Ma Bell Looks To Stomp Out Net Neutrality World Wide

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

Ridiculous

Andrew Schmitt, Feb 20th, 2006 @ 12:03pm

This is just a ridiculous post. AT&T growing their network so that they can keep people from using it?
They are just trying to prevent 5% of the users from dictating what the other 95% pay.
More here:

www.nyquistcapital.com/2006/02/20/net-neutrality-tragedy-of-the-commons/

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ridiculous

Mike (profile), Feb 20th, 2006 @ 12:16pm

Hmm. I think you miss the point in two different ways.

On the concept of net neutrality, your post ignores the fact that everyone is already paying for the bandwdith they use. Google, Yahoo and others pay a greater amount for more bandwidth. So your whole argument doesn't apply. What the telcos are trying to do now isn't charge more for bandwidth, but hit them up again for QoS type charges. That's different... and the point on net neutrality is that this gives incentives for the telcos to lower QoS so that people pay more to get on the better QoS train. If the telcos had architected their networks properly in the first place, however, QoS wouldn't be much of an issue.

Secondly, yes, the telcos are trying to grow their networks to keep people from using it... While that sounds stupid the way you've written it, what the telcos believe (incorrectly), is that they can make more money by limiting the network, and effectively charging more for it. It's what you do as a monopoly.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ridiculous

Andrew Schmitt, Feb 20th, 2006 @ 12:24pm

The telcos are looking to establish a variable pricing model now that the fixed pricing model is being abused by 5% of the users.

Agreed, if you buy a T1 or OC-3 connection you expect 100% throughput. The new multi-mbs tiers being marketed by the Telcos lack the backing infrastructure to enable those rates at always on speeds. Rather than marketing deception, this is a means of the telco's allowing people to benefit from the statistical patterns of bandwidth access (i.e. bursty). When a whole new class of users comes on board that breaks this model they either need to charge this call of users more or charge those who are enabling it.

In the end, who is going to pay? The people who are not fitting the traditional usage mold? Or everyone? I don't want to pay for how others choose to use their internet connection.

The telcos have done a horrible job of explaining this, but this is the fundamental technical problem that is driving the issue. They didn't decide to step out in front of this bus without a good reason, and it isn't naked greed.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ridiculous

Mike (profile), Feb 20th, 2006 @ 12:42pm

The new multi-mbs tiers being marketed by the Telcos lack the backing infrastructure to enable those rates at always on speeds. Rather than marketing deception, this is a means of the telco's allowing people to benefit from the statistical patterns of bandwidth access (i.e. bursty). When a whole new class of users comes on board that breaks this model they either need to charge this call of users more or charge those who are enabling it.

So, what you're saying is the telcos offered something they couldn't deliver... and now we have to pay for it?

The real answer is that the telcos should have implemented networks that could handle the usage, or they shouldn't have sold it the way they did in the first place.

So, they take out their own false advertising on their customers by charging them double? Sorry, that doesn't seem right.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given

Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2006 @ 12:50pm

Network neutrality is about as legitimate as the rolling blackouts that Enron caused in Calfornia.

Create a demand for network access, centralize control of that network in a few huge corporations and then watch as they jack up the prices claiming some artificial barrier.

Hmmm, never seen THAT scam before. At least Anaheim, Philly, and Minneapolis will have Internet access...

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ridiculous

Andrew Schmitt, Feb 20th, 2006 @ 12:52pm

Very well. You get a flyer in the mail.

"Your home DSL line has just been dropped to 128k guaranteed, with a maximum burst capability of 3mb/s, determined by a WRED policing algorithm."

I can hear the web outrage now.

Get ready for longer, more complete Terms of Service, class action lawsuits. None of this is going to help anyone get more and faster broadband. If charging 5% of the users for actual usage is what it takes, fine by me.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ridiculous

Mike (profile), Feb 20th, 2006 @ 12:59pm

If charging 5% of the users for actual usage is what it takes, fine by me.

Um. Do we need to repeat this? Everyone's already paying for their bandwidth. This isn't about bandwidth, but about QoS...

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ridiculous

Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2006 @ 1:10pm

Okay, I think I understand but I'm not too sure. What they want to do is basically, bottleneck anyones connection that hasn't paid the premium? like route traffic from specified IP's along non fiber lines so that the service is slower than it could be and if you pay for the right service plan then they put you through on the high-bandwith lines?

