February 7, 2006 4:00 AM PST

Without 'Net neutrality,' will consumers pay twice?

(continued from previous page)

lane for certain traffic, it ought to be better for those who remain in the other four lanes."

Broadband companies say that if they can charge to deliver the services of content and application providers, they can guarantee better service to those providers, without requiring broadband customers to upgrade to a higher-speed broadband package.

For example, the broadband providers argue that if broadband customers are paying $12.99 per month for AT&T's 1.5mbps DSL service and they want to download a movie from Movielink, they shouldn't be forced to spend more than twice as much for a 3mbps service.

Instead, AT&T could propose that Movielink pay a fee to AT&T so that its movie download service gets preferential treatment. The providers say this lets people at home use their broadband connections more efficiently.

The downside, of course, is the risk that Movielink would pass costs on to consumers. Either way, then, consumers pay more.

Some experts agree that, in concept, a tiered approach could enable broadband providers to provide better services that could benefit consumers. And they caution lawmakers about enacting new legislation before a real problem has emerged.

"What I worry about is that if we have mandated network neutrality that consumers will miss out on some enhanced functionality being developed by the phone or cable companies," said Kyle Dixon, a senior fellow and director at the The Progress and Freedom Foundation. "Fears of market dominance aren't to be dismissed, but I think there is a risk in assuming that there will be a market power problem before there really is one."

But other experts disagree. Sohn, of Public Knowledge, believes that allowing carriers and cable operators to charge fees for prioritizing traffic will end in fewer choices for consumers, because broadband providers can use the relationships they have with preferred companies to squeeze out competitors.

For example, AT&T and Verizon each have marketing arrangements with Yahoo. If they instituted a tiered service, they could, theoretically, give priority to Yahoo's search engine, and make the access service of its competitors such as Google painfully slow.

"We're not saying that broadband providers shouldn't market with Internet companies," Sohn said. "But they shouldn't favor those providers more than others, because ultimately, the consumer suffers."

Companies such as Vonage, which lets consumers turn their broadband connections into IP phone lines, worry that the telecommunications companies and cable operators will squeeze the best-effort "lanes" of traffic so small that services from Vonage and the others will function poorly, costing them customers.

"The assumption that the best-effort Internet will always be there may not be true," said Chris Murray, director of government affairs for Vonage. "It's monopoly economics 101--charging premiums, creating artificial scarcity and then driving up prices for consumers."

Previous page
Page 1 | 2

See more CNET content tagged:
broadband provider, BellSouth Corp., packet, broadband, traffic

56 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
There is no debate
There should be NO debate on this....end users are being charged already...if the pipes have to raise their prices it will be passed on through ISPs to the end user and that's ok....individual websites should not be targeted.

The building a 'fifth' lane is BS...what you are doing is taking the same 4 lanes and making them 5..therefore the other lanes are smaller. If the pipe providers want more revenue from content build a new private lane that is seperate from the existing and charge isps or websites exclusive for exclusive use of it (after providing guarantee about minimum speed and bandwith availibility)...stay off the current highway (you are already charging for that)
Posted by KsprayDad (375 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Neutrality?
This is a crock. Just as the cable companies in the 80s did. Now the providers (the same companies for the most part) are trying to rig the game. If, for my $50 a month from Comcast, I could have the products they already say I am getting, that would be one thing. ISPs are the kings of vaporware! I say nationalize the Internet infrastructure and make it a public utility and take it out of the hands of the 'market' which has no interest buy god money.
Posted by blanddragon (21 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I agree - Nationalize the internet
make it just like the interstate highway system. then give free access to all individuals.
Posted by miketkrw (86 comments )
Link Flag
YAGRM!
<quote>I say nationalize the Internet infrastructure and make it a public utility....</quote>

