Slashdot Mirror
Competitors Ally With Comcast In FCC P2P Filings
crocoduck writes "Right before the deadline passed for filing comments in the FCC investigation of Comcast's traffic-management practices, telecoms and other cable companies submitted a slew of comments defending Comcast's actions to the FCC. 'Just about every big phone company has filed a statement challenging the FCC's authority to deal with this problem. AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest all submitted lengthy remarks on February 13th, the last day for comments on the proceeding (parties can still reply to comments through the 28th). "The Internet marketplace remains fundamentally healthy, and the purported 'cure' could only make it sick," AT&T's filing declared. "At best, the network-management restrictions proposed by Free Press and others would inflict wasteful costs on broadband providers in the form of expensive and needless capacity upgrades — costs that would ultimately be passed through to end users, raise broadband prices across the board, and force ordinary broadband consumers to subsidize the bandwidth-hogging activities of a few."' P2P fans have also weighed in."
"expensive and needless capacity upgrades" which the US Taxpayers ALREADY PAID FOR THROUGH EXCISE FEES?!
The telcos can eat a bag of dicks.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
The "capacity upgrades" are obviously needed if you're having problems with "the bandwidth-hogging activities of a few."
Shut up, cut your salaries for a couple quarters, and invest in the goddamn infrastructure.
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
I've gotta go with AT&T on this one. Allowing people to use their connections without restrictions would create a need for needless capacity upgrades.
That's what they get for throttling their own connections...
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
In my experience in Eastern Europe, customers that heavily use bandwidth are the average customer. I know hardly a single household that doesn't massively download music and films. Nonetheless, the local ISPs can keep monthly fees down to what is even by local standards cheap, and people are increasingly getting fiber to their door. Funny how the U.S., that beacon of technological progress, is being outdone by some former Communist states.
If you can't provide the speeds you advertise, then don't advertise them.
Tagged: LiesAndLiars
Seriously, if they were *just* throttling the connection, there wouldn't be a problem. They were basically "disconnecting" the file transfer. This is analogous to a telephone operator listening to your phone conversation & cutting you off if she doesn't like what you're talking about.
There is a war going on for your mind.
IMHO broadband providers either have their heads in the sand, or they're just trying to delay the inevitable. In surveys I've read the United States is far from being the world leader in broadband internet connectivity in speed, price, availability, or even customer service -- and I think they all know that as well as anyone else does, too. P2P isn't going away anytime soon; as we speak developers are working on ways to rewrite the bittorrent protocol to get around the DDoS attacks that companies like Comcast are using to hamstring it's users. Beyond that, the reality is that we live in a country where more and more people are using the Internet for surfing, gaming, telephone, email, downloading (completely legal, paid-for) movies, and in some cases for live-streaming content; bandwidth demands aren't going to ever go down, they're only ever going to go up, and they (ISPs) damn well know that too. Perhaps this is just their first volleys in a war they want to start, with their preferred end-result being tiered pricing based on monthly bandwidth usage, but again I say they must have their heads in the sand because nobody is going to sit still for that, either.
from the virii of the Axis of Fascism.
Yours PatRIOTically,
K. Trout, A-C-T-I-V-I-S-T
I don't think that word means what you think it means. "Needless" means unnecessary. Obviously, with more and more information going through the tubes, we NEED bigger tubes!
People aren't going to stop transfering data over the internet just because the telecoms say so. The trend is towards larger files, faster downloads, and more data. We NEED more bandwidth. Just because you don't want to be bothered with upgrades, doesn't make the upgrades unnecessary.
Nemilar http://www.techthrob.com - Visit Me!
So capacity upgrades are 'expensive and needless', eh? Is that why we're among the worst in the developed world for broadband speed and penetration? I don't know about anyone else, but I heard, "If our customers would only stop using our services, we wouldn't have to throttle them!"
Maybe if they advertised lower peak speeds and limited their customers to those speeds and charged a premium for higher speeds, we wouldn't have this problem.
was "Think of the Children"
The FCC faces this choice:
Take a step towards unrestricted bandwidth, build a new economy based on the innovative development of new business models using this bandwidth as a utility.
Or
Allow the telecommunications oligopoly to produce a network ghetto, stove-piped and metered, and watch the US economy stagnate, and fall behind the rest of the developed world.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Seemed like this was inevitable. Kind of strange that they chose to wait till the last day. They have an obviously vested interest in supporting this motion. As noted, its cheaper for them to limit P2P traffic unwatched than to face the glaringly obvious issue of bandwidth. If they had taken the government up on a plan to upgrade the nations network infrastructure, this wouldn't even be an issue. We need some tech-nuts in the government to keep this kind of thing alive and stop letting companies clinch their fists around end-users. Internet should be regulated like any other utility(gas, water, electric).
Crackin' Wise - Blogging about whatever we want
I'd solicit it through illegal means and shield them with retroactive immunity.
Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
The FCC should have stated that it would have accepted unlimited comments on the matter.
After the comment period ended, they should have announced that certain comments were rejected because they were too long (beyond an arbitrary amount determined after the comment period) or contained too much legalese, since they didn't want to have make the other commenters "subsidize the [resource]-hogging activities of a few."
It's hard to believe this kind of stuff, really. Can you imagine a parallel in any other industry where the company is so against its own customers?
Regulation doesn't work. Bring on proper competition.
I would have joined in earlier but I was mitigating the tons of spam and other crap that filters through our company e-mail server daily.
I don't agree with bandwidth shaping by isp's. I feel that I am paying them my hard earned money for my 10/1 connection and I should be able to receive that bandwidth when I want/need it. However having worked for a web hosting company I do realize how much bandwidth cost and how difficult it can be to get the proper peering where and when you need it. I can see why ISP's are filtering at this time (but still can't agree). I think that torrents and other peer to peer software has its use. Sometimes this use is illegal however who is the ISP to judge. I personally use a server at a hosting provider with a 100mb connection and unlimited bandwidth to download my torrent files (all legal linux distros and such of course). This keeps me from saturating my home ISP's bandwidth for days while I download a few gigs of data.
I think that there is a big grey area that we are going to have to come to an agreement. I think that the end users who use more bandwidth should have to pay a premium and those who are more of a casual user who might actually utilize their connection 1 day a month for some software updates or to download some songs from iTunes should be allowed to do as they please. I personally always get the premium plan from the provider with the most available bandwidth knowing full well during peak hours I will not get anything close to what the claim I have. I think it's a loose loose situation and unfortunately we as consumers are going to loose financially.
- Microsoft, to stop Linux and OSS software from running them out of buisness
- The RIAA and MPAA, to make sure the singers and movie stars can have the money they "deserve" to buy their 5th Lamborghini, 3rd Lear jet, more drugs to get high on, more alcohol to drink and drive with
- The government, to prevent independent documentaries that expose the truth of recent high-profile attacks and controversies from getting to BitTorrent
- The ISPs themselves, so they can destroy the Internet to avoid paying money to upgrade their systems
So now EVERY ISP will destroy the Internet! Damn, I was just going to switch to Verizon..."At best, the network-management restrictions proposed by Free Press and others would inflict wasteful costs on broadband providers in the form of expensive and needless capacity upgrades -- costs that would ultimately be passed through to end users, raise broadband prices across the board, and force ordinary broadband consumers to subsidize the bandwidth-hogging activities of a few." Won't that happen anyhow if they start policing customers for the RI/MPAA?
Are many of these companies the same ones to which the governments of the U.S. have given tax breaks, rate hikes and other incentives totalling billions of dollars over the last 12 years or so to build a high speed infrastructure. An infrastructure that, at the consumer end at least, does not exist in most places. And so now they are telling the FCC that if the give the service that people expect when they buy Internet access, it will require more expenses and this will lead to further rate increases. Color me shocked! I think they have already had far more immunity than they deserve and they need to start giving their customers the services that they already have been paying for over a decade.
