http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6983375.stm

Quote :

" US backing for two-tier internet The US Justice Department has said that internet service providers should be allowed to charge for priority traffic. The agency said it was opposed to "network neutrality", the idea that all data on the net is treated equally. The comments put the agency at odds with companies such as Microsoft and Google, who have called for legislation to guarantee equal access to the net. The agency submitted its comments to the Federal Communications Commission, which is investigating net access. Several US internet service providers (ISPs), including AT&T and Verizon, have previously said that they want to charge some users more money for certain content. This has particularly become an issue with the rise of TV and film download services. A similar debate is ongoing in the UK. One web The Justice Department said imposing net neutrality regulations could hinder development of the internet and prevent ISPs from upgrading networks. The agency said it could also shift the "entire burden of implementing costly network expansions and improvements onto consumers". "Regulators should be careful not to impose regulations that could limit consumer choice and investment in broadband facilities," said Thomas Barnett, the department's antitrust chief. The agency's stance is contrary to much of the internet community that believes in an open model for the internet. Net neutrality advocates argue that a two-tier internet would allow broadband providers to become gatekeepers to the web's content. Providers that can pay will be able to get a commercial advantage over those that cannot, they say. In particular, there is a fear that institutions like universities and charities would suffer. Last year, Sir Tim Berners-Lee the inventor of the web rallied against the idea of a two-tier internet. "What's very important from my point of view is that there is one web," he said. "Anyone that tries to chop it into two will find that their piece looks very boring." "

9/7/2007 12:31:59 PM

this is more of a political discussion than a technical one. to the soap box it goes.

9/7/2007 12:34:21 PM

why the hell is the DOJ weighing in on this?

9/7/2007 1:03:57 PM

Gonzales' last-ditch attempt at a legacy before carrying his office decorations out in a box?

9/7/2007 4:39:58 PM

What I don't get is why people are calling for such regulation (net neutrality) before any problems have developed?

Let's wait and see if such product differentiation actually turns out to be a problem. But I seriously doubt most internet users would be upset to have their traffic given a lower priority, if it manages to reduce their monthly bill.

9/7/2007 11:50:57 PM

Quote :

"if it manages to reduce their monthly bill."

Rub!

9/7/2007 11:56:20 PM

Quote :

"What I don't get is why people are calling for such regulation (net neutrality) before any problems have developed?"

ummmm, maybe it's because they don't want those problems to develop? Maybe it's because they firmly believe that the Internet should NOT be divided up into the haves and have-nots at the whim of the telecommunication companies, especially under the guise of such specious and false claims.

9/8/2007 12:58:43 AM

I've never understood why this is the issue nerds get a hardon over.

If they really want to help consumers, breakup the broadband duopolies and force companies to actually compete.

9/8/2007 1:07:17 AM

^ works for me.... I just want the fastest internet I can get, for the cheapest price, and without anyone fucking with my data between my computer and it's destination.

9/8/2007 1:21:57 AM

Quote :

"If they really want to help consumers, breakup the broadband duopolies and force companies to actually compete."

That sounds wonderful, in theory. But like many things, it's not quite that simple. This is definitely one of those areas where the less government intervention we have, the better. A world full of tier-1 providers would be tough to scale. If you read up on the protocols supporting this internet, I think that will become more clear.

Quote :

"What I don't get is why people are calling for such regulation (net neutrality) before any problems have developed? "

Problems have developed- lots and lots of them...

9/8/2007 3:55:58 AM

Oh, my bad. Please provide me links to the concrete examples you speak of, hopefully with explanations for why the only good solution is banning tiered network service?

Personally, I don't see how it could be a problem; we live with tiered service on everything, from cable TV to buying a car, I don't see why everyone should be forced to pay the same for network access. Tiered service allows for customer price differentiation, resulting in wider distribution, lower prices for the price concious, and better access for the access concious. Everyone wins, so imagine my shock when you blatantly state without detail that such systems have produced problems and thus should be banned outright. Might we at least be allowed to see what the problems were? Maybe I have a less invasive solution. Thanks.

9/8/2007 8:36:22 AM

^ What incentive does a company have to offer tiered service when there is no competition? I mean, people pretty much hate paying 100 month for internet and cable when they watch maybe 10 channels and browse a couple hours a night, but they do it anyway.

