http://savetheinternet.com/
In essence, certain internet service providers want to be able to charge to allow "premium access" to websites. If the website doesn't pay the fee, anyone trying to access it gets ultra-slow access regardless of their download speed.
Congress is debating the matter, of course, but the telecom industry is trying to sway votes in their favor. Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, and many other companies are speaking out in *favor* of Net Neutrality - so have some 500,000 other Americans like us.
So, head over there, sign the petitions, and hassle your lawmakers nicely - this has serious ramifications for websites like us!
Get there now people and write your congressman through the site.
When you do that, you need to send the website to all of your friends.
This is important, people; don't *edit* it up.
Net Neutrality. Read this!
Moderator: ForumModerators
-
ClownMajik
- SpoogeMan!
- Posts: 872
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 5:08 pm
- Location: End of your reach-around
Net Neutrality. Read this!
"Of all the moments in my life, you were always there somewhere. Once as a wish. Once as a blessing. And now as the greatest loss I'll ever experience."
I'm in the telco world, though am in a small market, but I think both sides have an arguement.
Telco's aren't after nickle and diming the user, they want a way to recoupe costs with building the infrastructure. Telco's get the shaft because they supply the pipe, only get to charge for the pipe, not everywhere where that pipe leads.
Example: It costs ~10K a month for a DS3 to the internet. We are small enough where we don't use half of that bandwidth. We inturn have thousands of DSL customers on that pipe who pay us, but again, if they all jumped on at the same time and downloaded their porn, guess what, that pipe wouldn't be big enough. Moral is to make the system work, and the only way it can work, is to OVER-Subscribe. System runs on the assumption that not everybody is using at the same time.
Now it terms of Microsoft and Google, not only would they fill that pipe all the time, what my example leaves out is all the infrastructure to get that bandwidth to the company. Obviously we are talking about something bigger then a DS3, but the bigger you go, the more planning and backend equipment you need.
The reality, the DS3 sold to my small ass company shouldn't be the same price as the one sold to Microsoft. Currently it is. On the surface, Net Neutrality is a good thing. On the back end, when it gets shot down, the Telco's solution to surviving is upping their rates to compensate...guess who covers that (hint look in the mirror). Won't matter to the Big Guys, it's the little guys that get the shaft and you end up paying anyway. So you did win? Personally, I'd much rather see the big guys get the bill for once.
There's a lot of bashing on the Teclo's. The government has a hardon for us and we constantly fight a losing battle. They tie our hands against the cable companies and the cell companies. People bitch a lot, but in my opinion, we are one of the few where you pay the same and get more. Case in point, dialup was $20 a month back in the day, today you get DSL for $20 at over ten times the speed. Cable world, a few more channels, but the bill has gone from 20 to 40 over that same period. Don't even have to bring up gas prices.
Telco's aren't after nickle and diming the user, they want a way to recoupe costs with building the infrastructure. Telco's get the shaft because they supply the pipe, only get to charge for the pipe, not everywhere where that pipe leads.
Example: It costs ~10K a month for a DS3 to the internet. We are small enough where we don't use half of that bandwidth. We inturn have thousands of DSL customers on that pipe who pay us, but again, if they all jumped on at the same time and downloaded their porn, guess what, that pipe wouldn't be big enough. Moral is to make the system work, and the only way it can work, is to OVER-Subscribe. System runs on the assumption that not everybody is using at the same time.
Now it terms of Microsoft and Google, not only would they fill that pipe all the time, what my example leaves out is all the infrastructure to get that bandwidth to the company. Obviously we are talking about something bigger then a DS3, but the bigger you go, the more planning and backend equipment you need.
The reality, the DS3 sold to my small ass company shouldn't be the same price as the one sold to Microsoft. Currently it is. On the surface, Net Neutrality is a good thing. On the back end, when it gets shot down, the Telco's solution to surviving is upping their rates to compensate...guess who covers that (hint look in the mirror). Won't matter to the Big Guys, it's the little guys that get the shaft and you end up paying anyway. So you did win? Personally, I'd much rather see the big guys get the bill for once.
There's a lot of bashing on the Teclo's. The government has a hardon for us and we constantly fight a losing battle. They tie our hands against the cable companies and the cell companies. People bitch a lot, but in my opinion, we are one of the few where you pay the same and get more. Case in point, dialup was $20 a month back in the day, today you get DSL for $20 at over ten times the speed. Cable world, a few more channels, but the bill has gone from 20 to 40 over that same period. Don't even have to bring up gas prices.
Return to “thoughts... more or less”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests