Competition among carriers and a proven track record of what customers are willing to pay renders your argument moot.
If there were competitors willing to offer truly unlimited access per month the larger companies might drop their fees.
How can you have real competitors when someone owns the pipe and everyone else is a distributor? Is there any wonder that all the baby bells merged with a large company and AT&T is out-competing all the ISPs we USED TO HAVE like Mindspring? How can we actually know that the "price" isn't completely arbitrary? The only competition is with competing technologies, every other company using a phone line has to go through the "same pipe."
Speaking of "pipes"; there is competition in natural gas in my state -- well, at least as far as you've outlined "competition" -- and ALL OF THEM charge 5 times what it used to cost when it was government run. And they all use the same pipe, and the same installation people (who have no contract or rights now). Literally the only difference between them is the account box you send the money to for the "service." Now they slice up the pay structure in various creative ways, but there is no "quality difference" -- just slight variations in exorbitant price.
They all take turns running sales that lock in a price for a year, and then to get that good price, you have to find another company with the "good deal" next year.
But even with the pretend competition in natural gas, I don't even see a "Competitor" in phone-based internet to AT&T. You can also choose between one cable provider -- and no other cable provider. There are two major ones, but they don't compete in the same areas in our state. The only OPTION here as competition is "Clear" which uses WiMax --- but it's slower than cable and their penetration into new areas seems to have been successfully limited. They aren't growing anymore even though they have a lower price because people can't get them,.. for some reason.
I noticed that I used a lot more air quotes than usual on the "point" I was making. Probably because words like "competition" don't really mean what they used to mean.
The issue I have is net neutrality ... So far, the Internet has been neutral despite what the carriers have tried. Now, AT&T wants to make the Internet cheaper... Sure... I'm thinking they're just going to keep charging us the same and pocket the extra money, like how cable companies charge money and sell ads, too. Then, I'm thinking websites will pop up highlighting the best free media / sites out there, maybe even free media search engines. How will you and I get our media in the public eye? We'll have to pay the telecoms to make the data free. No more free and open Internet. And they'll keep charging their customers the same - the only difference is u and I will be at a major disadvantage in the world of content creation. Under this plan, if you want visitors, you need to shell out money to a telecom. And what incentive will AT&T ever have to offer unlimited data as a plan? It would mean they lose money from the big companies subsidizing the data for us - so goodbye to unlimited plans down the road. I personally would rather it be an even playing field. I'm surprised the Internet has been neutral for this long - let's keep it completely neutral!
How is this a bad idea? Really you must ask? What this means is data will be pay to play. This is the opposite of net neutrality. It means if Youtube sponsors data because they have more money than Vimeo (or a better deal with AT&T) than you'll only be watching YouTube. It means any information or knowledge you wish to seek that isn't from a wealthy cooperation will cost you, but whatever propaganda a huge corporation wishes to push on you is what you will see. This is a DANGEROUS slippery slope, and it is exactly why NET NEUTRALITY laws which currently only apply to landline providers exist, and need to be expanded to ALL providers.
You got it friend; it's an end-run around net neutrality from a different vector. Same pig, different lipstick.
If I purchase MLB.TV subscription and during those162 games, MLB shows me targeted ads vs what is currently a bland screen during inning breaks and pitcher relief. Instead of splitting ad time with a local cable carrier all ads and all revenue goes to MLB. In exchange for the burden of being sold at during a game MLB picks up the BW costs while I'm on the wireless carrier network.
MLB bolting up AT&T directly could leverage multicast to drastically cut the bits on the wire compared to a few hundred thousand individual streams. Costs are cut, revenues grow, margins grow, savings will be passed on as soon as a 2nd carrier does the same deal with MLB. MLB can negotiate a better rate or better features playing one carrier against the other. Enter 3rd Tier 1 carrier, then the tier 2 and 3 carriers.
a la carte
YOU will never see the cost savings just like the "productivity increase" in American workers never translated to pay increases.
AT&T will charge MORE, and then provide a discount for "their stuff", and pretend to have a few more burdens than they actually do. Right now, telephone carrier charges are dealt with by an exchange -- so if a caller from AT&T zone calls say a person on a Nippon network, then it is offset by a Nippon network user calling someone on AT&T. They only PAY when there is some network request that is unbalanced. It's a lot like the banks and the credit card system where they only pay on the DIFFERENCE -- and most transactions cost nothing because they are offset by purchases and sales. There is a clearing house where they settle up any disparities in credit. And getting back to internet content providers, something like Netflix doesn't go broke due to bandwidth because at some point they have to make a deal with a carrier -- and of course, whoever is a user on say, AT&T's network is REQUESTING that data -- so it's a service to THEIR customer already. AT&T doesn't have a service if there is no demand for things on the internet. So the system works. So in a sense, the DEMAND for Netflix content is actually a revenue stream.
