Comments on: Without 'Net neutrality,' will consumers pay twice?

If some telecommunications carriers get their way, consumers could end up handing over more for the broadband content and services they use.

[challman]

It's ALL about the Benjamins

It's ALL about money. These execs (old Bell heads as we refer to them in the internetworking field) are accustomed to charging customers on a per connection basis (i.e. DDS, DS0, DS1, DS3, OC-3, BRI, PRI, etc.).

The Internet has transformed a large part of the revenue stream into a connectionless business model. You will see less frequent business to business (B2B) peering interconnection as was typical of the past. Now, businesses have a "fat pipe" to the Internet and facilitate a B2B via virtual private networks (VPN ala IPSec, etc.). Verizon, MCI (now part of Verison), SBC, AT&T (now SBC a.k.a. AT&T), Sprint, Time Warner Telecom, ComCast, etc. hrough competitive pressures from the other providers have reduced the costs of the fat pipes to gain business. They have also cut prices on residential broadband due to competition. Now, they want to be able to shore up their revenues and see their old friend the "tiered pricing model" as the vehicle to profitability. Why do you think they don't want you sharing the bandwidth you pay for? Because they can't charge the other users for their connections even though you've paid for the bandwidth (which highlights the fact that the providers usually oversubscribe their networks at a ratio of 4:1 for business customers and 16:1 for residential customers therefore they want to squeeze us [residential customers] for every cent they can get)

What those "maroons" fail to realize is:

1. They will be left behind again (alluding to the shift to VoIP) or relagated to playing catch-up. 2. They do not own the content.
3. Customers are more likely to change providers at the first hint of throttline (I will and I have done this.)

And with the introduction of WiFi, WiMax and 3G cellular, the customers have more choice and more opportunity to change providers when they don't like the service they receive.

That may be true but...

If the telcos continue to merge, all of the cell phone, Wi-Fi and Wi-Max networks will belong to them too!!

[chrisfrary]

YOu are wrong sir

Around here, in northern NY, we have no other choice other than Time Warner Cable and Verizon DSL. And since we run a business we have no choice since we need the speed of TWC. Maybe where you live you have the 3g networks and all that, but here we are lucky that we get even broadband.

[t3pt6k]

Typical Reaction ...

It's a typical reaction from the old guard broadband providers, who did indeed pay billions of dollars to build infrastructure ahead of demand figuring that they would be able to maintain their profitabilty on future business. But new line providers were able to buy hardware and infrastructure cheaper, through bankruptcy, and market dynamics involved with computer hardware. These new line providers offered boradband access cheaper and the old guard had to respond ...

Now all of these broadband providers want to cry foul becasue they have negotitated horiible peering realtionships that aren't profitable, ofcourse after the internet bubble burst they got what they could get. I heard Verizon say that all Google has invested in is some cheap servers ... excuse me Mr. Verizon as far as I can tell Google is paying for an enormous pipe to the Internet as well as their "cheap servers". So they are already getting paid from both sides, the consumers and the content provider.

Unfornately for companies like Verizon, UUNet, Sprint, and whomever else didn't thinking about building the best search technology. Using the jealousy logic perhaps Ford or GM should charge employees of Google extra for their cars becasue Google's market cap exceed both of theirs put together.

Get over it and innovate as a company or you deserve to fail, don't try to covet someone else's success; oh yeah don't mention all the public right away we as consumers, read taxpayers, have provided for your cables ...

[spamage]

The last line says it all!

"It's monopoly economics 101--charging premiums, creating artificial scarcity and then driving up prices for consumers."

[phobet]

Are we selling diamonds?

You could say that this is the way diamonds are sold. The telcos and cable companies probably took their lessons from them.

[jdscott]

Choice

If I don?t like the one carrier, I will go to another. If no other carrier exist, then an opportunity will present itself, and if enough people feel the same way some entrepreneur will try to fill that need. Government offers no choice only forced stagnation. I realize that it is easy to look at the past and the government created and maintained monopoly of AT&T and think that only traditional carriers will deliver the future of the internet, but it is just not so. Verizon and AT&T do not compete against each other so much as they compete against the idea that Google, or some not yet created company. Let the future be a future of choice, not government mandated mediocrity.

[phobet]

Limited Choice...

If only everyone had the choices you have. Where I live, I have the choice of Verizon DSL, or Comcast Cable. Not much of a choice at all. Verizon is limited by speed, and Comcast is limited in the amount of bytes you are allocated per month. Either way, it is a lose/lose proposition. I cannot get another DSL provider in because Verizon owns the copper to my building. So being a legally protected monopoly has benefitted (sp?) them in this.