Well we'll see what happens in a few years. Ok I'll shut up now. lol!

S
On Dec 9, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Scott Howell wrote:

> Scott I could not agree more. If these carriers did not know what they were 
> getting into, that is not Apple's fault and believe me they knew there is no 
> question about that. THey are just looking for handouts. And for those who 
> want to continue to argue in favor for the carriers, the carriers could 
> simply stop carrying the iPHone and then they can cry about the subscribers 
> they would not continue to attract. 
> Scott
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 9, 2010, at 1:43 PM, Scott Granados wrote:
> 
>> But you're wrong here, Apple Google and the others already to "invest" in 
>> these companies.  They pay their Internet bills.  Sure Google has a huge 
>> infrastructure and does a lot of settlement free traffic exchanging but they 
>> buy a ton of pipes, transport, facilities, buildings, on and on and they do 
>> buy transit so pay per packet for traffic not directly connected.  Same with 
>> Apple and the other companies you mention.  Apple pays Internap per megabit 
>> just like everyone else does.  It's not Apple's job to pay some European 
>> carrier because they can't manage their own infrastructure.  It's like 
>> saying I should have to pay Cox Cable money because I use a lot of service 
>> from Comcast.  That's just silly.
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 9, 2010, at 7:22 AM, Ruud Bemelmans wrote:
>> 
>>> I don't think this is such a bad idea, because it keeps reinforcing  the 
>>> industry. If Apple, google and other companies that produce smart phones 
>>> want to keep up the current success of said phones, then investing in the 
>>> networks will eventually result in an even bigger success rates. If the 
>>> carriers can't maintain the network, the sale of smart phones will dwindle 
>>> and the carriers as well as the smart phone producers will have a bad time 
>>> all around. The big question however is, if this goes through, how much 
>>> extra costs will that generate for the customers? But to be fair, that's 
>>> always the question with changes in various industries.
>>> 
>>> On a short of-topic note: I didn't think the few politics-related messages 
>>> were relevant to the subject as politics didn't get mentioned anywhere in 
>>> the article or in the on-topic replies. I'm just mentioning this as this is 
>>> an international list with god knows how many people from various 
>>> backgrounds and politics is one of those subjects that always causes 
>>> trouble in such a varied group. (just my opinion)
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>>> [email protected].
>>> For more options, visit this group at 
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "MacVisionaries" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> [email protected].
>> For more options, visit this group at 
>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
>> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "MacVisionaries" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
> 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"MacVisionaries" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.

Reply via email to