Now the other issue here is ads piggy-backing that nobody requested. It "sounds like" a good idea to charge the ad providers because NOBODY requested or was served by their use of the capacity except them and their advertisers. However, it remains to be seen if we don't have an end to net neutrality once that camels nose is under the tent. A better solution would be for AT&T to allow customers to choose to 'not have' advertisements. Then of course, they'd have to pay AT&T to add these adds where we could NOT opt out - just like the Networks get advertiser dollars AND get pay to play from cable because very few get this stuff off the "free" broadcasts anymore.
Ah,... so really this is just AT&T having their cake and eating it too like the TV Networks, or they get to overcharge, and then the content you buy from them gets a discount. Sounds like what every carrier would like; "more fairness that leads to more money in their wallet."
I suppose you think that all those servers, routers, towers, generators, buildings, vehicles, fuel, and the people to maintain them are free?
It amazes me how many people think that companies should give away their products and are surprised when they price stuff to make money. I wonder how you feel about the products at the company you work at (I am assuming you are working)? Should they be free? Do you work for free?
While we all want the best deal - and you should search for it - a company is not evil just for pricing stuff to make money.
How can you have real competitors when someone owns the pipe and everyone else is a distributor? Is there any wonder that all the baby bells merged with a large company and AT&T is out-competing all the ISPs we USED TO HAVE like Mindspring? How can we actually know that the "price" isn't completely arbitrary? The only competition is with competing technologies, every other company using a phone line has to go through the "same pipe."
Speaking of "pipes"; there is competition in natural gas in my state -- well, at least as far as you've outlined "competition" -- and ALL OF THEM charge 5 times what it used to cost when it was government run. And they all use the same pipe, and the same installation people (who have no contract or rights now). Literally the only difference between them is the account box you send the money to for the "service." Now they slice up the pay structure in various creative ways, but there is no "quality difference" -- just slight variations in exorbitant price.
They all take turns running sales that lock in a price for a year, and then to get that good price, you have to find another company with the "good deal" next year.
But even with the pretend competition in natural gas, I don't even see a "Competitor" in phone-based internet to AT&T. You can also choose between one cable provider -- and no other cable provider. There are two major ones, but they don't compete in the same areas in our state. The only OPTION here as competition is "Clear" which uses WiMax --- but it's slower than cable and their penetration into new areas seems to have been successfully limited. They aren't growing anymore even though they have a lower price because people can't get them,.. for some reason.
I noticed that I used a lot more air quotes than usual on the "point" I was making. Probably because words like "competition" don't really mean what they used to mean.
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.
YOU will never see the cost savings just like the "productivity increase" in American workers never translated to pay increases.
AT&T will charge MORE, and then provide a discount for "their stuff", and pretend to have a few more burdens than they actually do. Right now, telephone carrier charges are dealt with by an exchange -- so if a caller from AT&T zone calls say a person on a Nippon network, then it is offset by a Nippon network user calling someone on AT&T. They only PAY when there is some network request that is unbalanced. It's a lot like the banks and the credit card system where they only pay on the DIFFERENCE -- and most transactions cost nothing because they are offset by purchases and sales. There is a clearing house where they settle up any disparities in credit. And getting back to internet content providers, something like Netflix doesn't go broke due to bandwidth because at some point they have to make a deal with a carrier -- and of course, whoever is a user on say, AT&T's network is REQUESTING that data -- so it's a service to THEIR customer already. AT&T doesn't have a service if there is no demand for things on the internet. So the system works. So in a sense, the DEMAND for Netflix content is actually a revenue stream.
Now the other issue here is ads piggy-backing that nobody requested. It "sounds like" a good idea to charge the ad providers because NOBODY requested or was served by their use of the capacity except them and their advertisers. However, it remains to be seen if we don't have an end to net neutrality once that camels nose is under the tent. A better solution would be for AT&T to allow customers to choose to 'not have' advertisements. Then of course, they'd have to pay AT&T to add these adds where we could NOT opt out - just like the Networks get advertiser dollars AND get pay to play from cable because very few get this stuff off the "free" broadcasts anymore.
Ah,... so really this is just AT&T having their cake and eating it too like the TV Networks, or they get to overcharge, and then the content you buy from them gets a discount. Sounds like what every carrier would like; "more fairness that leads to more money in their wallet."
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.
YOU will never see the cost savings just like the "productivity increase" in American workers never translated to pay increases.
blah
blah
blah
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.
Quick note: The other morning, my GF, BJ (not her real name.) went to the fridge to get the strawberry jam jar for some toast. I had used all the jam up, and for no particular reason, put the empty jar back.
She opened it up and while holding up the empty jar to her eye, said, "What the hell is this? It's like the Donner Party round here!"
They’re evil for charging 946 times more for a service than their competitors.
