PDA

View Full Version : **** the FCC


Ultra Peanut
03-23-2006, 10:55 AM
http://www.networkingpipeline.com/blog/archives/2006/03/fcc_chief_att_c.html

March 22, 2006
FCC Chief: AT&T Can Limit Net Bandwidth

FCC Chief Kevin Martin yesterday gave his support to AT&T and other telcos who want to be able to limit bandwidth to sites like Google, unless those sites pay extortion fees. Martin made it clear in a speech yesterday that he supports such a a "tiered" Internet.

Martin told attendees at the TelecomNext show that telcos should be allowed to charge web sites whatever they want if those sites want adequate bandwidth.

He threw in his lot with AT&T, Verizon, and the other telcos, who are no doubt salivating at the prospect at charging whatever the market can bear.

He did throw a bone to those who favor so-called "net neutrality" -- the idea that telcos and other ISPs should not be allowed to limit services or bandwidth, or charge sites extra fees. He said that the FCC "has the authority necessary" to enforce network neutrality violations. He added that it had done so already, when it stepped in to stop an ISP from blocking Vonage VoIP service.

But Martin's interpretation of "net neutrality" is far too narrow, and almost besides the point. By siding with telcos who want to be able to offer adequate bandwidth to sites that pay up, and to limit bandwidth to sites that don't, he'll help kill off new sites that can't afford to fork over the money.

That could help end Internet and network innovation, and we simply can't afford that.This is beyond ****ed up. What is wrong with these assclowns?!

JBucc
03-23-2006, 10:57 AM
That's bullshit

Rain Man
03-23-2006, 10:58 AM
Help me through the implications of this.

Mr. Laz
03-23-2006, 10:59 AM
not to touch on a sensitive subject ... but isn't the head of the FCC the son of Colon Powell or something?

Mr. Laz
03-23-2006, 11:00 AM
Help me through the implications of this.


basically the ISP's can control the flow of the internet

Cave Johnson
03-23-2006, 11:01 AM
This is beyond ****ed up. What is wrong with these assclowns?!

They're in the pocket of the telcos, that's what's wrong with them. Internet companies don't have the same long track record of spending on campaigns and lobbying. Expect more anti-consumer decision like this until federal elections are publicly funded.

CoMoChief
03-23-2006, 11:01 AM
not to touch on a sensitive subject ... but isn't the head of the FCC the son or Colon Powell or something?


Yup. I know he works for them with a really high position. I dont know if he's the head chairman or anything, he may be, but I dont know.

Cave Johnson
03-23-2006, 11:02 AM
not to touch on a sensitive subject ... but isn't the head of the FCC the son or Colon Powell or something?

Yep, Michael Powell.

Rain Man
03-23-2006, 11:04 AM
basically the ISP's can control the flow of the internet

How is this different than TV networks controlling the content of television? Or the telephone company charging people to make phone calls?

I must admit, I don't understand the problem. If it takes more bandwidth for some sites, why should they get the same access as a small site?

Oh, wait. I get it. No one's paying right now. Is that it? So this would mean that the guy with Punky Brewster tribute site would then start having to pay, and might not want to pay for the Punky Brewster site?

Or am I off base?

ChiefsfaninPA
03-23-2006, 11:06 AM
not to touch on a sensitive subject ... but isn't the head of the FCC the son of Colon Powell or something?

Not anymore, I beleive he stepped down last year.

kepp
03-23-2006, 11:08 AM
So, sites already pay network providers for their bandwidth, this would just gouge them again on the other side, right? I can't say I agree too much to that...if I'm seeing it right.

patteeu
03-23-2006, 11:09 AM
It sounds like a reasonable concept to me although I don't know how it would work out in practice. If websites can charge advertisers different amounts based on their traffic, why shouldn't ISPs be able to charge different amounts based on bandwidth usage?

morphius
03-23-2006, 11:10 AM
How is this different than TV networks controlling the content of television? Or the telephone company charging people to make phone calls?

I must admit, I don't understand the problem. If it takes more bandwidth for some sites, why should they get the same access as a small site?

Oh, wait. I get it. No one's paying right now. Is that it? So this would mean that the guy with Punky Brewster tribute site would then start having to pay, and might not want to pay for the Punky Brewster site?

Or am I off base?
Sort of like that. Each site will have to make deals with each ISP if they want full speed access, though the companies already pay to have bandwidth on the internet from the telco's already.

I wonder if google, yahoo and a couple others got togheter if they could reverse the play on it and tell the telcos/ISP's if they want access to their sites they will have to pay.

