Re: [WISPA] Tonight: Join SavetheInternet.com on PBS
Hmmm.. I think they DO charge the recipient of the cell call. Even if its a land line, the recipient does have to pay for service, even if it is a unlimited minutes plan. Nobody has FREE phone service. Someone pays for the dial tone, even if its VOIP. The telephone system kind of IS the original INTER(national)NET(work) just that it was in place before everyone out there was trying to hook up a computer and send each other video clips of chimpanzees lip-syncing Sonny and Cher songs. The nice thing as a provider (of the phone or the internet, or both) is that whether your customer is sending bits (or voice) or whether the customer is receiving, they are still paying you. Peering agreements between tier 1 providers only make their network better. ATT knows that if they can't get my bits to connect to websites hosted on Sprint lines, then I will find an upstream who will. Same thing if I am a hosting company. If I host using a Verizon upstream, and L3 customers cannot connect to my server, then VZ will get the boot. Same analogy applies to phones. If my Sprint phone in Texas couldn't connect me to a Verizon subscriber in West Virginia, and Sprint said it was because they couldn't get a peering agreement with Verizon, then I would discontinue the peering agreement between Sprint and my checkbook. On the other hand, as a provider, I do have the ability to give access to only my subscribers for certain perks. Some cell providers offer free mobile to mobile calling. And why not? This gets them loyalty to both customers. Other ISPs offer exclusive content (AOL, YahooDSL, etc). The exclusive video clips available offered by cell providers is a war going on now that I don't really understand, but if it brings in the customers, then good for them. If you cannot offer something more than the competitor, then you are just another ISP. To stand out from the competition, you need to offer something. Speed, reliability, security, exclusive content, price, availability to connectivity when the customer lives 14 miles out of the city limits, or whatever. Pete Davis NoDial.net Sam Tetherow wrote: The cell phone analogy is a bit off target though, unless you want to charge the recipient of the cell call. The peering wars pretty much died in 95 when the fledgling internet business wouldn't tolerate it then. I highly doubt that it would put up with it now. If ATT, VZ, L3 GX/XO/Gogent/other want/need more revenue for their pipes, they will charge more. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Peter R. wrote: Think about your cell phone. Do you get access to the entire Net or only some of it? Think about EVDO. Is it truly unlimited or are there rules and enforcement? It is not inconceivable that VZ and ATT would design a Prodigy type service and call it the Internet. Personally, I would like to see a Truth in Advertising type law in effect in place of NN, but it is conceivable that to get access to all eyeballs you may have to buy 3 or 4 feeds - ATT, VZ, L3 GX/XO/Cogent/other. If peering changes, the ripple effect would be crazy. Most carriers don't have the margin to change from peering to transit. It isn't any one single thing happening that worries me, it is the conflugence of so many things happening at the same time. - Peter Sam Tetherow wrote: Ain't going to happen, Net Neutrality is another y2k, all hype, little to no substance. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tonight: Join SavetheInternet.com on PBS
From a marketing/sales perspective the proposed plan is a no win for the broadband providers. If I'm Comcast and I go to Google and say pay up or else, what is my follow through? If Google says no thank you as I'm sure they will, you have just told your customer that their internet experience is going to be worse than before because Google refused to pay for bandwidth on your network. Now as Joe Customer on Comcast's network I have two choices regardless of how I feel about Google not paying up. I can either put up with crappy or no service to YouTube and Google or I can go somewhere else. The problem with this scenario, from a Comcast perspective, is that the customer's choices have no positive impact on their Comcast experience. The best they can do from a Comcast perspective is put up with a degraded internet experience. Not a choice any businessman would want to force on a customer. If you are Comcast going to Google, what do you ask for? I would think anything less that $0.50/customer would be a waste of time. Raising your broadband price $0.50/month is not going to cause a big stir and mass migration. Sure you are going to get other people to pay eventually, but how many can really afford it beyond Google, Yahoo and MSN for instance. Now, from a Google perspective $0.50/customer/month for Comcast is going to be $4.5 mil extra every month and for the top 5 providers it is going to be $16 mil per month. I doubt they are going to be able to pay . And finally, from a competition perspective, you are Verizon and Comcast has just issued the ultimatum to Google who said no, do you follow suite and hit Google up as well or do you now advertise that you have an 'express lane' to Google and Comcast customers are more than welcome to the fold. Instead of getting $0.50/customer out of Google you get X many new customers from Comcast. The content provider's pockets aren't deep enough to make sticking them more profitable than sticking your customer. It is back to a volume question. Do I sell 10 items at a $1000 markup and make $1 or do I sell 1 items at a $1 markup to make my $1. You are going to have a lot more potential customers on the $1 markup. I just don't see the teeth in the argument. Way too many things have to align, against natural market forces, make the doomsday a reality. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Pete Davis wrote: Hmmm.. I think they DO charge the recipient of the cell call. Even if its a land line, the recipient does have to pay for service, even if it is a unlimited minutes plan. Nobody has FREE phone service. Someone pays for the dial tone, even if its VOIP. The telephone system kind of IS the original INTER(national)NET(work) just that it was in place before everyone out there was trying to hook up a computer and send each other video clips of chimpanzees lip-syncing Sonny and Cher songs. The nice thing as a provider (of the phone or the internet, or both) is that whether your customer is sending bits (or voice) or whether the customer is receiving, they are still paying you. Peering agreements between tier 1 providers only make their network better. ATT knows that if they can't get my bits to connect to websites hosted on Sprint lines, then I will find an upstream who will. Same thing if I am a hosting company. If I host using a Verizon upstream, and L3 customers cannot connect to my server, then VZ will get the boot. Same analogy applies to phones. If my Sprint phone in Texas couldn't connect me to a Verizon subscriber in West Virginia, and Sprint said it was because they couldn't get a peering agreement with Verizon, then I would discontinue the peering agreement between Sprint and my checkbook. On the other hand, as a provider, I do have the ability to give access to only my subscribers for certain perks. Some cell providers offer free mobile to mobile calling. And why not? This gets them loyalty to both customers. Other ISPs offer exclusive content (AOL, YahooDSL, etc). The exclusive video clips available offered by cell providers is a war going on now that I don't really understand, but if it brings in the customers, then good for them. If you cannot offer something more than the competitor, then you are just another ISP. To stand out from the competition, you need to offer something. Speed, reliability, security, exclusive content, price, availability to connectivity when the customer lives 14 miles out of the city limits, or whatever. Pete Davis NoDial.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tonight: Join SavetheInternet.com on PBS
In Tampa, if Road Runner cut off Google, 66% of the people would be cut off from Google. Many would complain. But how many would change if RR put up a similar search page? How many would switch? And to what?? Crappy, blinking DSL? In my area, my RR has been solid for 6 years. My DSL bounces often. Enough to affect my VoIP ATA. Many, many people only have 1 choice for a Broadband provider, not 2 and certainly not many. So what then? That's where the argument hits the road. Since BB Provider choice is so limited, you will end up with a walled garden like Prodigy. BTW, on MY cell phone, there is no per minute charge for the internet, but it is a limited choice of sites. Just what Nextel lets me see/have/look at - when it is available. - Peter Sam Tetherow wrote: From a marketing/sales perspective the proposed plan is a no win for the broadband providers. If I'm Comcast and I go to Google and say pay up or else, what is my follow through? If Google says no thank you as I'm sure they will, you have just told your customer that their internet experience is going to be worse than before because Google refused to pay for bandwidth on your network. Now as Joe Customer on Comcast's network I have two choices regardless of how I feel about Google not paying up. I can either put up with crappy or no service to YouTube and Google or I can go somewhere else. The problem with this scenario, from a Comcast perspective, is that the customer's choices have no positive impact on their Comcast experience. The best they can do from a Comcast perspective is put up with a degraded internet experience. Not a choice any businessman would want to force on a customer. If you are Comcast going to Google, what do you ask for? I would think anything less that $0.50/customer would be a waste of time. Raising your broadband price $0.50/month is not going to cause a big stir and mass migration. Sure you are going to get other people to pay eventually, but how many can really afford it beyond Google, Yahoo and MSN for instance. Now, from a Google perspective $0.50/customer/month for Comcast is going to be $4.5 mil extra every month and for the top 5 providers it is going to be $16 mil