Do you think with a tiered model, the cable companies are actually going to LOWER their profits when they are raking it in as it is now?

9/8/2007 9:38:29 AM

Ok, the question is whether there is competition or not. If there is no competition then they will be raking in the profits regardless of what type of service they are allowed to offer. But it is not all bad, in response to high profits the company will try to spread its network as wide as possible and as quickly as possible.

But even with a government guaranteed monopoly, which I seriously doubt is what we have, customers will still be better served with tiered service. Whatever network is built by the company, being forced to charge everyone the same price means in order for the company to charge individuals that don't mind "paying 100 month for internet when they...browse a couple hours a night" the full $100 a month, it must also charge individuals that are cost conscious $100 a month, even though they only browse a couple hours a night and so are only willing to pay $60 a month. Well, tiered service allows TWC to offer Road Runner Lite for $49.95, which the cost conscious customer will seek out and sign up for, damn the reduced service. Meanwhile, individuals that either don't care about money or care a lot about faster access will sign up for Road Runner Premium at $100 a month. The company rakes in higher profits, more customers get access, and no one is paying any more than they would without tiered service.

But, if it turns out we really do have competition then tiered service really shines. By allowing price conscious users to connect and share the cost the network, which has to be built and maintained regardless of whether they connect to it or not, then premium users can share the costs more widely and thus face lower prices.

Of course, I must point out that like all network markets, from railroads to utilities, the existence of just two evenly matched competitors will land both of them in bankruptcy, both waiting for the other to shut down and enable prices to rise. This does not encourage network expansion, hence the phrase "ruinous competition", and why most governments act to discourage competition in such markets. Back in the days before such regulation, by 1890 over half of all railroad miles in America were being managed by bankruptcy courts on behalf of bond holders.

9/8/2007 10:48:14 AM

that's not the "tier" they are talking about, dumbass. the "tier" is "my data is more important than your data because I pay more money than you." Right now, all data is treated equally, no matter how much money the sender pays, and that is how it should be. otherwise, you end up with the telecomm companies telling people to pony up in order for their data to get through, something they have already been shown to try to do.

9/8/2007 1:59:34 PM

I'm sorry, I don't know what you thought I was talking about, but what I wrote applies. Signing up for Road Runner Premium means your data is more important than someone signed up for Road Runner Lite. If the network must decide to drop one of two packets, it drops the Lite (hypothetically, RR cannot currently do this).

You see no problem in differentiating service when it comes to throughput, but it is suddenly ridiculous when they start differentiating when it comes to reliability? Why must all data be treated equally? Do you really think a retired grandmother with Road Runner Lite cares that it takes another half-second for her page request to go through? Absolutely not, she cares about the $15 a month it is saving her. Why should she be forced to pay the full $45 a month beyond making you warm and fuzzy about network equality?

I admit I might have confused you by using Road Runner as an example because their network is not set up for this, since it is a shared channel network (prone to collisions) until it gets on the fiber.

[Edited on September 8, 2007 at 3:44 PM. Reason : .,.]

9/8/2007 3:42:13 PM

Thats just the thing. The demand is somewhat inelastic. The invest is too large still for true competition to happen. People that would rather pay less money for less service don't even have the option, so why would the cable company give them the option to pay them less?

We do have monopolies. Subsidized by the taxpayers decades ago, and the cable/phone companies still want more money and government protected wealth.

9/8/2007 4:19:25 PM

don't forget about these great surcharges we allow the cable and telephone companies to charge for network upgrades. Too bad they haven't done any network upgrades.

9/8/2007 5:28:22 PM

Quote :

"I'm sorry, I don't know what you thought I was talking about, but what I wrote applies. Signing up for Road Runner Premium means your data is more important than someone signed up for Road Runner Lite. If the network must decide to drop one of two packets, it drops the Lite (hypothetically, RR cannot currently do this)."

that is not at all how it works. for RR lite you are paying for less bandwidth, which makes perfect sense. routers aren't limiting whose packets get through in this situation. it is a best effort attempt at transmission on every packet, not just the packets of people who pay out the ass.

the other reason people are up in arms about "net neutrality" is that ISPs want to charge non-customers for the "use" of their networks. In other words, Bell South wants to charge Microsoft for the right to transmit data to networks in the carolinas, even though Microsoft is already paying its ISP for transmission privileges. It's an absolute smack in the face to what the internet was meant to be, and it would be absolutely detrimental to smaller companies and even "free speech" if ISPs were allowed to do this.