That would create Yet Another Government Run Monopoly. The Government never makes such activities better except when it breaks up monopolies. Service drops (from current lows), prices rise, and innovation ceases when competition is removed. Things will only get worse, not better, should the Federal, State, or local Government take over any of the Internet. Besides, don't forget there's more to the Internet than what's within the borders of the US.
Posted by c|net Reader (856 comments )
Link Flag
fair competition?
Most economists would agree that monopolies can give better service in some situations, but worse in others. This is one area where such a move is not only technologically unfeasible, but simply not in the interest of the consumer. Many markets have competition between Telcos and Cable operators. If nationalization were to occur the government, to keep costs down, would choose one infrastructure and close the other. Next they would set a "fair" amount of bandwith, say 256K. That might be great for some, horrible for others. Lets not even get into the implications of how this would affect content providers wanting more bandwith. The government simply isn't structured to manage something like this. I know, you'll probably cite cities that have attempted to build fiber networks then market them to the public - they've been rule illegal, so we haven't seen how efficient they can be.
Posted by mortis9 (370 comments )
Link Flag
That's "PUSH-side Economic" thinking
Where artificial scarsecity costs the 'consumer' more and more up until it actually becomes cheaper for them to set up their own infrastructure.

While the monopolist/oligopolists extract the maximum revenue, the rest of the economy goes begging.

How much do you think all of this would cost, if it were even available, if AT&T & the world-wide monopolies hadn't been broken up?

When a dependable 300 baud modem was unavailable for less than $1,000 a month, and only to my office. When my monthly bill for telecom to a text only service exceeded $900.00CDN.

And the internet revolution happened OVER THE VERY SAME WIRES, so its not because of massive changes to the infrastructure that we have paid for, time and time again.

It is in fact very short-sighted, single quarter thinking, the kind that results in most governments and business going in for rhynoplasty to spite their faces, and which would stop the NYSE and the NASDAC by preventing their customers from dealing with those institutions unless BOTH were willing a pay a premium.

The only places left to look for the results of such thinking are in the extreme 'push-side' economies left on the planet: North Korea, Haiti, Afghanistan 'under the Taliban' various African tribal regimes.

Basically any economic unit where economies of scale are stopped regardless of whether the reason is economic, political or religious ideology, because there is more money to be made or power to be brokered by a few individual entities, if only they could 'slown it all down.'
Posted by CharlesRovira (97 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Free what?
"But some experts fear that if broadband providers are given free rein, ..."

Reign.
Posted by MrNougat (78 comments )
Reply Link Flag
The spelling is right
Per dictionary.com:

free rein (n):
Unlimited freedom to act or make decisions

It's a term referring to riding a horse. When you give a horse free rein, it can do whatever it wants.
Posted by eccesignum (37 comments )
Link Flag
How can this be done?
If as a user I am using one ISP and the content I want is on another ISPs service then both ISPs would have to sign up to provide the end-to-end quality of service.

Unless I am mistaken the current situation would be like paying for a moterway from your home, but then suddenly at some point you may have to go onto a dirt track to finish your journey. Kind of ruins the experience.

Unless they can offer end-to-end quality it's a non-starter.
Posted by ahickey (177 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Exactly right
You are correct. But of course the monopoly carriers are trying to pull the wool over our poor politicians eyes. You are right on the nose. The question is, will those who make the rules understand this? :)
Posted by kdbaumann (10 comments )
Link Flag
Think future
Look, this is an argument about the future, where the serious high-bandwidth apps live. If the bandwidth providers can't be compensated for building, um, bandwidth, then why would they invest?

Mark Cuban has it right: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000267073488/" target="_newWindow">http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000267073488/</a>

If you prefer that the Internet never evolves from its current state, net neutrality is for you.

(Interesting definition of monopoly, btw. How many players are there?)

The existence of a Whole Foods does not crowd out Safeway, which does not crowd out Costco. Premium products make for better options and more choices.