per month. I doubt they are going to be able to pay . And finally, from a competition perspective, you are Verizon and Comcast has just issued the ultimatum to Google who said no, do you follow suite and hit Google up as well or do you now advertise that you have an 'express lane' to Google and Comcast customers are more than welcome to the fold. Instead of getting $0.50/customer out of Google you get X many new customers from Comcast. The content provider's pockets aren't deep enough to make sticking them more profitable than sticking your customer. It is back to a volume question. Do I sell 10 items at a $1000 markup and make $1 or do I sell 1 items at a $1 markup to make my $1. You are going to have a lot more potential customers on the $1 markup. I just don't see the teeth in the argument. Way too many things have to align, against natural market forces, make the doomsday a reality. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tonight: Join SavetheInternet.com on PBS
Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 1:05 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tonight: Join SavetheInternet.com on PBS In Tampa, if Road Runner cut off Google, 66% of the people would be cut off from Google. Many would complain. But how many would change if RR put up a similar search page? How many would switch? And to what?? Crappy, blinking DSL? In my area, my RR has been solid for 6 years. My DSL bounces often. Enough to affect my VoIP ATA. Many, many people only have 1 choice for a Broadband provider, not 2 and certainly not many. So what then? That's where the argument hits the road. Since BB Provider choice is so limited, you will end up with a walled garden like Prodigy. BTW, on MY cell phone, there is no per minute charge for the internet, but it is a limited choice of sites. Just what Nextel lets me see/have/look at - when it is available. - Peter Sam Tetherow wrote: From a marketing/sales perspective the proposed plan is a no win for the broadband providers. If I'm Comcast and I go to Google and say pay up or else, what is my follow through? If Google says no thank you as I'm sure they will, you have just told your customer that their internet experience is going to be worse than before because Google refused to pay for bandwidth on your network. Now as Joe Customer on Comcast's network I have two choices regardless of how I feel about Google not paying up. I can either put up with crappy or no service to YouTube and Google or I can go somewhere else. The problem with this scenario, from a Comcast perspective, is that the customer's choices have no positive impact on their Comcast experience. The best they can do from a Comcast perspective is put up with a degraded internet experience. Not a choice any businessman would want to force on a customer. If you are Comcast going to Google, what do you ask for? I would think anything less that $0.50/customer would be a waste of time. Raising your broadband price $0.50/month is not going to cause a big stir and mass migration. Sure you are going to get other people to pay eventually, but how many can really afford it beyond Google, Yahoo and MSN for instance. Now, from a Google perspective $0.50/customer/month for Comcast is going to be $4.5 mil extra every month and for the top 5 providers it is going to be $16 mil per month. I doubt they are going to be able to pay . And finally, from a competition perspective, you are Verizon and Comcast has just issued the ultimatum to Google who said no, do you follow suite and hit Google up as well or do you now advertise that you have an 'express lane' to Google and Comcast customers are more than welcome to the fold. Instead of getting $0.50/customer out of Google you get X many new customers from Comcast. The content provider's pockets aren't deep enough to make sticking them more profitable than sticking your customer. It is back to a volume question. Do I sell 10 items at a $1000 markup and make $1 or do I sell 1 items at a $1 markup to make my $1. You are going to have a lot more potential customers on the $1 markup. I just don't see the teeth in the argument. Way too many things have to align, against natural market forces, make the doomsday a reality. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.6/486 - Release Date: 10/19/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tonight: Join SavetheInternet.com on PBS