9/8/2007 9:36:50 PM

aaronburro, your reading comprehension is poor. Allow me to quote myself: "RR cannot currently do this." I was being hypothetical.

Now, again, why is it alright to charge more for increased bandwidth, but abhorrent to charge more for increased reliability? Again, why should grandma be prevented from accepting increased packet loss in exchange for reduced monthly fees? Does it not occur to you that not everyone can afford $45 a month and would gladly accept slightly greater packet loss if they could get service for $30?

Quote :

"People that would rather pay less money for less service don't even have the option, so why would the cable company give them the option to pay them less?"

What state are you living in? Most cable companies give you the option of reduced service for less money. Here in NC, time Warner already offers RR Premium, RR High Speed, and RR Lite. As the network is currently structured it does not support prioritization, so they are merely scaling throughput presently. (8mbps, 5mbps, and 1.5mbps).

Quote :

"We do have monopolies...the cable/phone companies still want more money and government protected wealth."

Not to nitpick, but I do not believe they still constitute a monopoly. They are competing with dissimilar products, but there is competition. Even if there was no competition, it is the content producers which are getting rich (ESPN, Disney, Fox, CNN, etc). Disney alone receives $1.3 billion from Time Warner Cable in exchange for the right to carry its channels.

If you want to know why competition is not bringing down cable bills, its because while there are many providers, from TWC to Verizon to DirecTV, there is only one Disney; and it gets to walk away with more than just the profits at the end of the day. If Time Warner starts to turn a profit, Disney just demands more money.

As such, although delivering internet service costs substantially more in terms of hardware, complexity, and maintenance, internet service ends up costing about the same if not less than standard television service.

9/9/2007 1:27:33 AM

I would say anything less than what we have now would be against the best interests of the public

9/9/2007 3:34:47 AM

Loneshark, you've made it clear that you have absolutely no idea what the net neutrality argument is discussing. Did you even read the article?

The issue at hand is the legality of ISPs giving preferential treatment to one type of traffic vs another. You're discussing tiered bandwidth services. The US government is not suggesting a ban on different 'tiers' of customer bandwidth...

Aaronburro is completely right.

There have been dozens of issues that have come up regarding net neutrality, most notably VOIP, streaming video, and file sharing.

Just trying to help you understand the topic at hand. It's probably better off if this thread were moved back to tech talk

9/9/2007 4:39:08 AM

Quote :

"Allow me to quote myself: "RR cannot currently do this." I was being hypothetical. "

Quote :

"why is it alright to charge more for increased bandwidth, but abhorrent to charge more for increased reliability? "

Quote :

"Does it not occur to you that not everyone can afford $45 a month and would gladly accept slightly greater packet loss if they could get service for $30?"

I see where I fucked up. By constantly referring to the names "RR Premium" and "RR Lite" people are incapable of remembering that I am being hypothetical here and not actually referring to the current incarnation of those services, no matter how many times I inform them. I know RR does not currently differentiate between data, I was merely using the friggin' names. But fine, I'll make up some names to help you avoid confusion.

"Bumfuck Premium" provides higher priority data service than "Bumfuck Lite." Now, go re-read what I wrote substituting these names for the "RR" ones I used.

Now, answer the damn question: "why is it alright to charge more for increased bandwidth, but abhorrent to charge more for increased reliability?" That is what we are talking about here. If my data has a higher priority than your data then when a collision occurs it is your data that gets dropped. You only experience this as a higher packet loss rate.

[Edited on September 9, 2007 at 9:34 AM. Reason : .,.]

9/9/2007 9:29:45 AM

It's not a highway. You are proving you don't know shit about the internet.

In other words, my website timewarnercablesucks.com takes forever to load or doesn't load at all. Now is that fair?

9/9/2007 10:46:43 AM

Yeah, you guys are talking about apples and oranges.

Lonesnark: You are talking about purchasing bandwidth, i.e. why can't the end consumer buy as much internet as he wants? Why can't the consumer buy more reliability?

aaronburro: He's talking about purchasing content.