By the same argument, we should be regulating speed of PCs in the interest of "neutrality"... maybe we shouldn't let Google be "too good"...
Posted by ORinSF (57 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Arent we already paying the internet providers ?
I pay $45/month bucks to browse internet. If time warner wants to charge websites than they should give me internet for free.

Its like US postal service charging both the sender and the receiver, the shipping fee.

I think they are trying to cross the line here.
Posted by nonstopdoc1 (29 comments )
Link Flag
sorry the above comment was in answer to the story and not your post.
:)
Posted by nonstopdoc1 (29 comments )
Link Flag
Future?
The rest of the developed world (Korea, Canada, Europe, etc) already have much better internet service for less. 100 mps broadband? It's not in the future, it's already in Korea. The only reason we don't have very fast broadband in America is, to be blunt, the ISPs are greedy monopolides. Where I live for example, there's only two choices, SBC or Time Warner.

Think about it, if the ISPs really wanted to improve service for the customers, they'd increase the general connection speed and improve prices, instead of scamming web sites like this.

Also, this will do the opposite of allowing the net to evolve. Entrepreneurs will be discouraged from creating new web sites, since to be used they'd need to pay extra for service.
Posted by jdbwar07 (150 comments )
Link Flag
well....
I think that your reasoning is all wrong:

By the same argument, we should be regulating speed of PCs in the interest of "neutrality"... maybe we shouldn't let Google be "too good"...


The idea of Net Neutrality is not to regulate businesses from providing better service but to insure that the 'individuality' of the various parts of the web (be they companies or personal web sites) are treated equal.

Also, if I am paying $52.99 a month for 9 MBPS down and 1 MBPS up unlimited transfer then that is bandwidth that has been SOLD TO ME. If I decide to use that bandwidth for Video or for email and chat then that is MY decision. If I want to 'split' my bandwidth by multitasking then that is my choice as well.

Further, the ISP's have all the incentive in the world to upgrade their systems. It's called competeting for customers. If Broadband_A offers 'more better' than Broadband_B then the choices are pretty clear... for customers and ISPs.

As for content providers it works the same for them. If SciFi.com started streaming their movies but didn't have enough bandwidth of their own then their product would suffer. So they too ALREADY have incentive to improve also.


The real question is:

When you pay for a certain broadband speed and want to visit a website that DOES NOT 'bribe' your isp for bandwidth, even though the site has the broadband capabilities to deliver their content to you, are YOU going to be upset:

1. At the website for not paying this payola for their content to be provided enough of YOUR (paid for!) bandwidth?
2. The isp for stopping you from receiving the data you requested (on bandwidth that they already sold you) because this site wouldn't pay them to give YOU what YOU requested?
--or--
3. Yourself for agreeing that these isp's should have a right to limit what you receive on lines you are paying for?
Posted by The user with no name (259 comments )
Link Flag
These are the monopolists who want the entire Internet free from taxation
The GAO recently opined that the "internet backbone," which these carriers lobbied intensely to keep free from state taxation in 2003 and 2004, should be available for the states to tax. When the Baby Bell cartel asks again to keep their provision of Internet access free in 2007, when the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act expires, one hopes that their hypocrisy will be thrown back in their collective faces. Either way, it looks like pricing is going up for users. Has Comcast or any other cable provider demanded this tariff from content providers? If not, consider the switch to cable high speed. Verizon's DSL is abysmally slow at times and very hit-or-miss in terms of availability, in my experience.
Posted by gparshal (15 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Already ripped off
In the US, broadband and telecom companies are already ripping us off big time. Compared to the rest of the developed world, our broadband really is terrible. It's poor quality, it's extremely slow, and it costs WAY too much.

In many places in Europe and Asia, they have relatively cheap 25-100 mbps DSL. The reason Canada, Europe, and Asia have such better service is because they view high-speed internet as a public good and don't allow ISPs to engage in monopolistic behavior (like this).

Charging sites for this service won't help consumers in any way. These greedy monopolies should absolutely not be allowed to do this, regardless of what BS they use to justify it.