Peter R. wrote: In Tampa, if Road Runner cut off Google, 66% of the people would be cut off from Google. Many would complain. But how many would change if RR put up a similar search page? How many would switch? And to what?? Crappy, blinking DSL? In my area, my RR has been solid for 6 years. My DSL bounces often. Enough to affect my VoIP ATA. Wireless? Do you think if RR shut off Google and YouTube and MSN and Yahoo that some enterprising wireless provider would not come along and offer service? What did RR get, they now have a search engine and video content site that they have to advertise and operate in the hopes that they can make a better go of it than Google? What did Google loose and at what cost? What is an acceptable ADDITIONAL cost per customer for Google? Personally I would love it if Qwest made the threat and followed through, yet another reason to go with me instead of them. Many, many people only have 1 choice for a Broadband provider, not 2 and certainly not many. Why is that, is it because no one else can physically provide the service or because they can't compete in the current market? So what then? The market has changed, so will the landscape. That's where the argument hits the road. Since BB Provider choice is so limited, you will end up with a walled garden like Prodigy. And Prodigy went over so well that last time around... Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless BTW, on MY cell phone, there is no per minute charge for the internet, but it is a limited choice of sites. Just what Nextel lets me see/have/look at - when it is available. - Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tonight: Join SavetheInternet.com on PBS
Peter, That's where the argument hits the road. Since BB Provider choice is so limited, you will end up with a walled garden like Prodigy. But would that really be that bad for the ISP industry? (I don't believe I jsut said that :-) Going back to the old days where an ISP was both the content provider connection provider (ie: CompuServe and original AOL). Wouldn't it create more demand for Internet End Users to start demanding options for more connectivity providers? Right now, I do not think we (ISPs) get the supprot from Consumers that we deserve. We've forced lower prices in the industry, we've given our lives to deliver options to consumers, but way to many of consumers are satisfied accepting the lowest cost alternative from the monopolies with little interest to support the indepent ISP in return. If their content was restricted, they would demand more provider options. Possibly even have the need to subscribe to more than one ISP provider simultaneously. And wouldn' it prevent content monopolies, if ISPs had the choice to force other content providers to have the option to serve consumers. Meaning that even if Google was the best, they wouldn't wipe out every one else, because the other content providers could find smaller ISPs to subsidize them, after they blocked Google. The truth is I think its scarry when ANY company has to large a lock on the consumers or to large a market share, wether it be a content provider or a connectivity provider. How do you force Consumers to spread out their business between multiple providers, for the over all benefit of competition in the market place? Tom DeReggi BTW, on MY cell phone, there is no per minute charge for the internet, but it is a limited choice of sites. Just what Nextel lets me see/have/look at - when it is available. - Peter Sam Tetherow wrote: From a marketing/sales perspective the proposed plan is a no win for the broadband providers. If I'm Comcast and I go to Google and say pay up or else, what is my follow through? If Google says no thank you as I'm sure they will, you have just told your customer that their internet experience is going to be worse than before because Google refused to pay for bandwidth on your network. Now as Joe Customer on Comcast's network I have two choices regardless of how I feel about Google not paying up. I can either put up with crappy or no service to YouTube and Google or I can go somewhere else. The problem with this scenario, from a Comcast perspective, is that the customer's choices have no positive impact on their Comcast experience. The best they can do from a Comcast perspective is put up with a degraded internet experience. Not a choice any businessman would want to force on a customer. If you are Comcast going to Google, what do you ask for? I would think anything less that $0.50/customer would be a waste of time. Raising your broadband price $0.50/month is not going to cause a big stir and mass migration. Sure you are going to get other people to pay eventually, but how many can really afford it beyond Google, Yahoo and MSN for instance. Now, from a Google perspective $0.50/customer/month for Comcast is going to be $4.5 mil extra every month and for the top 5 providers it is going to be $16 mil per month. I doubt they are going to be able to pay . And finally, from a competition perspective, you are Verizon and Comcast has just issued the ultimatum to Google who said no, do you follow suite and hit Google up as well or do you now advertise that you have an 'express lane' to Google and Comcast customers are more than welcome to the fold. Instead of getting $0.50/customer out of Google you get X many new customers from Comcast. The content provider's pockets aren't deep enough to make sticking them more profitable than sticking your customer. It is back to a volume question. Do I sell 10 items at a $1000 markup and make $1 or do I sell 1 items at a $1 markup to make my $1. You are going to have a lot more potential customers on the $1 markup. I just don't see the teeth in the argument. Way too many things have to align, against natural market forces, make the doomsday a reality. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.6/486 - Release Date: 10/19/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tonight: Join SavetheInternet.com on PBS
