Nickname: matt

Review: If the arguement is that ISP providers want to make sure that certain types of Internet use, ie- TV, VoIP, etc, don't experience delays/connection losses. Then why don't they offer higher bandwidths at higher prices? I pay for 5Mbps downstream and 387 kbs upstream. I have never acheived these speeds, or even came close. Did they oversell their network capabilities? Shouldn't I be able to use what I paid for how I want? Could someone explain to me why they say a certain speed, but can't deliver on that and now are complaining that people are trying to use what they paid for?

Date reviewed: Jun 22, 2006 4:12 AM

Nickname: ahen57

Review: SBC-ATT = the worst tech support. They were unaware of their own e-mail issues and unable to speak English clear enough to understand. Only knew to tell me to "delete cookies." One tech crashed my computer, another one told me to hire someone to look at my PC. The problem was the service the whole time.

Date reviewed: May 16, 2006 6:18 AM

Nickname: nr

Review: The answer is competition. The more competition we have, the more choices, and the less chances of these ancient bloated telcom companies being able to screw people over and make the rules. The problem is that they have Congress on their side and have already dug themselves in. The blame rests with the American people for voting in the drunken sailors in Congress right now. And of course the reason we don't have enough competition is because of excessive regulation by government.

Date reviewed: Apr 28, 2006 12:57 AM

Nickname: InquiringMind

Review: Me again. Just had another thought. If the ISPs' argument is that high-usage consumers are getting more than they are paying for, perhaps we need to move to a pricing scheme where you pay a certain flat rate for your connection speed and a predetermined volume of usage, then pay extra for additional usage. That way, the guy that HAS to have 30ms pings to his game or INSTANTLY fast web pages/downloads can have it at an affordable price, so long as he doesn't saturate his 30mbps connection 24x7x365. If every subscriber of broadband was to saturate it, it would drive ISPs' costs through the roof and raise the rates for everyone. Perhaps to keep the rates generally low, the ISPs need to decide how much water we can drink from the well before having to pay by the glass. Charging the content providers may be easier than getting users to pay for what they use, though. It's easier to irritate publishers than it is users in a competitive market.

Date reviewed: Dec 20, 2005 9:33 PM

Nickname: InquiringMind

Review: Regarding the computer thing, I think it is a bit old, but it probably came from an April 19, 1999 BusinessWeek article, "The Last Monopolist," -see the Resume sidebar. <br><br> On another note, can someone explain why it would be fair for a service provider, i.e. Google, to pay astronomical bandwidth fees on one end, and then get nickled and dimed by every ISP that saw fit to recapitalize on their paying subscribers on the other end? <br><br> The idea seems to have *some* merit, in the sense that the big ISPs do some kind of multiple point of presence hosting deal, where their customers would obviously have a short route to host. Sort of like what Akamai did? <br><br> What's the IETF's stance on this? Are methods available for this kind of QoS based on source and content? If not, then how does it get done w/o the IETF's nod of approval? <br><br>

Date reviewed: Dec 20, 2005 9:25 PM

Nickname: Mediaman

Review: I have been writing for years that the FCC is aimed at supporting telco's and cable at the expense of independent content providers who want access to be able to offer competing, better services, greater choices, at lower prices than the "monopoly" providers. Recent FCC decisions only reinforce the reality of "protectionism" afforded the telcos and cable, generated through outrageous political contributions to legislators at all levels--local, state, and particularly Congress and Senate influential legislators. We must make our opinions known to these folks who supposedly represent us, and make them legislate "open access" to the infrastructure created through monopoly licensing and regulation that has allowed and continues to allow extraordinary profits to these "profit mongers."

Date reviewed: Dec 20, 2005 4:56 PM

Nickname: Harold D

Review: If Mr. Whitacre does not use a computer, just what is he doing heading a technology company like SBC/ATT anyway. It's just not right that he thinks that the "pipes" that SBC/ATT has are not paid for already (See other comments). It might be better for all if he studied Macro Economics, the Supply and Demand graph?i.e. Increasing price will drop demand and will eventually kill off the telcos with users going to Cable or Sat Providers. Competition is great and his ideas will not meet the challenge of growing ATT/SBC--users going to VOIP. Also I am given the idea that there is some spare unused bandwidth available by those who are supposed to know. And lastly, I no longer own stock in any telco.

Date reviewed: Dec 18, 2005 7:51 PM

Nickname: OpenAccess

Review: The claim by broadband providers that other companies are using their bandwidth for free is a canard. "AT&T CEO Edward Whitacre Jr. declared: What [Google, Vonage, and others] would like to do is to use my pipes free. But I ain't going to let them do that.'" Contrary to Whitacre's claim, it is his customers that are using the bandwidth, not the other companies. Whitacre's customers have already paid him for that bandwidth with their monthly service fee. Don't let AT&T's Whitacre and other broadband providers succeed with such a claim. He is trying to double-bill for services.

Date reviewed: Dec 17, 2005 7:02 AM

Nickname: SBC_Employee

Review: Why would anyone listen to what Ed Whitacre says about the Net or how it should work when he doesn't have a computer at home or in his office? And why hasn;t anyone asked why consumers or content providers should pay more than once for their Internet connection? The Internet works like this: Each node (customer, content provider, whatever) pays an ISP for a connection and the ISPs pay each other through peering and interconnection agreements. It is up to the ISPs and their partners to work out the charges for backbone connections. The backbone providers (AT&T, UUNET, etc) should only be allowed to get money from interconnection agreements, not from every blessed node that traverses their backbone on the way to another node, especially based on content. The first breakup of AT&T got it wrong. It should have separated facilities from services, not long distance from local service. The telcos must be broken up again--the right way.

Date reviewed: Dec 17, 2005 2:53 AM

Nickname: Steve S

Review: FCC ruling 05-150 is a travisty. This will end up kiling innovative services over the Web. Why should a consumer pay for broadband access only to be denied use of it if they choose to use the "wrong service?" All modern access equipment (DSLAMS, CMTS, etc built in the last six years) has the ability to limit user bandwidth on a per user basis. The problem with using this is that users become acutely aware of the over subscription of the network if this feature is employed. Consumers pay for access to the network with "best effort" bandwidth. Service providers (such as Google) pay per bit transferred. Use of Mr. Whitacre's "pipes" is already paid. Throttling capability is already deployed in many networks and is unfairly applied on a service by service basis. Some networks, for instance, throttle file sharing to 0. Innovation in the network is at a standstill because of protectionist rulings like 05-150.

Date reviewed: Dec 16, 2005 11:21 PM