If they really did care about improving service, they'd increase our connection speed dramatically, the actual mbps rate. This would be for all of the internet, not just web sites that agree to be scammed like this.

You can use google and read more about how internet quality in the US is so bad. Here's a good article I found:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2005/10/18/broadband/" target="_newWindow">http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2005/10/18/broadband/</a>
Posted by jdbwar07 (150 comments )
Reply Link Flag
BETTER YET
Broadband scandal:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htmh" target="_newWindow">http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htmh</a>
Posted by ordaj (338 comments )
Link Flag
monopoly
You obviosly don't have the intelligence to understand what a monopoly is. This means that you as a consumer do not have a choice but to use 1 single service from 1 single company. i.e. the government controled "public good" internet you reffer to in your post. In the US we have many choices to get broadband. I live in Littleton, CO and I have at least 3 that I know of. This is called capitalism and it's what the US was founded on. If u don't like what choices are available to you and being the type of person who wants a premium service for free you should leave the US and take your socialist, crybaby attitude elseware.
The consumer should pay. If u want 3 Mbps vs. 1.5 Mbps YOU should pay. The maket should decide what the consumer will and won't pay. In denver Qwest has dramatically increased their DSL speeds to compete more heavily with Comcast and others and the price for either is certainly more than reasonable.
Posted by rockerrb (19 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Check your facts!
Comcast is the cable monopoly and Qwest is the telecommunications monopoly! In a free market you would have as many choices as you had a few years ago with all of the CLECs. Notice how few are left? That's because of the MONOPOLIES that blocked them, then under cut them!
Posted by dad071444 (7 comments )
Link Flag
Goodbye VoIP
The bells want their monopoly back on data access to the home. If they get it, goodbye Skype &#38; Vonage - how much do you think they'll charge for services that compete with their core offerings? Just enough to make them financially non-viable, I'll bet...
Posted by commsoft (52 comments )
Reply Link Flag
BS in full from Telco's
""What I worry about is that if we have mandated network neutrality that consumers will miss out on some enhanced functionality being developed by the phone or cable companies," said Kyle Dixon, a senior fellow and director at the The Progress and Freedom Foundation. "Fears of market dominance aren't to be dismissed, but I think there is a risk in assuming that there will be a market power problem before there really is one."'

Mandated network neutrality will allow all of us to continue to enjoy the net as it is today. Missing out on functionality is in the hands of the network providers who don't seem to be able to offer what consumers in other countries already get, HIGHER SPEEDS. They some how can't seem to squeeze 3-5mbs out of the same network that, for example, the Canucks can. Why is that? It's because they want to SUCK every penny the can out of the consumers, and this is just one more attempt at it.

Too bad that independant providers like Digex and PSINet are either no longer around or out of business. Then this wouldn't be happening.

The whole basis of the internet is that of neutrality.

If the network providers want to offer higher speeds to consumers then do so, and charge what consumers in other countries are being charged for that higher speed than we are getting. Which, oh by the way, is the same as they are charging for the crappy slow service they are currently giving us.

Enjoy the net while you can, these guys are out to bring it down.
Posted by kdbaumann (10 comments )
Reply Link Flag
umm not quite true
"uhm, the Internet started out a government project, with free access to entities the government wanted on the network. Since Al Gore wanted it to evolve, they turned it over to commercial interests. Thanks Al!"

He and MANY others played a part. If you want to pin godhood on one person then do so to Bill Schrader, he is the guy who went to the Hill and pushed hard for a open internet, and sued MCI when they tried to grab it all for themselves. Al Gore is a good guy, but he isn't responsible for it anymore than any of the other folks who worked to free it up. Don't believe his own PR on this one.
Posted by kdbaumann (10 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Exactly right
You are correct. But of course the monopoly carriers are trying to pull the wool over our poor politicians eyes. You are right on the nose. The question is, will those who make the rules understand this? :-)
Posted by kdbaumann (10 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Scandalous
I just discovered this. Please look at the web site www.teletruth.org

It tells about how the major telecom companies have been scamming the american consumer for the past decade or more. They promised to roll out major fiber optic connections for America in the early '90s, each 45 mbps both ways. In return the gov't let them have 200 billion dollars that we, Americans, paid for. These companies kept the money and did not keep their promise.

