or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › AT&T to let content providers pick up bandwidth tab with new 'sponsored data' service
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AT&T to let content providers pick up bandwidth tab with new 'sponsored data' service - Page 3

post #81 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

LOL



Say hello to the aptly yclept Betty-Jean 1biggrin.gif
Thanks, Bro. I let her know you are thinking of her! 1smile.gif

Laughing out loud... Literally!

I read your last 2 posts in reverse order as email via push notifications... And it just hit me...

When you're mad at her do you say "PATTI-JEAN"... Like her mother did when she was little 1biggrin.gif


I suspect that you-know-who is not a reader of AI.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #82 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by vaporland View Post

"One of these things is not like the other.

One of these things just does not belong.

Can you guess which thing is not like the other?

By the time I finish this song?"


(originally sung by a muppet I believe...)
Thx, Bro! Now I can't get that song out of my head! 1smile.gif


On your way home tonight, I want you to "count" the lampposts!

"One, Lamppost, Two Lampposts, etc., etc..." Make sure you use a Transylvanian accent in your head! Or if you're on a bus or train you can count them out, out load! 1smile.gif

Payback Bro! 1smile.gif


"Mine dahlink... I vant to bite chew on the neck..." Wagging tongue..
Edited by Dick Applebaum - 1/7/14 at 6:10pm
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #83 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


Laughing out loud... Literally!

I read your last 2 posts in reverse order as email via push notifications... And it just hit me...

When you're mad at her do you say "PATTI-JEAN"... Like her mother did when she was little 1biggrin.gif


I suspect that you-know-who is not a reader of AI.

I pretty much just call her BJ or once in awhile "my little fry cook!" 

 

I learned a long time ago not to get mad at her. Like most GF's she only does two things, tries to start fights and that thing GF's do to make up from a fight.

 

Yep, if I think of it, I will ask her if her mom used call her Patti-Jean when she was mad at her. I'll tell her some of my friends on the interWebs want to know! That should win me some points! :)

 

I don't think she made her mom mad that often, though. What I can gather, she seems like she was an angel when she was little. Not so much anymore.

 

I've said to her a few times, I wished I had met her before her ex-husband "messed" with her mind! :) I say it in a loving way, of course! I guess! :)

 

Best. 

 

P.S. When I'm driving with her and someone cuts me off or something, I will say, "that c**ks**ker just cut me off!" And then I look at her and in a calmer voice, I will say to her, "No offense." And she always smiles and says, "None taken!"

 

I give her a lot of credit for going with the joke. :) 


Edited by christopher126 - 1/7/14 at 6:17pm
post #84 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


"Mine dahlink... I vant to bite chew on the neck..." Wagging tongue..

Exactly, my hope is, for the rest of his life, Vapor will not look at lamppost the same way again. :) In fact, I hope he feels compelled to "count" them! :)

 

Side note: I took a diff. GF to watch the pro tennis player, Goran Ivanisevic play (years ago). He's a pretty volatile and vocal player with a very heavy Eastern European accent and looks like he is going to explode at any minute.

 

I kept whispering in my GF's ear, "I vant to bite your neck. I vant to drink your Blooood!"

 

Sounds pretty irritating now, but she almost wet herself with the giggles...b/c you have to be so quiet at the fancy-dancy tennis matches! :)

 

Best.

post #85 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


I'm of the opinion that monopolies are created when government gets involved, not when they are uninvolved. Only by force of law can a market be completely owned by one company (great example: when cable companies first appeared in the US, they were typically given monopolies to pay off the expense of laying out the infrastructure).

In a true free market there is no possibility of legal protection from competition, so efficient and fast companies develop alternatives to their larger, slower competition.

 

Your opinion seems to not notice that there are many monopolies that later control government -- and they aren't "just created" without someone first influencing government.

 

It sounds like you are suggesting to once again "shrink government" and somehow the marketplace will magically get rid of monopolies -- which has happened never. Getting money influence out of government keeps it from being corrupted. If there is no "Campaign" or financial gain for public officials -- we won't be seeing government creating favored markets. You can look anywhere in the world where there is a "free market" and find it's entirely run by cronyism -- like Haiti and Mexico.

 

We could always cut down on bureaucracy by having a King -- no need for oversight or balancing power.

post #86 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


You just generally seem opposed to the idea that companies must make a profit. Sorry to break the news, but that's business. No profit = no business.

 

Nope. I'm saying that AT&T is using a Public paid for internet. They have costs, but they also are getting more and more of a natural monopoly.

 

So in this instance, we have to be careful to determine actual costs and profits HAVE TO be regulated until it can be proven there is enough market competition to force down prices.

 

If a market is actually free and competitive, I think that a company can make all the profit they want. But when there is "one pipe" -- things require regulation. And costs here are a lot harder to determine -- so let's not just take the word of people on one end of the equation.

post #87 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post


Both sides are always charged.... You place a phone call both sides pay for access; you type HTTP:// and a page loads both sides paid for access. Even in your example you reveal you know little about how private networks make up The Internet. Netflix bolts to Cogent and then Cogent expects free transit into and through T1 providers all the while massively overruns the pipes. Sure it's good for Netflix cause they get cut rate access and it's AT&T's or Verizon's or L3 or TaTa, or DT's problem when their customers have latency, drops and poor application performance. Cogent fights paying for access when their in:out ratios exceed the agreed upon transit agreements of 2:1. Isn't 2:1 already more than fair? Smaller guy gets 2, bigger guy gets 1....

Net neutrality is code for forcing a the more successful to prop up the less successful and pass the costs onto the consumer on the more successful network. The edge always pays whether it's the phone, the tablet, the DSLAM, the cable modem or the NAP. In your world, the result is T1 ISPs would stop peering with T2s which would mean there are no more T3s or T4s. It would end up restricting what is already a free flow of data brought about by cooperation between, what are normally, warring entities - partnering for the common benefit - commerce.

The wireless carrier example, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, DT and others are charging the same for faster speeds. More speed for same price is more, right? You're wanting more speed and more data for less cost. What funds the expansion? What funds innovation?

Sheesh, someone needs to write a real history of the Internet from 1990 - date. All these things that people want free or the government to regulate... Why did Europe and Canada privatize their telecoms? Why did the US Deregulate? You telco haters could stand to get some education.

 

Obviously, you know a bit about how the networks charge for things. It isn't like you are saying something all that different from my simpler explanation of paying on the difference between requests.

 

Right now, we have big companies making a profit, and we still have smaller companies making enough to stay in business. YOU and AT&T suggest we change the system so AT&T can charge another party for bandwidth they are already getting compensated for - because it makes it "more fair."

 

I think it's a difficult thing to find what is "truly fair". I also don't have empathy for corporations -- only people. If the Big Guys pay more than the Little Guys -- but everyone still exists in the market, that's actually a GOOD THING.

 

There are a bunch of creating ways things can be paid for and charged, but let's not cry about Netflix having a good deal -- nobody would bother buying the "bigger, faster, unlimited bandwidth" package if they weren't using things like Netflix. If AT&T wants to charge more -- they already can. There is no easy way to know what it costs to send a gigabyte down the Internet -- and yet, you are supporting a company saying; "WE sold customers unlimited bandwidth at a reasonable speed, and they are using that bandwidth and data rate -- we want more money from the people providing them content." That's so backward - if the system were ENTIRELY on the Internet Service Provider, then costs would be easier to determine and more reasonable in the end. Why should any content provider do anything but charge for someone accessing their content? If I bought water from the Water Department, I might get metered or unlimited, we aren't charging Penguins if they have to ship in an iceberg are we? If anything, the current system should probably be amended so that the little guys don't pay anything, because THEY ARE THE CONTENT.

 

I pay Netflix and I pay AT&T -- if Netflix has to pay AT&T, they can fluff up the rates and then charge themselves (or friends) less for content providing. Then we get the same system as we have with Health Care where Insurance companies fluff up fees and paying much less than the stated amount. In many cases -- our co-pay is really the payment for the service, and the insurance company just made a convoluted system so they get free money. The medical care providers pay through the nose to insure themselves and so do customers -- and costs keep going up.

 

We want Net neutrality and AT&T will still make a fortune under the current system -- or we make changes that you and AT&T are advocating, THEY will make more profit, they won't charge less, and there will be fewer companies involved with me getting on the internet or getting me content than if we kept the current system. You and AT&T probably won't be apologizing.

 

And it sounds like you are so informed in the infrastructure that this is how you butter your bread. Is that so?

post #88 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

Nope. I'm saying that AT&T is using a Public paid for internet. They have costs, but they also are getting more and more of a natural monopoly.

So in this instance, we have to be careful to determine actual costs and profits HAVE TO be regulated until it can be proven there is enough market competition to force down prices.

If a market is actually free and competitive, I think that a company can make all the profit they want. But when there is "one pipe" -- things require regulation. And costs here are a lot harder to determine -- so let's not just take the word of people on one end of the equation.

I know many here see a monopoly as a bad thing and in many cases it is but sometimes a monopoly has to be granted for various reasons. Building a network is very expensive and recovering that cost takes years if not decades, you also can't have multiple companies putting up poles and tearing up streets to run underground conduits. You'll end up with more poles than trees and more manhole covers than asphalt.

I know that in NY there's a state agency called the PSC (public service commission) that regulated fees and also imposes fines if the telcos fail to keep up with service outages.
Edited by dasanman69 - 1/8/14 at 6:36am
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • AT&T to let content providers pick up bandwidth tab with new 'sponsored data' service
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › AT&T to let content providers pick up bandwidth tab with new 'sponsored data' service