canadians are viewed as being laissez fair, politically uninformed and an easy target. The corporate marauders will iron out the wrinkles in Canada and then spring the new, castrated version of the Internet on the rest of the world, probably with little fanfare, except for some dire warnings about the 'evil' of the Internet (free) and the CEO's spouting about 'safety and security'. These buzzwords usually work pretty well.
What will the Internet look like in Canada in 2010? I suspect that the ISP's will provide a "package" program as companies like Cogeco currently do. Customers will pay for a series of websites as they do now for their television stations. Television stations will be available on-line as part of these packages, which will make the networks happy since they have lost much of the younger market which are surfing and chatting on their computers in the evening. However, as is the case with cable television now, if you choose something that is not part of the package, you know what happens. You pay extra.
And this is where the Internet (free) as we know it will suffer almost immediate, economic strangulation. Thousands and thousands of Internet sites will not be part of the package so users will have to pay extra to visit those sites! In just an hour or two it is possible to easily visit 20-30 sites or more while looking for information. Just imagine how high these costs will be...
»www.informationclearinghouse.inf···0330.htm | |
|
 |  |   a333 A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12 Corona, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
| Ummm, the telcos are LAWFULLY REGULATED MONOPOLIES that got their monopoly on the telco infrastructure by agreeing to certain rules. Now, it appears they aren't playing by some of those rules. This isn't about 3rd party ISP's leeching off of bell. You, the consumer, are the one who PAID for the outside plant/network, through your hard earned tax dollars. Therefore, you deserve protection by the government, namely FCC/CRTC, about issues like ISP's tapping into your browsing habits without your due compensation, or capping/throttling your connection without presenting appropriate proof that their network needs it.
"They don't understand that Net Neutrality is charging another company such as Search or video or IM extra to be "faster" on one company's network." That's the exact opposite of what Net Neutrality IS, so plase elaborate on that thought | |
|
 |  |  |   batterup I Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: I don't get it! said by a333 :Ummm, the telcos are LAWFULLY REGULATED MONOPOLIES......... They WERE regulated and the people demanded deregulation. Ma Bell is dead and yet the people are not happy. | |
|
 |   verolom
join:2002-03-23 Eatontown, NJ
·Comcast
| said by sousademiami :It's as if I have long distance phone service and so do you, but if I want to be able to call you and have decent service I still have to pay your provider too. HOW DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?!?! You actually do pay my provider to call me. It's called access fees and it is what killed AT&T, MCI and Sprint LD. It is what happens when you have phone companies rule the internet access. | |
|
 |
 |  UJcDV
join:2002-04-29 Ypsilanti, MI | Re: Agree 100% It's called "Deregulation" thats what happened. -- »www.dvinvasion.com | |
|
 |  |  nasadude
join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Agree 100% said by UJcDV :It's called "Deregulation" thats what happened. another way to put it is that the "tots" haven't had adult supervision in several years. What do you think would happen to your house if you let a 4 year old do whatever he wanted for a couple of years? | |
|
 |  |  |   Name brand
@verizon.net | Re: Agree 100% All u paying is for the name brand. | |
|
 |  |  |   msmisfit
join:2004-09-13 Lawrenceville, GA
·Charter Pipeline
| said by nasadude :said by UJcDV :It's called "Deregulation" thats what happened. another way to put it is that the "tots" haven't had adult supervision in several years. What do you think would happen to your house if you let a 4 year old do whatever he wanted for a couple of years? You're both right! I sure hope the next election will bring in enough new faces to Congress, to re-visit the monopolies and degradation brought on by deregulation. I will support Google every way I can. | |
|
 |  |  |   mrchris Stop deleting my posts Premium join:2002-10-01 North Babylon, NY | I blame Bush and the Kevin Martin for the way they are now. | |
|
 |  |  |   Jason Levine Premium join:2001-07-13 Albany, NY
| As the parent of a 4 year old (soon to be 5), I wouldn't want him left alone in my house with no adult supervision for a couple of hours, much less a few years. Kids at that age have a good understanding of what is right and wrong, yet try to push the envelope to see just how much they can get away with.
Small anecdote: My son has been getting in trouble lately for "potty talk." As I'm leaving for work yesterday, he asked me to take a photo of him as he made a shape. He said: "See? I'm a P! Like in Pee-pee!" He knew that this was potty talk and was trying to be able to say the word without getting in trouble.