Now they continue to scam us with this type of BS. Violating net neutrality will not allow for better service. On the contrary, its just an excuse for them to increase profits while at the same time look like they actually are doing something without actually improving the connections they provide.

The web site explains more about this. Now I feel Verizon and other such companies (or at least the people in charge) have about the same ethics as Enron. Hopefully we can realize they do not have your best interests in mind (or what's best for the internet as a whole), and will lie and deceive to increase profits.

The whole idea of Google needing to pay extra because it's been having a "free ride" is of course completely garbage. Connecting to the whole internet is the point of their service, and they are being well paid and compensated for it. We really need this law and more investigation into their activities.
Posted by jdbwar07 (150 comments )
Reply Link Flag
*Nobody* rides for free...
The statement (not made by you) that Google is getting a free ride is so much BS. Any ISP has to incorporate the costs of providing bandwidth to their customers into the cost the customers pay. Otherwise, they could not afford to have those customers. After all, the ISPs have to pay for *their* connection to the Internet, also. And even if their payment is carrying traffic from/to other providers through peering arangements, they still have to pay for the equipment carrying that traffic, as well as the cost of actually running the equipment. The Telcos see Internet companies such as Google as cash cows, and as such, they should pay a "tax" (or be given a cut, same thing) for the priveledge (sp?) of serving traffic to their (already paying) customers. This is equivelant (sp?) to purchasing diesel fuel for you truck, and getting charged an extra 10 cents if you plan on using that fuel to transport goods for hire.
Posted by phobet (43 comments )
Link Flag
Charge per feature, but not per company
I don't really have a problem with the network providers
charging more for some new feature, such as isosynchronous
transfers or low-latency services. I *do* have a problem with
network companies setting a price for a particular customer
based on some deal, their opinion on the content, religion,
political affiliation or whatever. If they try to pull the latter, they
should lose all common-carrier protections and be liable for the
legality of everything they transmit.

Basically, the bottom line is that if Google's ISP gets charged one
price for vide-on-demand transmission, Ma and Pa's Movie
Delivery should get charged the same for the same feature.

What's more, Verizon, Comcast, and the other broadband
providers should be forbidden from colluding on the price. Let
them compete over it.
Posted by samkass (310 comments )
Reply Link Flag
It wouldn't be good
The absolute best thing for the internet would be to enforce net neutrality. I see what you're saying, however once this starts there's no doubt that eventually network providers and executives definitely would charge different customers less or more for those reasons and others.

Also, it would adversely affect the principles the internet was founded on. A byte is a byte, it shouldn't matter how much the web site you're on paid for it. If the telcos are seriously interested in improving my service (apparently they aren't) they should increase the connection speed and quality. This would apply for all web sites, not rich ones.

Also, I recommend you look a the site www.newnetworks.com . These companies have perpetrated a little-known scandal, which shows how greedy they are and how they'll lie over and over just to increase their profits.
Posted by jdbwar07 (150 comments )
Link Flag
If you want $$$ 'vendor lock in' the customer and then break it
Any company, if they lock you in to a cost structure where you have no alternative but to depend on their repair cycle, will grow into a monopoly. this is where monopolies come from because they don't depend on other companies in a proper community.
For some philosophy: the most successful businesses listen to the most criticism. But in the New World Order I guess the most successful businesses subscribes to the mighty $$$. I can't eat nor drive a green piece of paper. And money is digital today if you even know what its worth anymore with so many transaction methods.