There is some net neutrality discussion around the ability of ISPs to provide tiered service based on bandwidth. However, the main net neutrality arguement is centered around the question of whether or not ISPs should be able to charge based on content. Should TWC be able to levy a surcharge against the consumer for access to google? Should TWC be able to charge google an additional fee for access to TWC users?

I don't think (from reading his posts) aaronburro is against buying bandwidth, nor is he concerned with content limitations based on purchased bandwidth (e.g. not being able to watch video feeds over dial-up). He's concerned with the ability of ISPs to regulate based not on traffic, but rather on content. He's concerned that TWC may deny him access to brentroad.com because brentroad.com hasn't paid an 'access fee' separate from their bandwidth costs.

Using snail mail as a poor analogy, aaronburro is OK with buying a stamp for each letter he sends (buying bandwidth). He would not be OK with having to pay extra because of what's in the letter (e.g. love letters cost an extra 10 cents; bills cost an extra dollar).

9/9/2007 10:55:39 AM

Well, there are several ways the market could play out. There is the customer model and the content model. I was addressing one, you evidently only care about the other. It is possible for it to work out as the cable television industry has, but oddly enough it is exactly the opposite of what you seem to theorize. Time Warner pays Disney $1.3 billion so its customers can access Disney's TV channels. Why do we think it would work out the exact reverse for access to its internet content?

It sounds to me like the real worry is Google walking up to Time Warner and proclaiming it will block all Time Warner IP addresses if it does not pony up a million dollars in "access fees" to Google.

If my picture is fuzzy or if the channels I want to watch are not available on my cable service, I call a satellite provider. Similarly, if Google takes forever to load at my house, because my cable company has blocked them or vise versa, but load instantly at my neighbors house, because they have Fiber, then my cable provider loses. Since the market power seems to be vested the same way in both instances, I believe we should expect the cash flow to also work out the same way.

[Edited on September 9, 2007 at 1:29 PM. Reason : .,.]

9/9/2007 1:23:41 PM

Quote :

"It sounds to me like the real worry is Google walking up to Time Warner and proclaiming it will block all Time Warner IP addresses if it does not pony up a million dollars in "access fees" to Google."

I know you're probably just using Google as an example, but that's not a possibility. Google is extremely interested in settlement-free peering with as many ISPs as possible, using transit as sparingly as possible, and would never charge an ISP for associated services (search, gmail, etc). That's just not part of their business model.

Quote :

"Why do we think it would work out the exact reverse for access to its internet content? "

That's the way the internet has always been. Cost/bandwidth/benefit issues are handled at the peering and transit negotiation stage between ISPs/carriers, with those costs being passed along to customers in the form of monthly fees. However, you're still paying for a full routing table.

The issue is still with regards to preferential treatment of particular types of traffic, not a block on connectivity to particular sites/addresses altogether. I simply cannot see and provider blocking access to google, yahoo, msn, etc.

9/9/2007 1:58:52 PM

Neither can I, if I have the vested interests worked out right. But what about seeing a content owner blocking access to a certain provider? I agree with you, Google would not do such a thing, I suspect that's why we don't have the Google Channel. But Disney would, I'm wondering why they have not. It is really just tradition that is differentiating pay-access television from pay-access internet?

9/9/2007 2:25:36 PM

I don't think it's tradition, I think it's a difference in interests, as you've mentioned.

If Sprint peers with Aol, both parties will likely benefit from the interconnection, as they are improving their customer experience in a number of ways as well as reducing their transit utilization and associated cost. As a result, customers will likely experience reduced latency, potentially higher capacity, and under effective traffic engineer will also experience less downtime as a result of oversubscription, component failure, scheduled maintenance, etc.

That said, there are pay-access services on the internet as well, but I guess that's starting to get even more off-topic

9/9/2007 3:27:40 PM

ITS NOT A TRUCK

ITS A SERIES OF TUBES

9/9/2007 4:21:50 PM

^well put, sir

9/9/2007 8:06:46 PM

I haven't read all the way to the tail end of the thread, but up to the point of "Bumfuck Lite" and "Bumfuck Premium," I'll put forth my agreement that LoneSnark doesn't seem to understand what the net neutrality debate is actually about.