What happens when Google thinks they are more valueable than the connectivity provider? Why couldn;t it happen the other way arround? Google says, Comcast, we aren;t going to allow your subscribers to Google, unless you pay us. Small ISPs? Verison just offered us lots of money for exclusivity, You need to start paying us for direct peer connections, or we aren't going to allow your customers to play. I do not think Googles are big enough to do that yet, nor limited to one content competitors like connectivity, but one day it could happen. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 12:24 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tonight: Join SavetheInternet.com on PBS From a marketing/sales perspective the proposed plan is a no win for the broadband providers. If I'm Comcast and I go to Google and say pay up or else, what is my follow through? If Google says no thank you as I'm sure they will, you have just told your customer that their internet experience is going to be worse than before because Google refused to pay for bandwidth on your network. Now as Joe Customer on Comcast's network I have two choices regardless of how I feel about Google not paying up. I can either put up with crappy or no service to YouTube and Google or I can go somewhere else. The problem with this scenario, from a Comcast perspective, is that the customer's choices have no positive impact on their Comcast experience. The best they can do from a Comcast perspective is put up with a degraded internet experience. Not a choice any businessman would want to force on a customer. If you are Comcast going to Google, what do you ask for? I would think anything less that $0.50/customer would be a waste of time. Raising your broadband price $0.50/month is not going to cause a big stir and mass migration. Sure you are going to get other people to pay eventually, but how many can really afford it beyond Google, Yahoo and MSN for instance. Now, from a Google perspective $0.50/customer/month for Comcast is going to be $4.5 mil extra every month and for the top 5 providers it is going to be $16 mil per month. I doubt they are going to be able to pay . And finally, from a competition perspective, you are Verizon and Comcast has just issued the ultimatum to Google who said no, do you follow suite and hit Google up as well or do you now advertise that you have an 'express lane' to Google and Comcast customers are more than welcome to the fold. Instead of getting $0.50/customer out of Google you get X many new customers from Comcast. The content provider's pockets aren't deep enough to make sticking them more profitable than sticking your customer. It is back to a volume question. Do I sell 10 items at a $1000 markup and make $1 or do I sell 1 items at a $1 markup to make my $1. You are going to have a lot more potential customers on the $1 markup. I just don't see the teeth in the argument. Way too many things have to align, against natural market forces, make the doomsday a reality. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Pete Davis wrote: Hmmm.. I think they DO charge the recipient of the cell call. Even if its a land line, the recipient does have to pay for service, even if it is a unlimited minutes plan. Nobody has FREE phone service. Someone pays for the dial tone, even if its VOIP. The telephone system kind of IS the original INTER(national)NET(work) just that it was in place before everyone out there was trying to hook up a computer and send each other video clips of chimpanzees lip-syncing Sonny and Cher songs. The nice thing as a provider (of the phone or the internet, or both) is that whether your customer is sending bits (or voice) or whether the customer is receiving, they are still paying you. Peering agreements between tier 1 providers only make their network better. ATT knows that if they can't get my bits to connect to websites hosted on Sprint lines, then I will find an upstream who will. Same thing if I am a hosting company. If I host using a Verizon upstream, and L3 customers cannot connect to my server, then VZ will get the boot. Same analogy applies to phones. If my Sprint phone in Texas couldn't connect me to a Verizon subscriber in West Virginia, and Sprint said it was because they couldn't get a peering agreement with Verizon, then I would discontinue the peering agreement between Sprint and my checkbook. On the other hand, as a provider, I do have the ability to give access to only my subscribers for certain perks. Some cell providers offer free mobile to mobile calling. And why not? This gets them loyalty to both customers. Other ISPs offer exclusive content (AOL, YahooDSL, etc). The exclusive video clips available offered by cell providers is a war going on now that I
Re: [WISPA] Tonight: Join SavetheInternet.com on PBS
