- Related Stories
-
AT&T chief, FCC chair clarify on Net neutrality
March 21, 2006 -
Debate heats up over Net neutrality
March 15, 2006 -
Senator wants to ban 'fast lane' for Web
March 2, 2006 -
Verizon's salvo on cable TV
April 20, 2005
Tom Tauke, executive vice president for public affairs for Verizon Communications, and Jim Cicconi, senior executive vice president for AT&T, said at the TelecomNext trade show here on Wednesday that their companies have no intention of degrading or blocking other companies' traffic that rides over the public Internet.
Instead AT&T and Verizon would simply like to offer content companies, such as Google and Movielink, virtual pipes directly to consumers over their broadband connections that would allow these content companies to make sure users at home have a good experience accessing their content.
Net neutrality, which centers on whether carriers should be able to charge different fees to content providers who access their network, has been a hotly debated topic in the industry for several weeks as several lawmakers draft legislation that addresses the issue.
"There's been a misconception about the network we are building and how we plan to deliver services," said Cicconi. "What we plan to do amounts to creating dedicated services."
AT&T and Verizon already offer dedicated pipes to consumers for Internet Protocol-based TV services. Because they are providing the video service themselves to their own customer base, they control movie packets from the time they enter the network until they reach the subscriber at home.
Cicconi said it is unreasonable for companies offering competing video services that travel over the public Internet to demand AT&T offer the same quality it provides through its dedicated service.
"This debate is all about movies," he said. "A handful of companies who have plans to stream movies want to ensure their product is as good as ours. Or they want ours to be dumbed down for them."
Cicconi said that trying to achieve the same level of quality for video over the public Internet would be too expensive, because it requires extra equipment and network resources.
"If someone wants an equivalent level of service as what we provide, you have to provide them a dedicated service," he said. "And we can't do that for free."
Some Net neutrality proponents say they understand the phone companies' argument but they're concerned the phone companies will abuse their power since they're offering competing services.
"I don't oppose tiered services and VPNs (virtual private networks) to consumers," said John Sumpter, vice president of regulatory affairs for PacWest. "I just don't want them discriminating against anyone else in favor of their own service."
To fully appreciate what kinds of new services AT&T and Verizon hope to offer some day, people must first understand how the Internet works. The Internet is made up of a collection of networks, each owned by different network providers.
See more CNET content tagged:
Net Neutrality, AT&T Corp., content company, pipe, video service
- The hardware Cisco and other network vendors are hawking to the carriers appears designed to filter, restrict, and monitor third-party traffic
- Will VoIP providers like Skype and Vonage be blocked or degraded?
No one is asking the carriers the key, detailed questions on these points. Someone needs to ask. More info here on a recent blog post:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/02/end-of-internet-another-fantastic-deal.html
Scroll down, see that privacy policy job? Ever click on it?
- The hardware Cisco and other network vendors are hawking to the carriers appears designed to filter, restrict, and monitor third-party traffic
- Will VoIP providers like Skype and Vonage be blocked or degraded?
No one is asking the carriers the key, detailed questions on these points. Someone needs to ask. More info here on a recent blog post:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/02/end-of-internet-another-fantastic-deal.html
Scroll down, see that privacy policy job? Ever click on it?
Obviously, once the principle of net neutrality is broken, there will be no stopping a "future CEO" of these said-same companies from concluding that they need to do exactly the same thing to mom and pop internet-store owners.
Get it straight- no one is going to hold up their fist and cry "no! you can't do that because your former CEO, five years ago, said that wasn't what you intended to do when.. er... oh ...never mind".
Of COURSE they know this and so do your policy-makers in Washington; those two players are just waiting to see if YOU dear taxpayer, understand this too.
In case you weren't aware of it, you, taxpayer have already PAID for the creation of internet, many times over. It isn't profit-seeking companies like Verizon who pay for the years and years and years of research it's YOU.
Verizon makes plenty of money (looked at you phone bill lately)? Their CEO is MORE than handsomely compensated for sending what used to be your job overseas. If they can't figure out a way to make money without destroying net neutrality, then they should do what the fre market says they shoudl do- get the hell off the stage and let the scores of other, younger, more creative and hungrier companies who CAN find a way take their place.
Can you afford your own TV show or political talk show on the TV? That's because there's a limited resource and lots of people who want it. The price gets bid up and the big players are the only ones who can afford it.
Now ask yourself this question- are your views represented on TV? That's because to be a big player and afford the aritime, you have tow the corporate line, or see the money tap in the form of advertising turned off.
Well that suits corporations just fine. It especially suits the CEOS and other NON WORKING people who live off their investments just fine.
And that's what Verizon and AT&T will turn the internet into if this is permitted to go through. The REAL forms of persuasion and communication and the ability to reach anything like a meaningful audience will be the sole "property" of the corporate elites and those who can afford to pay their rent, that is, those who the corporate elites control.
It's a pretty good scam- get the taxpayer to pony up billions and billions for the new invention (because we dont' invent anything around here, buster, that would cut into our CEOs pay...) then hand it over to corporations so they can create artifical "shortages" of "good" bandwidth and profiteer from the ensuing market economics, thus solidifying your power position in Washington (we have the money) while also conveniently being able to destroy any voice the people may try to develop to change things.
Yep sounds like we're headed back to the good old days of the MSM (Mainstream Media).
Obviously, once the principle of net neutrality is broken, there will be no stopping a "future CEO" of these said-same companies from concluding that they need to do exactly the same thing to mom and pop internet-store owners.