So, what will happen is that only 50 percent of the Internet will be accessible intermittently. because why? Well we have to make MONEY and build large structures and subdivisions. Our kids eat money, I drive money, money makes me healthy. Not medicine or food or science. What creates money??? Medicine, food and science.
Posted by Blito (436 comments )
Reply Link Flag
This is NOT the future
C'MON. The web is fast and should be very simpe to have 3G everywhere. What the heck! PLEAEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESEAAASE
Posted by Blito (436 comments )
Link Flag
this isn't going to work
people wil hack it and bt/p2p is going to be faster than web.
L0L!!!
Posted by jonytk (18 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Three questions the carriers should be forced to answer
1) Will you use deep packet inspection to analyze and/or meter customer behavior?

2) Will you offer tiered (e.g., "gold", "silver", and "bronze") Internet packages to customers otherwise operating at the same bandwidth?

3) Will you monitor, delay, and/or block voice-over-IP (VoIP), peer-to-peer file transfers, or any type of service used by customers?

The hardware that Cisco and others are pitching the carriers implies that, indeed, they are exploring new, intrusive, and anti-innovation methods of controlling what content providers can do:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/02/end-of-internet-another-fantastic-deal.html" target="_newWindow">http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/02/end-of-internet-another-fantastic-deal.html</a>
Posted by directorblue (148 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Carriers should stop whining.
Until we have the speeds, reliability and prices they have in Japan and Korea, the carriers should stop whining and give us decent service, both connectivity-wise and customer service-wise. Light up some of that dark fiber they got for so cheap and actually respond to helpdesk calls.
Posted by DaClyde (96 comments )
Reply Link Flag
That is a bad, bad idea...
Telcos get a protected monopoly because telecommunications is a vital service, necessary in the event of disaster or war. They do NOT get a free pass on freezing out competition or governmental assistance in assuring that they can get a decent return on infrastructure investment.

This is one step towards holding all net services hostage until someone pays up.

Not that it is ALL bad. When it comes to spam, they can and should make it feasible to only have permissioned email delivered upon payment of a fee. In other words, if you want to send me email without permission, fine... just pay me 25 cents to read it. You could set a bid price, depending on how much email you wanted to read. Legitimate marketers should have no objection to this. Most of them already spend multiples of this for direct mail. If the email is unread, the marketer doesn't pay.


The telcos or ISP's could pocket a percentage of that, and everybody is happy... except the email marketers who send massive volumes of unwanted email. If spammers had to pay pennies per email delivered, they would be out of business in no time. The user would have the ability to grant free email to friends and family (just as most major providers allow now).

Mark Brandon
Sustainable Log - News and Views for Socially Responsible Investors
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://sustainablelog.blogspot.com" target="_newWindow">http://sustainablelog.blogspot.com</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.firstsustainable.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.firstsustainable.com</a>
When you subscribe to Sustainable Log, we give $1 to Alternative Gifts International in support of a cause of your choice.
Posted by 208mbrandon (23 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Looks like they do get government assistance
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv/2006/02/the_united_stat.html" target="_newWindow">http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv/2006/02/the_united_stat.html</a>
Posted by texascj7 (1 comment )
Link Flag
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&#38;T (now SBC a.k.a. AT&#38;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.
Posted by challman (27 comments )
Reply Link Flag
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!!
Posted by dad071444 (7 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by chrisfrary (115 comments )
Link Flag
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 ...
Posted by t3pt6k (3 comments )
Reply Link Flag
The last line says it all!
"It's monopoly economics 101--charging premiums, creating artificial scarcity and then driving up prices for consumers."
Posted by spamage (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
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.
Posted by phobet (43 comments )
Link Flag
Choice
If I dont 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&#38;T and think that only traditional carriers will deliver the future of the internet, but it is just not so. Verizon and AT&#38;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.
Posted by jdscott (6 comments )
Reply Link Flag
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.
Posted by phobet (43 comments )
Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.