The telecos are doing something similar. Except that the "parents" of these "4 year olds" (the FCC) aren't calling the "kids" out on their bad behavior. Instead, they're taking a "do nothing and it'll all correct itself" attitude, occasionally alternated with repeated warnings to stop. Repeated warnings (with no real consequence) and ignoring the problem don't help with 4 year olds and it won't help with telecos. -- -Jason Levine Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | |
|
 |   tschmidt Premium,MVM join:2000-11-12 Milford, NH
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by MattE : What happened to the innovative minds at Bell that produced all the wonderful technology of the 50's, 60's and 70's? What happened in the 70's to turn the company in the direction it's currently in? I disagree a little with your analysis. It is true Bell Labs produced incredible innovation. However innovation was not about new products but rather ability to deliver the same product at lower price.
Deregulation has its share of problems but it has resulted in a lot of innovation, that innovation occurred outside the domain of the Telcos.
First-Mile service providers are in a quandary - what business do they want to be in. Are they pure play bandwidth providers or is bandwidth simply the means to deliver other services?
/tom | |
|
 |  |   MattE Obama '08 Premium join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
·Corporate Colocation
| Re: Agree 100% said by tschmidt :said by MattE : What happened to the innovative minds at Bell that produced all the wonderful technology of the 50's, 60's and 70's? What happened in the 70's to turn the company in the direction it's currently in? I disagree a little with your analysis. It is true Bell Labs produced incredible innovation. However innovation was not about new products but rather ability to deliver the same product at lower price. Deregulation has its share of problems but it has resulted in a lot of innovation, that innovation occurred outside the domain of the Telcos. First-Mile service providers are in a quandary - what business do they want to be in. Are they pure play bandwidth providers or is bandwidth simply the means to deliver other services? /tom I was referring more to their Skunkworks-type research divisions that resulted in things like the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
Your point is very valid however. | |
|
 |  |   KoolMoe Aw Man Premium join:2001-02-14 Annapolis, MD clubs: | All them more reason they should split into 'content provider' and 'infrastructure' companies. If they won't do it themselves, it may be time to force it. Then we'll see more, true competition, at least from the content provider side. KM | |
|
 |  jester121
join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL
·ViaTalk
| said by MattE :What happened in the 70's to turn the company in the direction it's currently in? The 60s. | |
|
 |  Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29 Eustis, FL
·Comcast
| I believe your perception of how the Bell System operated before Judge Green broke it up is incorrect. Many of the innovations were introduced to reduce operating costs. The Transistor was introduced to replace vacuum tubes, to reduce maintenance cost on long distance carrier systems. The best example was the introduction of Touch Tone Dialing. When first introduced the cost was made high because the cost to equip a central office for touch tone was very high. By setting the monthly cost high most customers would not pay the premium for the service. Once Touch Tone Receivers were integrated into digital central offices the monthly cost was reduced. In reality the long term planning department wanted push button dialing to reduce call set up time and holding time on registers. It took from 1964 to about 1984 for Touch Tone Dialing to be made a standard feature. One of the stated reasons for the break up of the Bell System was the lack of innovation. | |
|
 |   ATTek Got Sand?
join:2000-12-13 Pinon Hills, CA
| said by MattE :What happened to the innovative minds at Bell that produced all the wonderful technology of the 50's, 60's and 70's? What happened in the 70's to turn the company in the direction it's currently in? Judge Green, divestiture, and the public complaining that communication was too expensive and ending the pure monopoly would would solve it all. Not saying that it's incorrect, but it seems like a strange coincidence that the true innovation stopped at the same time. -- What does THIS button do..... | |
|
 |  |  See 6 replies to this post |
|
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |  hottboiinnc Kyle
join:2003-10-15 Toledo, OH | Re: Agree 100% yah they do. and you ever notice that its the people on this site that bitch?
the AT$T we have today and the AT&T back then are two different companies. | |
|
 |  |  |   KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Agree 100% said by hottboiinnc :yah they do. and you ever notice that its the people on this site that bitch? Yes, I have noticed you, actually. Often.
the AT$T we have today and the AT&T back then are two different companies. at&t is working really hard on fixing that. -- "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!) | |
|
 |  |  |  |  hottboiinnc Kyle
join:2003-10-15 Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| Re: Agree 100% I'm not the one that bitches about what companies generally do.
I would do the same as them and could if i owned what they do.
They're not there to please you and every other customer every second of the day. They're here to make a profit and please their share and stock holders.
You have a choice. It's called don't use them and find someone else or start your own company. The same as others.
You're just one that bitches about how everything should be for you and all the other customers that believe that they should be given what ever they want from companies. and then you bitch and agree with other Indie companies that they should be given free access to any network and everything they want to offer the same service. They have a choice too as Google did with spectrum. Put up or shut up and they did the same as Google. They didnt put up so they should shut up. The same as Batterup said. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |   KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Agree 100% You're just a troll who insults and provides nothing to the discussion.