Get it straight- no one is going to hold up their fist and cry "no! you can't do that because your former CEO, five years ago, said that wasn't what you intended to do when.. er... oh ...never mind".
Of COURSE they know this and so do your policy-makers in Washington; those two players are just waiting to see if YOU dear taxpayer, understand this too.
In case you weren't aware of it, you, taxpayer have already PAID for the creation of internet, many times over. It isn't profit-seeking companies like Verizon who pay for the years and years and years of research it's YOU.
Verizon makes plenty of money (looked at you phone bill lately)? Their CEO is MORE than handsomely compensated for sending what used to be your job overseas. If they can't figure out a way to make money without destroying net neutrality, then they should do what the fre market says they shoudl do- get the hell off the stage and let the scores of other, younger, more creative and hungrier companies who CAN find a way take their place.
Can you afford your own TV show or political talk show on the TV? That's because there's a limited resource and lots of people who want it. The price gets bid up and the big players are the only ones who can afford it.
Now ask yourself this question- are your views represented on TV? That's because to be a big player and afford the aritime, you have tow the corporate line, or see the money tap in the form of advertising turned off.
Well that suits corporations just fine. It especially suits the CEOS and other NON WORKING people who live off their investments just fine.
And that's what Verizon and AT&T will turn the internet into if this is permitted to go through. The REAL forms of persuasion and communication and the ability to reach anything like a meaningful audience will be the sole "property" of the corporate elites and those who can afford to pay their rent, that is, those who the corporate elites control.
It's a pretty good scam- get the taxpayer to pony up billions and billions for the new invention (because we dont' invent anything around here, buster, that would cut into our CEOs pay...) then hand it over to corporations so they can create artifical "shortages" of "good" bandwidth and profiteer from the ensuing market economics, thus solidifying your power position in Washington (we have the money) while also conveniently being able to destroy any voice the people may try to develop to change things.
Yep sounds like we're headed back to the good old days of the MSM (Mainstream Media).
They DO impede competative services that operate on their network. (and I can prove it in court, so come on).
The mere fact that they are talking about "not being able to offer the same quality of service to competative vendors over the public network" Proves they are already doing this.
Their own movies travel over the very same network to their subscribers.
In order to NOT provide the same QoS they must go out of their way to throttle the opponants traffic.
Again, the mere fact that they are saying they won't guarantee equal QoS is because they ARE guaranteeing unequal QoS.
Now why whould they do that? Profit?
Naw!
Enter the throttle wars.
Cox should now throttle Vz movies.
AOL should now throttle Vz and Cox...
Ad naseum.
The cash paying customer is the one that will suffer the most.
They DO impede competative services that operate on their network. (and I can prove it in court, so come on).
The mere fact that they are talking about "not being able to offer the same quality of service to competative vendors over the public network" Proves they are already doing this.
Their own movies travel over the very same network to their subscribers.
In order to NOT provide the same QoS they must go out of their way to throttle the opponants traffic.
Again, the mere fact that they are saying they won't guarantee equal QoS is because they ARE guaranteeing unequal QoS.
Now why whould they do that? Profit?
Naw!
Enter the throttle wars.
Cox should now throttle Vz movies.
AOL should now throttle Vz and Cox...
Ad naseum.
The cash paying customer is the one that will suffer the most.
Jimmie King
Jimmie King
Meanwhile Verizon has crippled my motorola phone solely for the purpose of forcing consumer to purchase more services from them and increase their revenue by eliminating consumers ability to do things for themselves.
No thanks.
Meanwhile Verizon has crippled my motorola phone solely for the purpose of forcing consumer to purchase more services from them and increase their revenue by eliminating consumers ability to do things for themselves.
No thanks.
Quite simple you can own the pipe or you can own the content but when you own both, you will by default create a conflict of interest (at the very least).
I can?t wait for a DSL customer to prove the Telco ISPs are interleaving, dropping or re-ordering packets.
Quite simple you can own the pipe or you can own the content but when you own both, you will by default create a conflict of interest (at the very least).
I can?t wait for a DSL customer to prove the Telco ISPs are interleaving, dropping or re-ordering packets.
re: http://broadbandoverpowerlines.blogspot.com/
re: http://broadbandoverpowerlines.blogspot.com/
Who are these companies? They didn't mention any names. Furthermore, who needs a VPN to their home for movies? If you want to be able to guarantee Qos from content provider to content consumer, why not utilize basic open standards to do so? Because they don't want to. IPv6 has better built in Qos than IPv4 also it has better addressing too. But by deploying this. they will be standardizing the net as a whole and subsequently will not be able to boast that they have any differentiating features about their network versus their competition thus losing a potential revenue stream.
- Handful of companies?
- by challman March 24, 2006 1:52 PM PST
- "This debate is all about movies," he said. "A handful of companies who have plans to stream movies want to ensure their product is as good as ours. Or they want ours to be dumbed down for them."
- Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (42 Comments)Who are these companies? They didn't mention any names. Furthermore, who needs a VPN to their home for movies? If you want to be able to guarantee Qos from content provider to content consumer, why not utilize basic open standards to do so? Because they don't want to. IPv6 has better built in Qos than IPv4 also it has better addressing too. But by deploying this. they will be standardizing the net as a whole and subsequently will not be able to boast that they have any differentiating features about their network versus their competition thus losing a potential revenue stream.