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given

Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2006 @ 1:13pm

Ok. So that's what arguing with a mule is all about...

posting information and commenting on that information is great - but when someone misunderstands the article, that person should research the terms they misunderstood before making a strong response (ie; the mule).

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ridiculous

Jamie, Feb 20th, 2006 @ 1:15pm

"If charging 5% of the users for actual usage is what it takes, fine by me."

Once again you are ignoring the point that Mike is trying to get across. The problem here is not that 5% of the users are abusing the service. They aren't! The problem here is that the teleco sold the service that way! Why is it a problem that 5% of the users are using what the teleco sold them? If the teleco can't deliver the 3mb service at unlimited usage THAT THEY SOLD, then they shouldn't be selling it. I don't blame the few people who are using what the teleco officially sold for that.
Yes, if the teleco sends me a message in the mail that my service has been downgraded I won't be happy. But oh well. Not much I can do about that other than hope that in my area there is an alternative. The teleco raised the bandwidth caps and sold them that way to compete with Cable, so I may have to revert to using Cable.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ridiculous

Andrew Schmitt, Feb 20th, 2006 @ 1:16pm

OK, calling it quits after this. This is non-payside activity for me.

It's not about QoS. It's about charging more for using certain applications, Applications that have bandwidth profiles that break the statistical model used to build the internet.

They break the statistical model in such a way that QoS cannot be guaranteed.

In order to accomodate and adapt to these new traffic profiles more investment will be needed.

Bottom line is _someone_ needs to invest in the transport network. The telcos are not going to do it for free. You take away variable pricing flexibility and broadband prices will go up.

Look, if the telcos act egregiosly, you can bet someone or something is going to kill them off. The amount of $$$ they spend on lobbying in washington is peanuts compared with other industries. Cable and Telco combined are less than 20MM a year, which isn't even pocket change in Washington.

This is about big media vs. big telco, not big telco vs. the consumer. The Telcos have a right of way they need to improve, and rather than asking consumers to pay they are trying to implement a variable pricing model (used by virtually every other business besides broadband) and asking the media providers to pay.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ridiculous

Mousky, Feb 20th, 2006 @ 1:35pm

There is nothing original in Andrews dissertation. It is based on "recent insightful data" from Japan that is hardly convincing. Besides, Andrews makes a few incorrect statements, such as:
"4% of the fiber internet users account for 75% of traffic usage"
That should read "4% of 'heavy hitters' use 75% of inbound traffic".

There is an interesting statement on the last page in the presentation. Cho postulates that perhaps fiber users are looking for applications to use the abundant bandwidth. Sounds to me that users are paying for the bandwidth and are deciding to use it. Not sure how that supports any of Andrew's dissertation?

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ridiculous

Jamie, Feb 20th, 2006 @ 1:35pm

"This is about big media vs. big telco, not big telco vs. the consumer."

No, you have it completely wrong. Yes, the telecos want to charge big media, but the only ones who are going to be really hurt by this are the consumers and the small media companies. Currently the internet is a very fluid and changing place to do business. A large reason for that is that the initial investment to start an internet business is so small. Anyone who can build a better mousetrap can, with a few thousand dollars, start selling that mousetrap (even if the mousetrap is actually media) anywhere in the world. There is no easy way for the big players to shut him out as they can in the normal markets. The cost of entry is so small that he can easily raise the money with a small loan or his savings.
A tiered internet would change that for everyone. With a tiered internet the inventor/developer/writer would have to pay an extra fee or his product wouldn't even be noticed. And if it became too popular he would have to pay more simply because more people noticed him. This already happens in a way, since his site would use more bandwidth, but what if his mousetrap was a tool (VOIP, IM). Then the telecos would try to charge him because more people are using his tool.
When everything is settled, the only ones who could afford to put new products/services on the market would be the big entrenched companies. That is never good for the consumer.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ridiculous

Mousky, Feb 20th, 2006 @ 1:43pm

Who else other than the consumer is going to pay for these improvements? Don't be so naive to think otherwise.
Of course, you ignore the fact that the consumer has been paying for improvements, but that the Telcos have never delivered these improvements:
techdirt.com/articles/20060131/2021240_F.shtml

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ridiculous

Mike (profile), Feb 20th, 2006 @ 2:13pm

It's not about QoS. It's about charging more for using certain applications, Applications that have bandwidth profiles that break the statistical model used to build the internet.