9/9/2007 10:46:13 PM

Quote :

"They are competing with dissimilar products, but there is competition."

Such as satellite, which has much higher costs to enter the market, and still manages more HD channels and regular channels in general for less money? Radio? Over the air?

Quote :

"What state are you living in? Most cable companies give you the option of reduced service for less money. Here in NC, time Warner already offers RR Premium, RR High Speed, and RR Lite. As the network is currently structured it does not support prioritization, so they are merely scaling throughput presently. (8mbps, 5mbps, and 1.5mbps)."

I guess I was talking a little more about the cable selection, not the internet selection. But generally speaking, the bottom line is they still have local monopolies, and we still may for our internet and tv than other parts of the world.

Quote :

"Even if there was no competition, it is the content producers which are getting rich (ESPN, Disney, Fox, CNN, etc). Disney alone receives $1.3 billion from Time Warner Cable in exchange for the right to carry its channels."

Must be enough love to go around

http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/19/news/companies/pluggedin_mehta_timewarnercable.fortune/index.htm

Quote :

"While the IPO filing offered little new information about the cable company's strategy or its growth projections, it revealed that Time Warner Cable is extremely profitable for its parent: Its 2005 net income was almost $1.3 billion"

9/9/2007 11:09:27 PM

Quote :

"Such as satellite, which has much higher costs to enter the market"

True, but not for the reasons you think. Launching three or four satellites is cheap compared to permanently employing an army of well paid technicians going around to every house to install, repair, or upgrade equipment. The problem with DirecTV is that even after launching the satellite the ground equipment is ungodly expensive and often still needs an army of technicians going around to every house to install, repair, or upgrade. It's too bad USDTV didn't work out...

Quote :

"Must be enough love to go around"

True, but not true for the reasons you might think. The more profit TW manages to squeeze out of cable TV service, the more it hands over to the channel owners. But that is not the case for everything else: DVR service, digital cable, basic cable, internet, and telephone. All these earn profits that no one can take away (except maybe competitors). Which is not to say TW earns nothing for its pay TV service, it most certainly does. Channel providers aren't stupid enough to kill their golden goose; they just take their lions share.

What I am still missing is why everyone seems to think the internet access is going to turn out so radically different from television access in terms of who pays who.

9/10/2007 12:42:03 AM

maybe I should have left this in tech talk.

I neglected to consider the "IKE" factor of soap box regulars.

Also, LoneSnark doesn't even begin to understand what he's trying to argue about. I guess this illustrates why the DOJ has no business opining on things that are far above their technical acumen.

9/10/2007 7:03:10 AM

Net Neutrality was addressed to death last year when it was actually a policy issue before congress, the DOJ report not withstanding. Forgive me if I wish to discuss unconventional aspects to the subject which were not addressed in the article. Feel free to hold a parallel discussion if you feel there is anything of value that was not already said in the last 10 threads with similar titles.

9/10/2007 8:42:34 AM

It would behoove you to comprehend the technical aspects of what you're arguing about.

But if people here adhered to that, the soap box would be pretty much empty...

9/10/2007 9:15:37 AM

And which aspects have I gotten wrong? Please, if there is something I do not know then do inform me, I am an engineer and believed myself to already have a firm grasp of network dynamics, evidently in error judging from your words.

[Edited on September 10, 2007 at 9:33 AM. Reason : .,.]

9/10/2007 9:33:05 AM

^^^^^Mostly because the internet and cable TV are vastly different in terms of content distribution.

Internet is somewhat similar to traditional broadcast television: providers broadcast content to everyone. The only cost to the consumer is the cost of airwave access (i.e. a television). The internet is similar except that the broadcast medium is a computer network vice airwaves. Publishers provide content to all network users, just like broadcast television provides content to all airwave 'users'. The only consumer cost is access cost (a TV or an ISP connection)--the key point being that the user pays for access, not content. This in no different than a telephone line: the user buys access to the telephone network, thereby allowing him to call anyone and say anything.

Cable TV does not provide any sort of network whereby all network users have access to all published content. The Disney Channel, ESPN, etc. are not in the business of providing content to end users. They sell content to cable operators who in turn re-sell that content to end users. When you purchase cable TV service, you are buying the content that cable provides. You are not buying access to 'THE' cable network.