What's more likely and already happening is that ATT will offer HD content but lock down your streams so that you cannot get anyone else's HD content. Already happening. Reported at DSL Prime. Did you comment to the FCC yet??? Many of you post a lot here. And are very wordy :) But have you put those words on a comment to the FCC about any of the dockets that are of a concern to you? If I go here (http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi) and put in your name will I see any filed comments? - Peter Tom DeReggi wrote: What happens when Google thinks they are more valueable than the connectivity provider? Why couldn;t it happen the other way arround? Google says, Comcast, we aren;t going to allow your subscribers to Google, unless you pay us. Small ISPs? Verison just offered us lots of money for exclusivity, You need to start paying us for direct peer connections, or we aren't going to allow your customers to play. I do not think Googles are big enough to do that yet, nor limited to one content competitors like connectivity, but one day it could happen. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tonight: Join SavetheInternet.com on PBS
Think about your cell phone. Do you get access to the entire Net or only some of it? Think about EVDO. Is it truly unlimited or are there rules and enforcement? It is not inconceivable that VZ and ATT would design a Prodigy type service and call it the Internet. Personally, I would like to see a Truth in Advertising type law in effect in place of NN, but it is conceivable that to get access to all eyeballs you may have to buy 3 or 4 feeds - ATT, VZ, L3 GX/XO/Cogent/other. If peering changes, the ripple effect would be crazy. Most carriers don't have the margin to change from peering to transit. It isn't any one single thing happening that worries me, it is the conflugence of so many things happening at the same time. - Peter Sam Tetherow wrote: Ain't going to happen, Net Neutrality is another y2k, all hype, little to no substance. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tonight: Join SavetheInternet.com on PBS
The cell phone analogy is a bit off target though, unless you want to charge the recipient of the cell call. The peering wars pretty much died in 95 when the fledgling internet business wouldn't tolerate it then. I highly doubt that it would put up with it now. If ATT, VZ, L3 GX/XO/Gogent/other want/need more revenue for their pipes, they will charge more. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Peter R. wrote: Think about your cell phone. Do you get access to the entire Net or only some of it? Think about EVDO. Is it truly unlimited or are there rules and enforcement? It is not inconceivable that VZ and ATT would design a Prodigy type service and call it the Internet. Personally, I would like to see a Truth in Advertising type law in effect in place of NN, but it is conceivable that to get access to all eyeballs you may have to buy 3 or 4 feeds - ATT, VZ, L3 GX/XO/Cogent/other. If peering changes, the ripple effect would be crazy. Most carriers don't have the margin to change from peering to transit. It isn't any one single thing happening that worries me, it is the conflugence of so many things happening at the same time. - Peter Sam Tetherow wrote: Ain't going to happen, Net Neutrality is another y2k, all hype, little to no substance. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tonight: Join SavetheInternet.com on PBS
Actually the cell phone analogy is what IMS is all about. IMS allows for deep packet inspection, so on EVDO or your cell phone, the carrier knows what you are doing. You have a very limited internet on most cell phone plans. I pay $10 extra per month and I am lucky if I can get the scores of an NFL game on Sunday. Like I said earlier, it isn't one thing, it is the sum total of all the things happening at once that makes me worry about the future of this industry. And quite a few people that are much brighter and with better connections are worried. I don't know if others are optimistic, in denial, or don't care. - Peter Sam Tetherow wrote: The cell phone analogy is a bit off target though, unless you want to charge the recipient of the cell call. The peering wars pretty much died in 95 when the fledgling internet business wouldn't tolerate it then. I highly doubt that it would put up with it now. If ATT, VZ, L3 GX/XO/Gogent/other want/need more revenue for their pipes, they will charge more. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Peter R. wrote: Think about your cell phone. Do you get access to the entire Net or only some of it? Think about EVDO. Is it truly unlimited or are there rules and enforcement? It is not inconceivable that VZ and ATT would design a Prodigy type service and call it the Internet. Personally, I would like to see a Truth in Advertising type law in effect in place of NN, but it is conceivable that to get access to all eyeballs you may have to buy 3 or 4 feeds - ATT, VZ, L3 GX/XO/Cogent/other. If peering changes, the ripple effect would be crazy. Most carriers don't have the margin to change from peering to transit. It isn't any one single thing happening that worries me, it is the conflugence of so many things happening at the same time. - Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