Uh. But all those applications pay for the bandwidth they use. So, it is about QoS. Just listen to the telcos. They say it's about QoS. No one says this is about bandwidth. We ALREADY HAVE sliding scale tiers for bandwidth. So that's got nothing to do with network neutrality. What they're trying to do is offer different rules for QoS on the applications that they think need more QoS.

The telcos are not going to do it for free. You take away variable pricing flexibility and broadband prices will go up.

Then why are they doing it? They're doing it because they know there's demand for it. And, no one is trying to take away pricing flexibility. People are just trying to take away the ability of the telcos to give certain applications preferential treatment within the network.

Is it really that difficult to understand the difference? People pay different rates for different bandwidth already. You seem to be arguing that they don't, but I'd bet you don't want to switch your bandwidth bill with Google's. This has nothing to do with bandwidth, no matter how many times you say it does.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ridiculous

bigpicture, Feb 20th, 2006 @ 2:19pm

Well then the tel-co idiots need to develop a different charge model. I know it is a difficult model for them to understand, having perpetrated the charge by the minute model for many years.
The cable companies have had the flat fee charge model for years. But this does not mean unlimited use. There is a upload / download volume use level box which you must operate inside. Consistently go outside this box, and you will have to pay commercial prices or have the service cut off.
VOIP is not part of this limit, and I think that is what the tel-cos are on about, and deliberately trying to make this intention unclear. VOIP is also a flat rate model for a higher level of service, and is eating into the revenues of the POT (plain old telephone) service. Having to provide a service where higher use levels does not necessarily generate higher revenues is a scary model for the tel-cos.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ridiculous

somewhat confused, Feb 20th, 2006 @ 2:54pm

So are you saying that basically what the telcos want to do is go to people like Vonage and say "pay us a premium or else all your customer's phone calls are going to start stuttering?" If this is an issue of QoS, then its companies that compete directly with the Telcos *AND* the cable companies (streaming media/television/movies) who are going to lose out if network neutrality goes away. And yes, this will end up costing consumers more - just not in their ISP charges each month.

Or have I missed the point?

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
one little fact no one is mentioning...

JP, Feb 20th, 2006 @ 3:00pm

is that these telcos were given the money they needed back in '95 by us the tax payers since they received billions for rolling out their fiber but never did. If they had fulfilled their end of the deal back then, maybe their network of backhauls would be actually prepared for this influx of utilization which they brought upon themselves in competition with the cableco's. No one seems to remember that they at one point promised to deliver dsl bandwidth to 90% of the population while there are still many areas that don't even qual for any sort of tele-based broadband circuit. I think Mike summed it up best himself when he mentioned "naked greed". They spent all that money uncle sam gave them to buy back all the competition and combined with their already present government lobbying power, are set to begin their reign as the twin sister bells. Welcome to the new millenia circa 1984.

[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given

dirtboy, Feb 20th, 2006 @ 3:34pm

Look, guys, it is about QoS, even the Bellsouth and AT&T say this. What is getting missed here is what that means exactly.

QoS means that packets with higher priority get pushed to the front and delivered first. Some people will say "Hey, that great!" but what you are missing is that when anything is pushed to the front, a lot of other packets are pushed to the back. Depending on how many people get pushed to the front, the packets to the back may not make it in time to be useful, if at all. Whats to stop Bellsouth from deciding that web packets should be more important than, say, Skype packets? They can effectively kill

Ma Bell Looks To Stomp Out Net Neutrality World Wide

from the that-should-be-fun dept

Reader Comments (rss)

Ridiculous

Re: Ridiculous

Re: Ridiculous

Re: Ridiculous

No Subject Given

Re: Ridiculous

Re: Ridiculous

Re: Ridiculous

No Subject Given

Re: Ridiculous

Re: Ridiculous

Re: Ridiculous

Re: Ridiculous

Re: Ridiculous

Re: Ridiculous

Re: Ridiculous

Re: Ridiculous

one little fact no one is mentioning...

No Subject Given