What a mess this could create. It will also bump up the cost of VoIP, as companies could degrade acccess to that.

patteeu
03-23-2006, 11:13 AM
So, sites already pay network providers for their bandwidth, this would just gouge them again on the other side, right? I can't say I agree too much to that...if I'm seeing it right.

Right now they pay for capacity. This proposal would charge them for actual usage seperate from the amount they pay for maximum capacity. Theoretically, if the ISP was going to make $200 off of two users who want the same maximum bandwidth capacity, they could either charge them both $100 or they could charge them both $50 for the capacity and allocate the other $100 worth of charges based on actual usage.

unlurking
03-23-2006, 11:18 AM
Sort of like that. Each site will have to make deals with each ISP if they want full speed access, though the companies already pay to have bandwidth on the internet from the telco's already.

I wonder if google, yahoo and a couple others got togheter if they could reverse the play on it and tell the telcos/ISP's if they want access to their sites they will have to pay.

What a mess this could create. It will also bump up the cost of VoIP, as companies could degrade acccess to that.
Exactly. Let's say Google pays AT&T for several pipes hosting their services. Let's then imagine an internet surfer is using Qwest DSL. It may be that to get to the site, that user goes from Qwest, to MCI (now Verizon), to AT&T. Qwest and MCI will now want to charge a "premium" from Google because Google represents a large portion of traffic coming across their network. The user then gets slower connectivity to Google because Qwest and MCI "throttle" back the speed on this "bandwidth hog", or they force Google to pay a QoS (quality of service) fee to guarantee that users don't get crappy throughput.

Welcome to dial-up speeds on broadband connections.

Mr. Laz
03-23-2006, 11:26 AM
If it takes more bandwidth for some sites, why should they get the same access as a small site?

they already charge "per bandwidth"


i believe this is actually allowing them to charge different people, different rates for bandwidth.

i think they also want to charge a "priority charge" ... meaning certain site will get the "right of way" in internet traffic if they pay more.


people complain all the time about the conservative media or the liberal media. About how the money controls the flow of information.

well this is expanding this "money control" to the internet.


people don't like that concept much.


it can also be easily expanded to marketing.


for example you wanna buy a computer part or somethign online .......... you do a search to find one. But the sellers that pay the most will ALWAYS be the sites that come up first in your buying search.

Ultra Peanut
03-23-2006, 11:29 AM
The more I think about this, the more I want to throw up. I'm so glad the FCC is there for the little guy. :rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter
03-23-2006, 11:46 AM
Money buys preferential treatment/access? Who'd have thunk it......? :spock:

Now I understand why I feel oppressed driving my Honda, when all along I've really wanted a Mercedes or BMW--damn it, I'm entitled to that luxury car!

:deevee:

SLAG
03-23-2006, 11:50 AM
Money buys preferential treatment/access? Who'd have thunk it......? :spock:

Now I understand why I feel oppressed driving my Honda, when all along I've really wanted a Mercedes or BMW--damn it, I'm entitled to that luxury car!

:deevee:


Just be Glad you Paid your Fire Dues

morphius
03-23-2006, 11:50 AM
Money buys preferential treatment/access? Who'd have thunk it......? :spock:

Now I understand why I feel oppressed driving my Honda, when all along I've really wanted a Mercedes or BMW--damn it, I'm entitled to that luxury car!

:deevee:
Just wait till your ISP decides that Chiefsplanet uses up too much bandwidth and wants to charge Kyle a bit more money, of course Kyle will say, "Screw that!" and the planet will start running for you like you were dialed in over a 14.4 modem.

Mr. Kotter
03-23-2006, 11:55 AM
Just wait till your ISP decides that Chiefsplanet uses up too much bandwidth and wants to charge Kyle a bit more money, of course Kyle will say, "Screw that!" and the planet will start running for you like you were dialed in over a 14.4 modem.

I understand the concept.....I'm actually being TIC, extending the concept to a much more important arena.

;)

Mr. Kotter
03-23-2006, 11:56 AM
Just be Glad you Paid your Fire Dues

:spock:

:hmmm:

Ultra Peanut
03-23-2006, 11:56 AM
It's not about a sense of entitlement, it's about changing the way things work to enable telcos to basically charge rent to sites that already pay bandwidth/hosting fees in exchange for not severely capping the speed with which said site is accessible from users.

What this has the potential to do is destroy or severely alter tons of free and independent websites that don't have the funds to survive what amounts to extortion. This is a needless, wholly artificial charge that will be added, if it comes to pass, and it has massive ramifications.