But to quote Dennis Miller, "That's just my opinion and I could be wrong."
Classicly justifing the unjustifiable:
"At best, the network-management restrictions proposed by Free Press and others would inflict wasteful costs on broadband providers in the form of expensive and needless capacity upgrades -- costs that would ultimately be passed through to end users, raise broadband prices across the board, and force ordinary broadband consumers to subsidize the bandwidth-hogging activities of a few."
It does not matter. If I want to hog bandwith and max out my line constantly, because as a consumer who pays for the service;I have the right to do that. I pay for a service that guarantees bandwith and availabiliy and I should damn well get it.
What if cops manually slowed down people on the road because they were going to fast? Sounds great..! until you realize people now have complete control over your lives. What Commiecast is doing is beyond excusable.
As usual though, money, special intrests, big corporations; all much more imporatant that anyones privacy.
If there was any real competition in the telecom field, we wouldn't have this problem. I can't believe some paying $50/month for service and THEY are being told what to do. It's disgusting how much monopolistic slime they pour on us. Whatever happened to fighting to win over the customer? All we need is 6 or 7 comparable broadband suppliers within the same area and they would be dying for us to use any of their bandwidth for half the price; and they would be rushing to upgrade the infrastructure to accommodate more users. All they do now is cut costs and squeeze profits. You will not see this problem here in NYC or any other metropolitan area. As soon as Time Warner tries to pull sh*t like that, I will be signing a new contract the next day. Until there are competitive pressures, these types of problems will keep on getting worse and worse.
The "tubes" aren't limitless. If we dont cap their use, we will run out of Internets.
If the top 1% in the telecommunications industry weren't sucking the life (read money) out of their respective corporations, they'd have the funds to upgrade the networks when that need arises. If, as a consumer, I'm sold a 1.5Mbps/384Kbps package, I should have every right to utilize 100% or that bandwidth, 100% of the time. No exceptions. If the telecommunications industry can't deliver on that, they shouldn't be running a corporation. Businesses should be 100% liable for honesty and deliver 100% of advertized services. If I walked into any store in these United States, saw a package containing 50 items for $29.95, and after taking my money I find out the package now contains only 27 items, you can damn well bet I'm gonna be in the right to get back the difference. Every breathing soul on this planet would expect the same. Just because we're talking about electrons and not gumballs has absolutely NO bearing on what we as consumers should be getting. I would expect the other "players" to send in comments defending Comcasts practices. Each of them either already uses similar methods themselves or plans to, and they can see the writing on the wall. Here's some writing for AT&T, Verizon, and everyone other service provider that is "with" Comcast . . . "Eat my Dick Mother-Fuckers!"
But I agree with you, the tel-co arguments are just ridiculous. If they are having bandwidth shortages, then increases in capacity are necessary. It's not like they haven't been on the receiving end of a significant amount of tax payer money to do just that.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
It's outrageous that they can say that with a straight face! This seems like a perfectly obvious sign that their infrastructure is in a serious need of an upgrade in order to maintain competition with the up-and-coming technologies that are being, or are already, released. This has me fuming.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
There's just no two ways about it. Throttling *selectively* is censorship.
Comcast unilaterally decides that some content is good and some bad - and that should just plain be illegal.
I know many are opposed, but I don't mind the actual *throttling* itself, if it were just protocol-neutral. I cannot accept, however, that Comcast gets to decide that I can't use the rated capacity of my line (you know, the number they tout in their PR) to download Ubuntu with a bittorrent client, while my neighbor can max out his identical connection downloading movies over HTTP or FTP.
(And, no, the actual *content* shouldn't matter either, of course, that's just a feeble attempt at highlighting the inherent stupidity of the method).
Requiring an ISP to have enough capacity to enable ALL its customers to max out their connections would be monumentally wasteful, no question. However...