9/10/2007 9:37:05 AM

^^ You are confusing bandwidth with traffic prioritization, which are two VASTLY different concepts.

9/10/2007 10:32:16 AM

^ I am not. Like I said, those that read my posts became confused between the two because I was equating the two: in my mind they are not morally dissimilar. As such, my posts were written to argue that the difference between them, to the end user at least, is morally identical.

You obviously disagree with this assertion. As such, why do you believe it is perfectly fine for an internet provider to charge more for additional bandwidth, but should be criminal for them to charge more for additional reliability (which is all it is to have a higher priority of traffic: your data goes through at the expense of others, a right you are paying for).

A Tanzarian, I agree the two are considered different. But if the firms involved wished for the internet to function like cable TV does they could. They have the IP address of the user, which they could use to discern the internet provider and then either service or deny based upon that information. So, it is not like radio where it is technically impossible to stop anyone with a radio from listening. I guess I am just going to have to settle for the answers I already have: the barriers for entry on the internet is puny depending on the service in question, where-as to start a Cable Channel requires hundreds of millions in capital. So, when TW and Disney get into a contract dispute, TW isn't going to run off and start its own Disney-esk channel, where-as if Disney.com blocked access from TW customers, the DNS server could be changed to redirect Disney.com to the IP of Qubo.com.

9/10/2007 12:49:29 PM

No one is talking about blocking your access to the googles or ur myspaces. Time warner isn't going to say "google you need to pay us to have people access your websites". Time Warner's customers would revolt.

What Time Warner is going to say is "Google we cannot gaurantee that your google phone service will work 100% of the time on our network with out you paying more to prioritize the traffic". And this is true.

Retards have overblown this to mean that time warner will be killing off everyone but those who pay. But thats not the case. Because things like VoIP are realtime, the packets need to all get there on time and in order. Its absolutely imposisble to gaurantee any QoS over the internet right now. By setting up packet prioritization ISPs can collectively create a "higher tier" of service where the data is prioritized accross networks. In order to keep even that higher teir from being overwhelmed they can either a) limit access by price or b) add capacity. Both results in higher service prices. With option A, those using the higher teir pay more. With option B everyone pays more.

Now if you want to lower overall cost, you need more competition. And to do this you need fewer government regulations combined with an actual demand for better services. This is a completely different issue than net neutrality.

^All the bandwidth in the world wont save you from bit torrent. Only prioritization can.

[Edited on September 10, 2007 at 3:18 PM. Reason : .]

9/10/2007 3:14:08 PM

^ Finally, someone on my side.

9/10/2007 3:22:42 PM

Quote :

"Retards have overblown this to mean that time warner will be killing off everyone but those who pay. But thats not the case. Because things like VoIP are realtime, the packets need to all get there on time and in order."

i agree with this. i think people are concerned that ISPs will take advantage of their "right" to prioritize traffic by de-prioritizing certain content to the point where it's effectively non-accessible. think "hmm, google is really slow today but hey here's a link to TWC's search engine. oh boy, look how fast that came up. the results aren't as good, but i don't have time to wait for google to come up, so i'll just stick with TWC" or think "hmmm, skype isn't working very well lately, maybe i'll sign up for TWC's digital phone instead"

but the reality is, this has been happening all along. ISP's blacklist spammers all the time. but nobody cares enough about spammers to get all up in arms about it. ISP's have also been throttling bittorrent traffic too, which is more noticeable and upsetting to (certain) consumers. yes, it's a slippery slope and there have been a few cases of ISP's supposedly taking it to the extreme and completely disabling access to certain competing or opposing services.

in the end, i still side with network neutralists, but i'm not all TIERED INTERNET WILL KILL FREEDOM

9/10/2007 8:20:53 PM

I would agree that my site-blocking example was poor--I don't think that it will ever reach the point that ISPs will block websites for not paying, or websites denying content because ISPs haven't paid up. However, I do think that net neutrality has a lot to do with ensuring the equitable treatment of data regardless of from who it comes. I guess my net-neutrality stance can be summed up as:

- You should pay for the bandwidth you use.
- ISPs should largely be in the access business and not in the content business.
- I do understand the technical needs for prioritization and such. But all traffic of a certain type should be treated equally, e.g. Google shouldn't be able to 'out-prioritize' Vonage in VoIP by paying more.
- I am OK with limiting certain traffic (e.g. torrents) to maintain reasonable quality of service for all.