From another forum:

With all the telco mergers, I'm wondering how long it'll be before we're back to "the phone company". If this goes through, though, it'll be even worse, as the Internet has become a major form of data transmission, far beyond what the telephone ever was. One company deciding what sites people will be able to get to at any kind of decent speeds.

"OK, so you've got your upstream bandwidth fee, your downstream bandwidth fee, your content fee, your administrative fee, your line fee, your processing fee, your guaranteed access fee, your miscellaneous fee, and your local, state, and federal taxes. That'll be $12,453.26 for the month." "But . . . I run a forum for my friends. :("

I understand the concept.....I'm actually being TIC, extending the concept to a much more important arena.

;)Maybe you've been asleep for the past decade or so, but the internet is very important. Its importance will grow exponentially over the next few decades. This is the sort of thing that could cripple it, and irrevocably shift control of it from "anyone capable" to the ones who already have the power.

morphius
03-23-2006, 11:59 AM
I understand the concept.....I'm actually being TIC, extending the concept to a much more important arena.

;)
Oh I know, I was just adding one to your list of entilements, "I'm entilted to a high speed Chiefs planet!".

My honest opinion is, that if ISP's are having trouble with bandwidth, then be honest with your customers and lower the speeds that they are getting. To do this on a site by site per ISP is mind boggling.

Mr. Laz
03-23-2006, 11:59 AM
Just wait till your ISP decides that Chiefsplanet uses up too much bandwidth and wants to charge Kyle a bit more money, of course Kyle will say, "Screw that!" and the planet will start running for you like you were dialed in over a 14.4 modem.

this is just not about bandwidth...


every site pays for bandwidth like you pay for the amount of energy your house uses.

this is about being able to charge people for stuff beyong bandwidth.


"hey google, hey yahoo .......... whichever one of you pays us the most will be able to cut in the internet line and get served first"


"Rebok .......... pay up now or every search for tennis shoes will show Nike first in the list"

"we don't like football ........ so unless you pay more, we are moving all the football related ISP packets to the bottom of the priority list"



allowing ISP's to manipulate the internet anyway they see fit

Ultra Peanut
03-23-2006, 12:01 PM
allowing ISP's to manipulate the internet anyway they see fitExactly. Of course, while they're doing this, they still won't be made responsible for things like kiddie porn that pass through their pipes, even though they're essentially expanding their "services" to the point where they could be held accountable. Must be nice to be able to afford that kind of favoritism.

God, the FCC is full of shit.

Mr. Kotter
03-23-2006, 12:02 PM
It's not a bout a sense of entitlement, it's about changing the way things work to enable telcos to basically charge rent to sites that already pay bandwidth/hosting fees in exchange for not severely capping the speed with which said site is accessible from users.

What this has the potential to do is destroy or severely alter tons of free and independent websites that don't have the funds to survive what amounts to extortion. This is a needless, wholly artificial charge that will be added, if it comes to pass, and it has massive ramifications.

From another forum:



Maybe you've been asleep for the past decade or so, but the internet is very important. Its importance will grow exponentially over the next few decades. This is the sort of thing that could cripple it, and irrevocably shift control of it from "anyone capable" to the ones who already have the power.

If you want to call it extortion, I understand, and share your concern....really. I'm sure they would counter with there should no longer be a "free lunch," or "reduced lunch prices." Everybody pays the same, based on useage. I don't see that as an unreasonable argument, even if I don't like it.....at all.

morphius
03-23-2006, 12:04 PM
this is just not about bandwidth...


every site pays for bandwidth like you pay for the amount of energy your house uses.

this is about being able to charge people for stuff beyong bandwidth.


"hey google, hey yahoo .......... whichever one of you pays us the most will be able to cut in the internet line and get served first"


"Rebok .......... pay up now or every search for tennis shoes will show Nike first in the list"

"we don't like football ........ so unless you pay more, we are moving all the football related ISP packets to the bottom of the priority list"



allowing ISP's to manipulate the internet anyway they see fit
Oh, I understand it. I'm just sticking with the easiest to explain to people.

Ultra Peanut
03-23-2006, 12:06 PM
If you want to call it extortion, I understand, and share your concern....really. I'm sure they would counter with there should no longer be a "free lunch," or "reduced lunch prices." Everybody pays the same, based on useage. I don't see that as an unreasonable argument, even if I don't like it.....at all.But no one's getting a "free lunch" now... aside from the assholes who will benefit from this. Everyone already pays, and if this comes to pass, the payment scales won't be the same universally. Hence the extortion aspect.

htismaqe
03-23-2006, 12:07 PM
Alot of people commenting here that I'm not sure exactly understand how things work...