So, I like to actually get something for my hard-earned money. So Sue me. I pay them, I expect them to deliver their end of the deal. I'm very reasonable. I don't want anything for free or make demands that weren't part of the deal. So quit the crap, please. -- "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!) | |
|
 |  |  |   batterup I Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by hottboiinnc :yah they do. and you ever notice that its the people on this site that bitch? the AT$T we have today and the AT&T back then are two different companies. The at&t we have today is more like the AT&T of the Bell System days then the AT&T of the break up, three different at&Ts. Still it is no longer a common carrier with regulated monopoly status, only POTS is old Bell System.
at&t/Verizon/Quest the old Phone Company is no longer guaranteed a 6% profit and must hustle a buck by selling ring-tones to kids. Never again will TPC be the first with thousands of discoveries that were given away to the public and be the first to hear the song of the universe. quote: Penzias and Wilson's Discovery is One of the Century's Key Advances
When the intellectual history of the 20th century is written, a few achievements will tower over all. Einstein's theory of general relativity will be one; the laws of quantum mechanics will be another. The so-called Big Bang Theory of the origin of the universe will be a third.
The discovery in 1963 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson of the cosmic microwave background of the Big Bang set the seal of approval on the theory, and brought cosmology to the forefront as a scientific discipline. It was proof that the universe was born at a definite moment, some 15 billion years ago.
 Bell Labs RIP. Bell Labs built the first single-chip digital signal processor in 1979.
The Unix operating system and the C programming language, closely intertwined in both origin and impact, were created at Bell Labs between 1969 and 1972.
First introduced by Bell Labs in 1963, touch-tone replaced rotary dials.
Bell Labs was the pioneer in communications satellites.
In 1962, Bell Labs developed the first digitally multiplexed transmission of voice signals.
The invention of the laser, which stands for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation, can be dated to 1958 with the publication of a scientific paper by Bell Labs researchers.
While there were theories and activities to harness the suns energy dating back to the 1800s, Bell Labs, in 1954, was the first to actually build a device that used the suns power to create practical amount of electricity.
In a paper in 1947 Bell Labs was the first to propose a cellular network.
Developed in 1947, as a replacement for bulky and inefficient vacuum tubes and mechanical relays, the transistor revolutionized the entire electronics world.
Since the transmission of the first facsimile in 1925, Bell Labs has explored ways to use networks to deliver more than just voice traffic.
Did you enjoy the poison teat of MCI/WorlCom? Enjoy the new at&t. | |
|
  Gage
@charter.com
from: wtansill 
| Amazing The fact of the matter is, is that the Bells are being left behind in the this new digital age, and they are unwilling to change with it and move on with innovation and pricing to match. They are stuck back in the 50's and 60's where they could charge what they wanted and there was no other choice for the poor consumers. Now there is choice with services like VOIP ect, they don't like it. I would tell them to "Get over it, or get out of the way" I admire Google for pushing ahead despite the old fossils that are the Bells. Google and companies like it that see the future and are forging ahead to get us there. | |
|
 |  iansltx
join:2007-02-19 Fredericksburg, TX | Re: Amazing Totally agreed. Oh, and the int Cerf quote is golden.  | |
|
  pv8man999
@sbcglobal.net | cookie jar Google pays for their connection. I pay for mine.
and that should be that... but, there are lots of others that see it as a cookie jar that they want to get their hands into as well. | |
|
  TamaraB Question The Current Paradigm Premium join:2000-11-08 Underway
·Verizon Online DSL
| Reverse the Paradigm I don't get it either! What makes a raw Internet connection valuable? Answer: Content.
Without content, a connection is practically useless. It's the content providers who give value to connectivity. ISPs should pay content providers for allowing their customers to access the content, not the other way around.
Seems to me, companies like Google, have the upper hand here.
Bob -- Motor Vessel - Tamara B. 43' Long-Range Trawler Cape Elizebeth ME. See her Here. | |
|
 |   TK Junk Mail Go ahead, make my day Premium join:2002-03-03 Margate City, NJ clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Reverse the Paradigm said by TamaraB :Seems to me, companies like Google, have the upper hand here. And a couple years from now people will be moaning about Google like they do today about Microsoft and the telcos and cable. Google is the new monopoly and their practices, especially over privacy, will be attacked soon enough. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|
 |  |  thevorpal
join:2007-11-16 Endicott, NY
| Re: Reverse the Paradigm said by TK Junk Mail :said by TamaraB  |
|