'Tier' is an unfortunate choice of term in the net neutrality debate.

[Edited on September 10, 2007 at 9:06 PM. Reason : ]

9/10/2007 9:02:24 PM

Quote :

"True, but not for the reasons you think. Launching three or four satellites is cheap compared to permanently employing an army of well paid technicians going around to every house to install, repair, or upgrade equipment. The problem with DirecTV is that even after launching the satellite the ground equipment is ungodly expensive and often still needs an army of technicians going around to every house to install, repair, or upgrade. It's too bad USDTV didn't work out..."

What kind of horseshit is this you arrogant asshole? I know exactly why it is more expensive, else I wouldn't have posted the damn statement. You first incorrectly assumed I thought it would be prohibitive because of the satellites (only), then assumed that I don't realize they still have to pay an army of installers to baby sit the install and equipment.

Quote :

" The more profit TW manages to squeeze out of cable TV service"

I don't know what the profit margins are like for TW, but I don't see 1.3 billion in income as "squeezing".

9/10/2007 10:32:30 PM

Chance, do calm down. I assumed and then proceded to just talk to no one in particular. I'm glad you know everything and will be more careful in the future to not imply otherwise.

Quote :

"I don't know what the profit margins are like for TW, but I don't see 1.3 billion in income as "squeezing"."

Whether it is 1.3 million or 1.3 trillion, a huge chunk of it will be claimed by the content providers in subsequent negotiations. Just so you know.

9/11/2007 1:35:40 AM

Great quote, Shaggy!

Quote :

"^All the bandwidth in the world wont save you from bit torrent. Only prioritization can."

a sad consequence of the reality that is oversubscription.

9/11/2007 2:57:42 AM

Quote :

"No one is talking about blocking your access to the googles or ur myspaces. Time warner isn't going to say "google you need to pay us to have people access your websites"."

actually, that's EXACTLY what they are talking about, although not directly. Have you not heard the telecomm companies bitching and complaining about how the big name sites are using "their" networks so much? The telecomms hide behind this idea of "content," but really they just want to charge frequently used sites of users on their networks money for the "right" to "use their networks." It's a complete slap in the face to the idea of an "Internet Service PROVIDER."

Moreover, the telecomm companies have already shown a willingness to censor sites that don't fit their agenda and blocking access to them to their subscribers. There are numerous cases of this, so when you say "TWC wouldn't block access," I say "BULLSHIT! They've done it before!"

9/11/2007 6:48:43 AM

Quote :

"Whether it is 1.3 million or 1.3 trillion, a huge chunk of it will be claimed by the content providers in subsequent negotiations. Just so you know."

How huge, please tell me? They both need each other, and apparently TW is getting quite rich on delivering the content that Disney creates, only fair that Disney gets their cut as well. If it were a problem, then TW could just buy a content house and compete against Disney, right?

9/11/2007 8:42:36 AM

Quote :

"Have you not heard the telecomm companies bitching and complaining about how the big name sites are using "their" networks so much?"

The actual quote (by the CEO of AT&T) you're talking about was infact in refrence to Voice and Video data, not web traffic. Also it refers to the content owners paying more for their traffic to get to the users. Not the users paying more for access. The blogosphere didn't catch that part and went into a frenzy of stupid. It got so bad that even the US government got involved in this non-issue and one of the major points allowing the AT&T acquisition of Bell south was that at&t would not degrade or prioritize traffic from the customer's house to AT&Ts network. This was taken as a victory for the blogosphere, but AT&T had never planned to do anything of the sort.

Then end result is that the stupidity and lack of research by the web 2.0 hive mind and some government officials led to the consolidation of 2 of the largest telco companies in the US.

Also, if you have so many examples of Time Warner blocking websites lets see them. If you get up in arms for ISPs throttling bit torrent traffic, you should probably read your contract with them. Bit Torrent is disruptive enough to a network that I could easily see it falling on the bad side of their acceptable use policy.

9/11/2007 10:34:13 AM