Mr. Laz
03-23-2006, 12:08 PM
Alot of people commenting here that I'm not sure exactly understand how things work...
i'm far from an expert on this ... just explaining it the way i understand it.


feel free to give your 2 cents

Mr. Laz
03-23-2006, 12:10 PM
Oh, I understand it. I'm just sticking with the easiest to explain to people.

ya... i was just trying to explain it better to people as well.

wasn't directed at you or anyone specifically

Mr. Kotter
03-23-2006, 12:18 PM
But no one's getting a "free lunch" now... aside from the assholes who will benefit from this. Everyone already pays, and if this comes to pass, the payment scales won't be the same universally. Hence the extortion aspect.

It'll be interesting to watch...

htismaqe
03-23-2006, 12:23 PM
i'm far from an expert on this ... just explaining it the way i understand it.

feel free to give your 2 cents

There's an awful lot of comments in here, but I'll try to address each one.

basically the ISP's can control the flow of the internet

They already do. There's no such thing as "free" internet. Even the educational networks are provided by corporate entities now.

Expect more anti-consumer decision like this until federal elections are publicly funded.

This is definitely not anti-consumer. Until one is PAYING Google to use their search engine, one is not a consumer.

Exactly. Of course, while they're doing this, they still won't be made responsible for things like kiddie porn that pass through their pipes, even though they're essentially expanding their "services" to the point where they could be held accountable. Must be nice to be able to afford that kind of favoritism.

This obviously spoken out of ignorance, ignorance of what exactly it takes to monitor every bitstream from every host on a worldwide public backbone. It also doesn't speak at all to all of the kiddie porn that DOESN'T pass through their pipes because of the work that they do every day with the federal government.

What a mess this could create. It will also bump up the cost of VoIP, as companies could degrade acccess to that.

The cost of VoIP is already at a premium because it requires being prioritized across the network.

I just don't think many of you have any idea what it takes to keep a network like this running every day, in terms of both man-hours and dollars. The ISP's are already absorbing millions of dollars in lost revenue because about 80% of the bitstreams on the Internet are junk (spam, viruses, etc.).

Ultra Peanut
03-23-2006, 01:06 PM
Until one is PAYING Google to use their search engine, one is not a consumer.You are PAYING your ISP to consume web content; like Google, for instance. If they enact the sort of plan that would allow them to hold decent performance from sites that don't pay up, thus dragging your "consuming" experience down dramatically, how is it not anti-consumer?

This obviously spoken out of ignorance, ignorance of what exactly it takes to monitor every bitstream from every host on a worldwide public backbone.I realize how hard it is to monitor all of that. But in doing something like this, where they're actively altering the flow of data to suit their financial interests, they would be stepping well over the "common carrier" bounds that protect them from being responsible for what is contained therein. Again, this is a moot point, because they'd never be subject to the standards of those who don't have the government in their back pocket, but it's something that could be used against them if there were any real recourse.

Mr. Kotter
03-23-2006, 01:33 PM
...because about 80% of the bitstreams on the Internet are junk (spam, viruses, etc.).

:spock:

Could you elaborate? What do you mean by junk....

I mean, is ChiefsPlanet dumbassery considered "junk" in your definition?

Is not, that would be amazing...... :hmmm:

morphius
03-23-2006, 02:06 PM
What a mess this could create. It will also bump up the cost of VoIP, as companies could degrade acccess to that.

The cost of VoIP is already at a premium because it requires being prioritized across the network.


So, the ISP's are already prioritizing VoIP to vendors outside of their network? Now I know some of them do it for internal VoIP solutions, but I'd be a bit suprised if they were pumping up the priority to Vonage and the like.

htismaqe
03-23-2006, 02:11 PM
You are PAYING your ISP to consume web content; like Google, for instance. If they enact the sort of plan that would allow them to hold decent performance from sites that don't pay up, thus dragging your "consuming" experience down dramatically, how is it not anti-consumer?

First of all, who says they're going to "enact" anything? If you LIKE Google THAT much, give them money so that they can buy more bandwidth. Problem solved.