What Comcast, and any other ISP should do, is actually tell you what you are buying, up front, so that it's possible to make an informed purchasing decision. E.g.:
6Mbps down, 1Mbps up. Rated bandwidth available at least 90% of the time. Minimum bandwidth of1Mbps down, 256kbps up (except in case of equipment failure).
The ISP can then throttle users with this connection in times of peak load, but still protocol (and content) neutral!
If they wanted to get really advanced, they could give their users the ability to use some kind of QoS feature, so that e.g. a user could choose to prioritize http and ftp over, say, bittorrent. Or to prioritize whatever port #s the user's favorite multiplayer game uses, so that using the internet connection for other stuff introduces a minimum of lag on gaming.
In any event, there's just no justification for saying that my downloading Ubuntu or whatever should be throttled in favor of some idiot streaming porn over HTTP. (OK, maybe if it's porn... bad example... you get my drift, though)
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Seriously, their "key points" against it were, when you get right down to it, nothing more than "P2P users are all pirates" and "other governments don't like copyright infringement."
Which is pretty pathetic when you get right down to it. Believe it or not, places like Japan actually have decent infrastructure. Of course, they actually used the money they got from the public to *build capacity*, rather than just bilking taxpayers.
are anything but on slashdot.
What's next: MySlashdotspace.com?
URL: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
Proceeding: 07-52
Example Brief Comment to FCC:
"AT&T's filing has suggested that broadband capacity upgrades would be "expensive and needless." It is our company's belief that this is wholly inaccurate. According to research firm Point Topic, U.S. broadband speeds have increased a mere 0.17 percent this year, to 2.971 Mbps. In comparison, the speeds in South & East Asia went up 132 percent to 3.582 Mbps, while Asia Pacific saw speeds increase 38.79 percent to 14.989 Mbps. Speeds in Western Europe gained by 6.22 percent to 5.552 Mbps."
The P2P users may be complaining today, but this isn't a salvo against P2P - P2P is an archetypical case for these bozos (Comcast and their allies).
How soon before VoIP users are inconsiderate bandwidth hogs? Planning on buying an Apple TV for that nifty HD download? How about Netflix? How about iTMS? Amazon? Magnatune.com? Internet radio?
Somebody want to tell me that P2P torrents aren't used for _fundamentally the same_ content (with exception of VoIP... maybe), with fundamentally the same bandwidth requirements? If so, I'll tell you right now, I'm not buying that argument for a moment.
I'm radically opposed to losing ground on this issue. Many of us do indeed remember modems. They sucked. Yes, the net was so much simpler then - so were my tape-eating VHS machines and my scratchy vinyl LPs. After modems, we were threatened with ISDN - anyone but me remember how this was to be a boon because it would contribute to telecommuting and save us on roads, gas, etc, etc?
Then comes broadband technologies - and their incumbent promises - and I remember them, even if some of you don't.
If you're in the camp sympathizing with "those bandwidth hogs should pay more" - or "most people just want occasional email and the web, so the heavy users should pay" - I say this: DON'T DRINK THE KOOL-AIDE, YOU'VE HAD ENOUGH!!!
This is slashdot, people. On the theory that birds of a feather flock together - ask yourself which type of person you know more of - personally - the occasional email/web user, or the NORMAL broadband-needing regular user - be it for ISO downloads, VoIP or entertainment?
This crap about a few percent of hog users lapping it up at the expense of others is just that - a load of crap.
I hate fucking pirates as much or more as the next guy. But not all P2P is piracy and as I hope I've demonstrated, P2P isn't the point - it's the excuse. Let's be clear - we hang together or they'll hang us separately.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
Many online video games use P2P, but it hasn't been done to its fullest where like 500 people can play Tekken at the same time.
God spoke to me.
Bandwidth is not car insurance, and you should not be punished for using it.
My cable isn't throttled if I watch TV all day.
Network capacity should be calculated by bandwidth allowed, not bandwidth in use.
