Jerome,

SBC has NO RIGHT to decide that say a XO pipe
has to pay for access to the SBC end user just cause the SBC end user use's a service on the XO network.

Agreed, but thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying SBC or any ISP should be able to charge content providers equally a predfined amount, based on the determined cost to take that type of service traffic. Differenciating by individual content providers is wrong. I think it is wrong to call all digital information "data" services. TV video clearly has a different purpose than web browsing.

I do not think that is true. If a ISP sells under cost that is up to them. If they can not compete well that is the way it is. Its called business.

Well thats where I think you are wrong, and history has proved it. People compete to their death. Market pressures force them to sway from a responsible business plan. As soon as one well funded entity enters the market with a scewed business plan, it forces every one else to follow suite on the path to self destruction. It an issue of its better to get revenue today, and have your investors die tommorrow, than to just die yourself today. ISPs don't control there prices, the market does. Large businesses clearly have the leverage from economy of scale. This country needs to protect its small businesses, its the american way. Rules need to be inplace to level the playing field for many reasons. One of the reasons the telecom act of 1996 got done in the first place.

ISP has to be honest in its advertising and its contracts.

Yeah right. End users believe marketing. And if you play in a majority world of deception, speaking the truth carries little weight with the consumer, they don't beleive it, nor do they understand, nor care. They get what they can when they can get it, then complain later.

I remember I used to be able to buy an original IBM PC, and that bad boy would last 10 years without a hickup.

T1, T3, DS3, OCx

The difference is that an IBMPC was affordable and gave good value, aligned with the consumers budget.

Now I'm lucky to have PC hardware outlast the first year.
Linksys, DLink, Netgear, et al

MY point is, name a product on the market that doesn't fall into the category of Linksys, DLINK anymore. There aren't many. All hardware is cheap. EVEN Cisco, the cream of the crop, is el cheapo today. They aren't making them with metal cases anymore.

Its not just SBC that needs compensation, its independant ISPs.

NNNOOO!!!!! I can not say this enough! We do not need compensated for our users using our pipes beyond what we bill monthly!
If it is not enough, raise the price!

Raise the price and loose the subscriber. Then they go to the competition, and get pissed at them, and probably come back again. But in the mean time yyou loose a years revenue. Why not charge the content provider, and then the content provder could raise their prices to the customer, so customers could make the decission of wether their IPTV was worth the expense, and decide werther to keep the content provider apposed to making them decide if their ISP is the right provider. I'm in business to keep me in business not the IPTV guy.

Its deceptive the the end user.

What is deceptive? Are you telling lies to your users?

No the competitors are. With DSL and Cable companies marketing 5 mbps service, where in their television commercial do you see the small print of the AUP? You don't and end users are to lazy to go read it. The believe what they are exposed to, and the AUP is hidden away. Even a CAR dealer is required by law to disclose certain documents at sale time.


So what if SBC sells bandwidth and TVoIP? SBC sells each at a price. They do not nor should they be able to charge or be charge the ISP cause someone
uses this or other services.

Yeah, just wait until your transit costs sky rocket off the map. There is a conflict of interest with an ISP's transit provider to also be a content provider slaming bandwdith down the ISP's customer's throat. Its not user demanding more bandwidth, its the person selling you services that is encouraging your end users to use more bandwidth, so you the ISP have to pay them more. Its like being a anti-virus software maker, and sending out viruses, to give consumers reasons to buy your software. The demand for bandwidth is being created by the one making the money, not the end user based on their need. For example, what if the content provider purposely decides to use a 70 k stream instead of a 20 k stream, solely for the purpose to waste your bandwidth? So you pay them more money.

I think what needs to be important is that companies are forced to make policies that are not discriminatory. For example, its also to charge of a $1 to take a packet from network 1 as long as you also charge the same $1 to take a packet from network 2. In other words, If you set a price for passing VOIP, VOIP is VOIP regardless of who provides it, and the cost to the ISP is the same, and therefore should be compensated the same. But not in a way that inforces that one prvider will have a lower competitive advantage over the other.

No way. If we allow this then I have the right to charge what i want to who i want. Its MY network. Maybe you do not have enough transit to make talking to you worth the legal bills? Maybe I do not have enough for you. Its plain WRONG to bill the end user for service AND bill the content provider JUST because they provide to your network. Now if SBC wants to sell a pipe to said provider and bill based on USE from the get go, thats FINE. But not after the fact just cause they are losing there ass with a bad business model.

Don;t ISPs already discriminate betweenproviders on what they charge to take traffic? AOL did it for years, charge for acces to their customers. Maybe AOL should not be aloud to charge for advertising, since the custoemr has already paid for the bandwidth, and advertising is just a form of digital data, which the end uer already paid for in their monthly fee.

What about the Cogent LEvel3 issue? Basically, they set prices on who they want to take traffic from and at what rates. Its all confidential, and discriminary, based on their business strategy. How is that any different than charging ast the front end. IN peering an ISP charges the other for taking the traffic. Why can't I chargethe content provider when I'm forced to take the traffic?

Jeromie



Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Muto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 8:25 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Should content providers pay for standard accesstoconsumers?


Give me a break. Whitacre is acting like SBC customer's are not supporting
the network, there is your ROI Ed. So what if all the ISP's did the same
thing? Yeah right, that'll work for about 2 minutes. This is getting way out of hand and I would hope Congress and the FCC et al, remember Madison River
and knock Whitacre down a peg or two.

Ok, now let's see what happens if every ISP and content provider blocks Ed's
customers? That should flood their support desks for a while.



Frank Muto
Co-founder -  Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee
http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/     www.wbia.us







----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Weasler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 5:57 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Should content providers pay for standard access
toconsumers?


--- MarketWatch Quote ---
"How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a
broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them," said Ed
Whitacre in a BusinessWeek Online interview. "What they would like to
do is use my pipes for free. I ain't going to let them do that."

He argued that because SBC and others have invested to build
high-speed networks, they are due a return. [1]
--/ MarketWatch Quote ---

  It's a brave new world.  I'm hoping that this is a clueless person
talking about a business he is in charge of but knows little about.  I
fear that this is someone who has a feasible plan to accomplish what
he describes.  I don't think that a telephone-model overlay on the
Internet will satisfy many consumers, but if they don't have an
alternative what are their options?
  Hopefully, this will drive business to the WISPs, but I'm not sure
that the consumers are well enough educated to make an informed
decision and in many larger markets the LECs have driven us out of the
picture by providing service for less than their cost.

 - Tony

[1]

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B5A606A5A%2D18D7%2D4FC9%2DA65C%2DC7317BC7E1CB%7D

Original interview from Business Week (registration required):
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_45/b3958092.htm
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: 10/21/2005




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: 10/21/2005


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to