That being said, inbound traffic policing isn't new and it's done today. What isn't done today is sending the recipient of the traffic a bill. This isn't going to affect how a site performs ONE IOTA. They're still limited by the amount of bandwidth that they purchase. If Google owns a 622Mbit OC12 to the Internet, and traffic destined for their site is at 900Mbits, that extra ~300M of traffic is gonna choke. The difference is that the ISP could now choke it on the ENTRANCE to their network, freeing up 300M for their paying customers to use.

I realize how hard it is to monitor all of that. But in doing something like this, where they're actively altering the flow of data to suit their financial interests, they would be stepping well over the "common carrier" bounds that protect them from being responsible for what is contained therein. Again, this is a moot point, because they'd never be subject to the standards of those who don't have the government in their back pocket, but it's something that could be used against them if there were any real recourse.

Make no mistake about this: the telecom's have the bargaining power, not the other way around. The government has largely outsourced their network infrastructure to private companies over the years because it was too costly to do it themselves. Just like the airlines, the telecoms will be protected, because the government needs them.

95% of all connectivity is provided by private companies. In the early 90's when everybody thought it was a good idea to commercialize the internet, THIS is where we knew it would lead us. You can bitch all you want about the telecom's and how the "control" the Internet, but without them, you'd have a big fat backbone running clean with no spam or malware -- and you'd have NO WAY to connect to it, unless you were sitting on a college campus somewhere.

htismaqe
03-23-2006, 02:12 PM
So, the ISP's are already prioritizing VoIP to vendors outside of their network? Now I know some of them do it for internal VoIP solutions, but I'd be a bit suprised if they were pumping up the priority to Vonage and the like.

Depends on the network and the technology being employed.

Reaper16
03-23-2006, 02:14 PM
Rank my outrage up there with Psi's.

I just don't like more and more governing of the internet. The more federal legislation we have about the functions and use of the internet, the more we drive down a very, very dangerous road.

htismaqe
03-23-2006, 02:14 PM
:spock:

Could you elaborate? What do you mean by junk....

I mean, is ChiefsPlanet dumbassery considered "junk" in your definition?

Is not, that would be amazing...... :hmmm:

No, despite being dumbassery, ChiefsPlanet is still legit traffic, at least to some people.

I'm talking about spam, viruses, other malware, worms, port scans -- stuff that serves literally no purpose other than to harm someone else.

I talk to customers every day begging us to help them with spam. I talked to a customer the other day who was averaging 10,000 inbound messages a day - 9300 of them were spam.

htismaqe
03-23-2006, 02:16 PM
Rank my outrage up there with Psi's.

I just don't like more and more governing of the internet. The more federal legislation we have about the functions and use of the internet, the more we drive down a very, very dangerous road.

This has nothing to do with governing the Internet. You need to read it again.

And like I said in my previous post, before you start charging off into the sunset screaming about free use of the internet and evil corporate bastards, you would do well to remember what the internet was before those evil corporate bastards got involved...

Iowanian
03-23-2006, 02:19 PM
In short.....the website is already paying the telco for the pipes to distribute their pages....I, the user, and already paying out the nose for high speed internet, to the telco....and now, they're wanting to gouge for using google?

I concur. Eff that noise. Someone should hack Tubgirl and goatse onto the FCC homepage.

htismaqe
03-23-2006, 02:23 PM
I suggest you guys read this:

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035-6052239.html

They're not going to "gouge" anyone for using anything.

Reaper16
03-23-2006, 02:24 PM
This has nothing to do with governing the Internet. You need to read it again.

And like I said in my previous post, before you start charging off into the sunset screaming about free use of the internet and evil corporate bastards, you would do well to remember what the internet was before those evil corporate bastards got involved...
The FCC isn't the government? All I'm worried about is what else the FCC will feel it can say about the internet.

htismaqe
03-23-2006, 02:27 PM
The FCC isn't the government? All I'm worried about is what else the FCC will feel it can say about the internet.

You obviously didn't read it again, like I asked.

The FCC isn't DOING anything. So it doesn't matter if they're the government or not.

The traffic policing on the Internet is done by PRIVATE BUSINESSES.

htismaqe
03-23-2006, 02:29 PM
The FCC isn't the government? All I'm worried about is what else the FCC will feel it can say about the internet.

By the way, I find it ironic that you don't want the FCC involved in the Internet because it might infringe on some right you believe you have to surf porn or make bombs or whatever.

But now that they've done PRECISELY THAT (basically the FCC has said they're taking their hands out of the process and allowing the ISP's to do what they think they need to do) you're complaining because it might cost you some more money.

Reaper16
03-23-2006, 02:31 PM
You obviously didn't read it again, like I asked.