Don't forget to research where your favorite Presidential candidate stands on Net Neutrality and consider that when you vote!
When you see the "metered" services, they become a joke. I have a friend who got a Verizon internet card with his "Unlimited" (read: a couple gig/month before they threaten to kick you off the service) data plan.
First he noticed the gigs/month "hidden cap"... and realized he can't download his server backup (~2 gig once a month) over it without risking hitting that.
Then, for curiosity, he started up a 1-day track on his bandwidth usage, fired up just the basics (2 hours of WoW, plus ICQ/AIM left on, plus a couple hours of browsing). Grand total? The tier below the "unlimited" plan would have capped off in two weeks.
Yeah. That's what they all want to do. Rather than give the consumer what they pay for (and he's not being egregious by any means), they want to fuck them over. Those "needless and costly" upgrades are needed and costly because they never bothered to do proper sequential upgrades and routine maintenance the first time around, and just want to milk the consumers in the 90% of America where they have a sitting monopoly dry.
Remember: in 90% of America, you have a choice between ONE provider or dial-up, you don't even have dsl/cable competition. Every one of the companies deserves a fucking monopolistic abuse lawsuit.
Allow your customers unlimited bandwidth -- however, when they hit a cap (determined by their pricing model) their connection does not get shut off and they don't pay extra, however, their bandwidth becomes SERIOUSLY degraded. You can still download movies from iTunes, it will just take 3 times longer; just so long as there is enough bandwidth to support voip. Pay more and the cap goes up. At somepoint you will 1) be annoyed with your restrictions and pay for more or 2) Curb your massive file-swapping habits. Or 3) Just don't care. You know, as I typed that I realized that won't work either. Because, while they will cap you for data outside their network, you can download shows from their network at anytime without a problem.
Just rebadge this entire story: "Big mega-corp directors, disconnected from any social reality beyond their golf club, just want to stuff their pockets with our cash for minimal service in return. Regulators who attend the same golf club will legislate it and enforce it." Oh what a surprise.
I give you the precedent: "let them eat cake".
Some interstates in high traffic areas have run into similar problems as the ISPs - namely too many cars (packets) and not enough bandwidth. Here is how the interstates are dealing with the problem:
(a) Customers can choose to be "capped" during high-traffic times (6-9am/3-6pm) and thus be slowed down to only 10 miles per hour.
(b) Customers can choose to enter the Express Lane and get 65 mph travel, but at a cost of approximately $5 per day.
How does this apply to ISPs?
Simple - amend the contracts
(it's allowed; read the print)
(a) Customers can choose to pay ~$40 a month, but have their speed slow to 56k after they have exceeded some cap (say 100 gigabytes).
(b) Customers can choose to "bypass" the 56k cap by paying an extra ~$40 via a pop-up window & credit card. Just like buying an express lane on I-95.
In other words, the more you use, the more you pay.
If you want an Express Lane on the interstate, pay up.
If you want an "express lane" on the internet, pay up.
That would be fair.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
This whole argument strikes me with this odd thought:
Some Peer-to-Peer protocols (i.e., BitTorrent) were developed in order to take the burden of content distribution _away_ from the "dedicated server" (do reduce demand on bandwidth) and push it more on the users engaged in retrieving.
Comcast and ilk seem to be arguing in favor of the _exact opposite_ of this point.
I view this situation in the same light as the iPhone early abopter whining. If someone is a dumbass that doesn't understand how marketing and hype works, there's nothing (legally) wrong with plucking him clean.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
If you think this issue is important, you should write some letters. Today, I wrote both my Senators, my House Rep, the FCC, and my cable company. Personally, I am appalled at this douchebaggery. Someone else said it best: selective throttling is censorship. It is therefore a violation of the First Amendment. Also keep in mind that some would-be ISPs are the same folks offering illegal wiretaps. Lastly, as consumers we *must* demand better. I live in Los Angeles, one of the most urbanized areas in the United States and, in my neighborhood, Time Warner is my only viable option for high speed internet access. It's just plain wrong. We must demand better.
