Tom DeReggi wrote:
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.
They already do, its called selling a ip pipe. If SBC wants to takes its
network and go play in the sand by itself then they can de-peer and go away.
I do not agree. IP is IP. If you want to go redefine the data types then
do it but its WAY to late. We are in the days where IP can be absolutely
anything
and that is a good thing. Now we need IPv6 in widespread use so we can
have more QoS, IP's, and move to larger pipes.
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.
I agree we need to protect small business but this is not the way imho.
There are just plain to many ways to fubar the idea. I can encapsulate
any packet i want and make any sniffer call it what i want. Your data
type prices just got screwed big time. The best way to move forward is
to fix the SBC/Verizion dsl at $14.99 while WE have to buy it at $23.00
THAT is wrong and is at the heart of the issue here. Its anti competitive
cause they can bleed "like a stuck pig". Geee, losing money on DSL,
making it up with voice sales, and then they start losing there voice. The
FCC needs to be hit with a clue bat.
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.
Yup but that doesnt mean itss right. We need better laws to move us to
honisty.
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.
Ok so now you want cheaper pipes? This idea of billing based on content
is NOT going to do that. We will have higher pipe prices
and then use prices on top of it.
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.
It is rare to find a truely well made piece of gear 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,
Becasue its wrong to charge for transit when you agree to peer for free!
If the provider wants to buy a large pipe from ISP X then they can.
If provider X is charging to much then they can go some place else and
get a better deal. Now we want to make law that in effect stops you
from finding a better (cheaper) provider because someone wants a piece
of the pie. This is like charging the cafe in town for every truck over
20,000 lb GVW cause they want to pad the road taxes.
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.
Yea and then SBC will go and do IPTV and package it with there 14.95 DSL
for half what the other guys are selling it and we start this all over.
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.
Exactly, now lets bring the same requirement to the ISP industry! I have
NO problem telling my people what mir/cir they get.
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.
That is my point!! Use based fees on content are not going ot work,
ever! They did in the telcom voice world because a call was a call. They
want that
for IP now and it just will not work! If this goes into effect, I could
setup a nearly unlimited number of bots to go and suck massive amounts
of data of
what ever type I want (the type that pays the most) and not even HAVE
end users. MMMmmmm I can feel the morgage being paid off already.
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?
UHG. Yes they do. This is another point of doing business. My toy box,
you gotta pay to play. If you paid my sibling to play in our SHARED box
then I can not go and charge you for touching a toy that was more mine
then my siblings. Well, I can becasue I am 5 years old and didnt get my
cookie money from you. Maybe some peering laws would be in order? Peer
points must bill on pure bits moved at a rate set by the FCC. Better
yet lets put bits on the commodity exchange!
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/