The FCC isn't DOING anything. So it doesn't matter if they're the government or not.

The traffic policing on the Internet is done by PRIVATE BUSINESSES.
I'm not really arguing with you, as undobtedly you're more knowledgable on the subject, but with lines like "... the FCC "has the authority necessary" to enforce network neutrality violations. He added that it had done so already..." it sounds as if the FCC can and is ready to step in and do something.

Fire Me Boy!
03-23-2006, 02:43 PM
Family Guy FCC Song (jaunty, ala Rogers and Hammerstein)

They will clean up all your talking in a menace such as this
They will make you take a tinkle when you want to take a piss
And they’ll make you call fellatio a trouser friendly kiss
It’s the plain situation! There will be no negiotiation!
With the fellows at the freakin FCC!

They’re as stuffy as the stuffiest of the special interest groups…
Make a joke about your bowels and they order in the troops
Any baby with a brain could tell them everybody poops!
Take a tip, take a lesson! you’ll never win by messin’
With the fellas at the freakin’ FCC

Bridge:

And if you find yourself with some young sexy thing...
You’re gonna have to do her with your ding-a-ling…cause you can’t say penis!

So they sent this little warning they’re prepared to do the worst
And they stuck it in your mailbox hoping you could be co-erced
I can think of quite another place they should have stuck it first!

They may just be neurotic, or possible psychotic
They’re the fellas at the freakin FCC!

htismaqe
03-23-2006, 02:46 PM
I'm not really arguing with you, as undobtedly you're more knowledgable on the subject, but with lines like "... the FCC "has the authority necessary" to enforce network neutrality violations. He added that it had done so already..." it sounds as if the FCC can and is ready to step in and do something.

When he says they've "done so already" he was talking about actions they've taken on BEHALF OF CONSUMERS to keep the Internet open, such as a case last year when an ISP was filtering VoIP traffic from Vonage. The FCC stepped in and forced them to stop filtering it.

I would say that's a good thing.

htismaqe
03-30-2006, 01:19 PM
Bringing a heated topic back to the top. I was talking to a guy in Ashburn, VA today about some things going on in this space (multi-tiered, performance-based networks) and he had some interesting things to say.

Google has been buying up hundreds of miles of dark fiber and has positioned themselves to purchase about 75% of a new wireless spectrum the FCC intends to release in June.

At that point, it won't matter what the ISP's do, Google will, themselves, be an ISP and you'll likely have to subscribe to their wireless access service to access their premium content...

morphius
03-30-2006, 01:27 PM
Bringing a heated topic back to the top. I was talking to a guy in Ashburn, VA today about some things going on in this space (multi-tiered, performance-based networks) and he had some interesting things to say.

Google has been buying up hundreds of miles of dark fiber and has positioned themselves to purchase about 75% of a new wireless spectrum the FCC intends to release in June.

At that point, it won't matter what the ISP's do, Google will, themselves, be an ISP and you'll likely have to subscribe to their wireless access service to access their premium content...
I would be shocked if google went the way of subscriptions. My understanding is that they also recently submitted a patent, or the like, on a way to offer free wireless internet through use of ads.

htismaqe
03-30-2006, 04:01 PM
I would be shocked if google went the way of subscriptions. My understanding is that they also recently submitted a patent, or the like, on a way to offer free wireless internet through use of ads.

Ad-based services have never worked. They don't generate enough revenue.

Ultra Peanut
03-30-2006, 04:38 PM
Bringing a heated topic back to the top. I was talking to a guy in Ashburn, VA today about some things going on in this space (multi-tiered, performance-based networks) and he had some interesting things to say.

Google has been buying up hundreds of miles of dark fiber and has positioned themselves to purchase about 75% of a new wireless spectrum the FCC intends to release in June.

At that point, it won't matter what the ISP's do, Google will, themselves, be an ISP and you'll likely have to subscribe to their wireless access service to access their premium content...I, for one, welcome our benevolent Google overlords.

Dave Lane
03-30-2006, 04:46 PM
They're in the pocket of the telcos, that's what's wrong with them. Internet companies don't have the same long track record of spending on campaigns and lobbying. Expect more anti-consumer decision like this until federal elections are publicly funded.

A+ answer publicly fund elections it cheaper that way.

Dave

morphius
03-30-2006, 05:37 PM
Ad-based services have never worked. They don't generate enough revenue.
It may have never worked well, but google has a few steps up on the companies that have done that in the past, they have other income and have a lot of the infrastructure in place.