Find your Senate rep here:
http://www.senate.gov/
Find your house rep here:
http://www.house.gov/
You can comment on the FCC proceedings here using proceeding numbers 07-52 and 08-7
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
I would highly encourage use of snail mail. It has greater impact when bags of mail arrive in somebody's office.
Does anyone have a link to the original filings by the scumbag telcos?
Why is Verizon complaining? I have no idea how FiOS or their wireless services work, but as far as I know DSL offers dedicated lines to each subscriber.
Online media editing? Fuggedaboutit.
Greedy stupid morons.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Take a step towards unrestricted bandwidth
If your cable company gives you a 16 Mbps connection, all they can do is give you 16 Mbps peak bandwidth; they simply do not have the capacity to give everybody 16 Mbps sustained. It just isn't there. And it's not going to be there any time soon.
So, if they are forced to remove all restrictions and guarantee that they can deliver peak bandwidth as sustained bandwidth, there's only one thing they can do: lower peak bandwidth. The maximum unrestricted sustained they can support for every user is a few hundred kbps. Is that what you want? I don't think that's going to make the US economy very competitive.
and watch the US economy stagnate, and fall behind the rest of the developed world.
That's total bullshit. Cable and DSL companies in the rest of the world have high peak bandwidths, restrictions on P2P and servers, volume limits, and traffic filtering. Nobody can give you peak cable bandwidths at sustained rates and home pricing, anywhere in the world, because it just doesn't work out economically.
The "capacity upgrades" are obviously needed if you're having problems with "the bandwidth-hogging activities of a few."
My daily average bandwidth usage is probably less than 50kbps, but I want 16 Mbps peak bandwidth for web browsing. And that's what I'm paying for with consumer cable. Why should I pay more so that you can get 16 Mbps sustained?
Shut up, cut your salaries for a couple quarters, and invest in the goddamn infrastructure.
You're an idiot if you think that giving everybody 16 Mbps sustained bandwidth to the home can be paid for by "cutting salaries for a couple of quarters". In fact, at this point, that kind of bandwidth is technically not feasible.
I wish cable companies would simply go back to volume pricing.
I want a cheap high-bandwidth connection. I don't need a lot of volume. I'm happy with a connection with a 10Gbyte/month volume cap.
If you want to run file sharing 24/7 and max out your connection, fine, but you should pay for that yourself. Every Gbyte you transfer costs the ISP.
I suspect that when all is said and done, my connection would end up being priced around $30/month, while a maxed-out unlimited connection would end up being priced upwards of $200/month. Of course, that's effectively what home cable vs. business cable costs anyway.
So, what about it? Let's drop unlimited volumes and account for actual usage.
That is how most people get opensource distros, from Solaris to Fedora to Ubuntu. If ISPs take away the ability to efficiently distribute large ISOs, we are back to ordering DVDs through the mail.
I am not a "heavy" broadband user: my average usage is not high at all, but it goes up and down over time. I prefer to order or buy DVDs to downloading movies (not that I watch that many movies). I prefer to buy music online because I don't want to buy a whole album for the one song I want (not that I buy much music). That being said, my usage may be very low for weeks (web browsing and email) and then go up for several days. Maybe I do buy a video online, or decide to see a couple of episodes of a show I missed before the new series starts (several legitimate advertising supported sources for various series have popped up). But there are also business reasons, like having to transfer over my business website or move backups of my online store's catalog, downloading (probably via P2P) some OpenSource package or distribution. I do some work with a political organization and once in a fair while we use some sort of conferencing software. Right now, we are restocking our store before the start of the spring season, so we are uploading more photos than usual. Most of our steady bandwidth usage comes off of the site which we pay for someone else to host (with metered usage). I actually go through some trouble to do larger transfers off-peak; if it is business related, I have to anyway because it is a bad idea for me to tie up or munge my own website during peak hours (duh).