Is Apple the only company allowed to make money? You don't expect to get a Macbook Pro for Netbook money. There's a reason why a MBP costs what it does the same way there's a reason why the major carriers charge a certain price. They’re forced to allow MVNOs on their network. These companies are basically getting corporate welfare, they're allowed to eat on someone else's dime, they do squat in expanding or maintaining the network.
Love how you left out the rest of it. You'll quickly praise Apple for making hefty profits yet will blast anyone else for trying. That's called hypocrisy.
Nah, I’m pretty sure that if Apple was charging 946 times more for something similar to what someone else provided that I’d complain about it, too.
Just like Netbooks those cheapo plans on bootleg carriers aren't the bargain that they seem. There's always a tradeoff but if you're willing to live with them so be it. I for one enjoy being able to make and receive calls all of the time and have access to LTE speeds no matter how much data I use.
Thx, Bro! Now I can't get that song out of my head!
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!
So we’ll have to go around it. What’s the limitation here? Let me guess, no looking anything up.
Only a certain number of people can connect to each tower because each telecom is only allotted a specific section of bandwidth. Additionally, within that section of bandwidth, there is a minimum distance between which individual users can tune so that they don’t hear each other’s conversations or receive static.
Because we’re running up against the maximum number of users per tower (there’s a cell phone for every person on the planet, right?), more towers have to be built. But then telecoms are still restricted to their specific bandwidths, so there’ll still be the problem of shared frequencies and overlap and whatever.
Oh, and on top of that, the frequencies allotted to all cellular telephony has a maximum… compressible (?) data rate due to the limitations of the physics of the frequency itself.
Right? Something like that?
So what are some options for getting around this? Microcells instead of larger towers? Shorter range but all the same frequency options to serve more people, more locally? That would also spur on fiber adoption.
Oh, and why can’t we just hop up into the terahertz bands to get past the data limitations? I can’t imagine those are in use. Still too much power draw to use them effectively?
Multiplexing is evolving all the time... And it can be combined with buffering and the introduction of latency to give the effect of continuous transmission...
Think of it as starting to record a show on you're VCR, waiting few minutes, then playing the recorded showing...
Applied to streaming, as in this article, unused bandwidth (holes) could be filled to assure all receivers get their data packets in near-real-time.
When you think about, really, that winning field goal you saw on the TV last Sunday -- occurred some insignificant seconds before you saw it!
Comments
Competition among carriers and a proven track record of what customers are willing to pay renders your argument moot.
If there were competitors willing to offer truly unlimited access per month the larger companies might drop their fees.
How can you have real competitors when someone owns the pipe and everyone else is a distributor? Is there any wonder that all the baby bells merged with a large company and AT&T is out-competing all the ISPs we USED TO HAVE like Mindspring? How can we actually know that the "price" isn't completely arbitrary? The only competition is with competing technologies, every other company using a phone line has to go through the "same pipe."
Speaking of "pipes"; there is competition in natural gas in my state -- well, at least as far as you've outlined "competition" -- and ALL OF THEM charge 5 times what it used to cost when it was government run. And they all use the same pipe, and the same installation people (who have no contract or rights now). Literally the only difference between them is the account box you send the money to for the "service." Now they slice up the pay structure in various creative ways, but there is no "quality difference" -- just slight variations in exorbitant price.
They all take turns running sales that lock in a price for a year, and then to get that good price, you have to find another company with the "good deal" next year.
But even with the pretend competition in natural gas, I don't even see a "Competitor" in phone-based internet to AT&T. You can also choose between one cable provider -- and no other cable provider. There are two major ones, but they don't compete in the same areas in our state. The only OPTION here as competition is "Clear" which uses WiMax --- but it's slower than cable and their penetration into new areas seems to have been successfully limited. They aren't growing anymore even though they have a lower price because people can't get them,.. for some reason.
I noticed that I used a lot more air quotes than usual on the "point" I was making. Probably because words like "competition" don't really mean what they used to mean.
How is this a bad idea? Really you must ask? What this means is data will be pay to play. This is the opposite of net neutrality. It means if Youtube sponsors data because they have more money than Vimeo (or a better deal with AT&T) than you'll only be watching YouTube. It means any information or knowledge you wish to seek that isn't from a wealthy cooperation will cost you, but whatever propaganda a huge corporation wishes to push on you is what you will see. This is a DANGEROUS slippery slope, and it is exactly why NET NEUTRALITY laws which currently only apply to landline providers exist, and need to be expanded to ALL providers.
You got it friend; it's an end-run around net neutrality from a different vector. Same pig, different lipstick.
If I purchase MLB.TV subscription and during those162 games, MLB shows me targeted ads vs what is currently a bland screen during inning breaks and pitcher relief. Instead of splitting ad time with a local cable carrier all ads and all revenue goes to MLB. In exchange for the burden of being sold at during a game MLB picks up the BW costs while I'm on the wireless carrier network.
MLB bolting up AT&T directly could leverage multicast to drastically cut the bits on the wire compared to a few hundred thousand individual streams. Costs are cut, revenues grow, margins grow, savings will be passed on as soon as a 2nd carrier does the same deal with MLB. MLB can negotiate a better rate or better features playing one carrier against the other. Enter 3rd Tier 1 carrier, then the tier 2 and 3 carriers.
a la carte
YOU will never see the cost savings just like the "productivity increase" in American workers never translated to pay increases.
AT&T will charge MORE, and then provide a discount for "their stuff", and pretend to have a few more burdens than they actually do. Right now, telephone carrier charges are dealt with by an exchange -- so if a caller from AT&T zone calls say a person on a Nippon network, then it is offset by a Nippon network user calling someone on AT&T. They only PAY when there is some network request that is unbalanced. It's a lot like the banks and the credit card system where they only pay on the DIFFERENCE -- and most transactions cost nothing because they are offset by purchases and sales. There is a clearing house where they settle up any disparities in credit. And getting back to internet content providers, something like Netflix doesn't go broke due to bandwidth because at some point they have to make a deal with a carrier -- and of course, whoever is a user on say, AT&T's network is REQUESTING that data -- so it's a service to THEIR customer already. AT&T doesn't have a service if there is no demand for things on the internet. So the system works. So in a sense, the DEMAND for Netflix content is actually a revenue stream.
Now the other issue here is ads piggy-backing that nobody requested. It "sounds like" a good idea to charge the ad providers because NOBODY requested or was served by their use of the capacity except them and their advertisers. However, it remains to be seen if we don't have an end to net neutrality once that camels nose is under the tent. A better solution would be for AT&T to allow customers to choose to 'not have' advertisements. Then of course, they'd have to pay AT&T to add these adds where we could NOT opt out - just like the Networks get advertiser dollars AND get pay to play from cable because very few get this stuff off the "free" broadcasts anymore.
Ah,... so really this is just AT&T having their cake and eating it too like the TV Networks, or they get to overcharge, and then the content you buy from them gets a discount. Sounds like what every carrier would like; "more fairness that leads to more money in their wallet."
It amazes me how many people think that companies should give away their products and are surprised when they price stuff to make money. I wonder how you feel about the products at the company you work at (I am assuming you are working)? Should they be free? Do you work for free?
While we all want the best deal - and you should search for it - a company is not evil just for pricing stuff to make money.
I feel better now.
I suppose you think that’s the argument?
They’re evil for charging 946 times more for a service than their competitors.
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.
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.
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.
LOL
Say hello to the aptly yclept Betty-Jean
Is Apple the only company allowed to make money? You don't expect to get a Macbook Pro for Netbook money. There's a reason why a MBP costs what it does the same way there's a reason why the major carriers charge a certain price. They’re forced to allow MVNOs on their network. These companies are basically getting corporate welfare, they're allowed to eat on someone else's dime, they do squat in expanding or maintaining the network.
Nice strawman.
Love how you left out the rest of it. You'll quickly praise Apple for making hefty profits yet will blast anyone else for trying. That's called hypocrisy.
Because it was starting so well. Look, if you can’t respond to something that someone said, what gives you the right to expect a response in return?
Nah, I’m pretty sure that if Apple was charging 946 times more for something similar to what someone else provided that I’d complain about it, too.
No, it’s called trolling. Stop it.
Just like Netbooks those cheapo plans on bootleg carriers aren't the bargain that they seem. There's always a tradeoff but if you're willing to live with them so be it. I for one enjoy being able to make and receive calls all of the time and have access to LTE speeds no matter how much data I use.
LOL
Say hello to the aptly yclept Betty-Jean
Thanks, Bro. I let her know you are thinking of her!
"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!
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!
Payback Bro!
LOL
Say hello to the aptly yclept Betty-Jean
Her real name is Patti Jean. Her friends and family call her PJ.
I, more often than not, call her BJ, and she always says, "Did you just call me BJ?" I, of course, always say, "no Honey, I said PJ!"
She always looks at me quizzically, and I can see the inner wheels working in her brain trying to figure out whether to be mad or not!
Oh well, rambling again, sorry!
Best.
Have a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplexing
Multiplexing is evolving all the time... And it can be combined with buffering and the introduction of latency to give the effect of continuous transmission...
Think of it as starting to record a show on you're VCR, waiting few minutes, then playing the recorded showing...
Applied to streaming, as in this article, unused bandwidth (holes) could be filled to assure all receivers get their data packets in near-real-time.
When you think about, really, that winning field goal you saw on the TV last Sunday -- occurred some insignificant seconds before you saw it!