Traffic shaping based on protocol would nail me performing any of these actions, even though, as a rule, I am not a 'problem' user, even if actually using the service *I paid for* could be considered a 'problem'. I don't see why I should not be able to expect to make moderate use of the service most of the time and actually be able to run it out when I actually need it. *Why* I need it is none of the vendor's business. I pay them for the service and that is all they need to know.
So their solution is to hinder or completely block a technology or protocol because they aren't up with the times? So let me use another car analogy, since Comcast is fond of that one. They are saying that since everyone just got sportscars, we shouldn't pave the dirt roads but force most people to keep riding horses and allow only 30% of people to share these sportscars on the available paved roads at peak traffic hours.
[snip] Keep your fancy sports cars offo'my dirt roads, Bud. They upset the cattle.
Have you heard of the term "Cash Cow"? This is what it is.
Right now comcast's business model says the existing infrastructure is in cash cow phase: meaning for another decade or so, it will be a cash cow and after that expenses will start mounting up.
Cash Cow=Income exceeds Expenses on a steady state basis.
Once expenses start mounting the product would be replaced with another one.
Too bad if the world around me changes faster than my cash cow dies.
As a corporation I will do anything to continue that cash cow model if it bring me $1.3 Billion in profits every year.
Suppose i start spending money to upgrade and after 3 years the business model changes again, who is going to pay for all this?
You? Stupid Consumer? NO. You would laugh at me, and if you are a shareholder, you would sue me.
So, best bet: Resist pressure from world environment for change that kills the cash cow. Keeping consumers happy is not my goal. My goal is to earn money. If that keeps consumers happy, am fine. If not, too bad. Look - this is critical infrastructure we are talking about. Not for me (a corporate). I think it has a business expense. Anything that increases spending is bad. Anything that persists status quo and the cash cow is good.
You need to think like a corporate my friend. Not like Al Gore.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Nice try, but everyone knows you're just karma whoring so you can go back to your sockpuppets and shill trolling.
But they are charging enough, right now. The problem is that they're pocketing the profit instead of reinvesting it into infrastructure, and getting away with it because they're a monopoly (or cartel, if you lump the telco and cableco together) and we're failing to regulate them properly.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It's all a ruse. They'll cry about upgrading and how it's so unfair and expensive and the consumer will just bare the burden, but that's just posturing to get something from the regulatory agencies. Once that's accomplished, then they'll cram down some joke of an upgrade that barely impacts margins AND raise prices at the same time. This technique has been going on for decades.
The value if the Internet is that it is a two way street. Originally all Internet access nodes where servers.
/. But We should all
have our own servers.
The Internet is said to be the next big thing after the printing press. But If your not serving data your just a TV viewer. Watching what others have filtered. Yes we have
But now the telco's see the value of offering Us a local cash of TV shows and some web pages. for us to look at and call that the Internet. Rather then maintaining and upgrading the back bone that is required for a real two way Internet experience. We may want more TV. But lets not call TV an Internet.
That post wasn't in response to whether they can afford the upgrades or not, it was in regards to how to force consumers to change their habits through billing practices. Changing from a flat "unlimited" monthly fee to a per bit fee would dramatically change the amounts that people are being billed for. Currently, if I use my 3Mbps for light web browsing and email, I get billed $30. If I use that same connection to download and seed large P2P files 24x7, I get billed $30. If they were to change to a per bit billing scheme, using my connection for light browsing and email might cost $5 a month, where as keeping the download pip maxed out might cost $400 per month.
Having such a billing scheme would have a dramatic effect on distribution of copyrighted materials. Of course it would have a dramatic effect on the distribution of non-copyrighted materials as well. So it is very much NOT in our interest for them to make that change, but it is really the simplest way for the RIAA/MPAA to get what they want. No more DRMs, no more encryption, just huge bills that make it non-cost effective for people to distribute things online.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs