Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
- To: MLUG Members <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Subject: Re: [MLUG] Oh, no...
- From: Rick <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 14:53:34 -0500
- Delivery-date: Tue, 09 May 2006 13:54:01 -0500
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ORoeSEHmBXHRMqDBEIFXUVzOn9krGuvB8P+8CGCrF5toI4OZC49efFazeQ/t0JW1ieJ7tf7HXAQkSMSms1UMSOal0ju6VsK23ACZgGklFTzPQ1sUV0PQH3FXQiMUs9idbbl7orBJn6ujsZ7F8Pisq1h8c92ES5VqrLKE+3WXSts=
- Envelope-to: EMAIL:PROTECTED
- In-reply-to: <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- References: <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED> <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Reply-to: MLUG Members <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
- Sender: EMAIL:PROTECTED
- User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20051025)
McIntosh Jason wrote:
This is true - but, I've also seen little real expansion of these
backbones - but that's wayyyy out of my arena. I'd really REALLY like
to see more of that last mile use - I know my parents for example on the
east side of town have been waiting for broadband for 5-10 years. I
also know they're using satellite right now and hate it. SO, any
solution that would actually help them get broadband would work - I just
haven't seen any commitment from ANY big telco on getting broadband to
more rural areas. Not even with "increased fees" that are supposed to
help with that.
This is in part because of the *huge* buildout that never got utilized.
Hell, Columbia is trying to figure out what to do with a bunch of dark
fiber.
Yes, this is true - the issue I'd have is when company A, say google,
gets charged more than company B, Microsoft for the same kind of
traffic. Even on different levels of traffic - this is screwing the
consumer. Google pays for their outgoing pipes. The consumer is paying
the telco's for decent access to these sites. It's basically saying the
$50 I spend for broadband each month isn't enough to get me access to
the sites I want at a decent rate. It's allowing companies to choose
who I can see on the internet with a decent speed. i.e. imagine if
google took twice as long to load - and all of a sudden MSN took half as
long? How is that fair? It bothers me more than I can describe that my
ISP or cable company or WHOEVER would choose to say "no, you can't
access this site at a decent rate b/c they're paying me." _ that's
ignoring the fact that I'M paying for net access.
Jason
Which, I think, is why someone earlier in the thread called this double
dipping. The bandwidth's been paid for at *both* ends already. They're
trying to get more money out of the middle.
Rick
--
We simply can't idiot-proof everything. Sometimes the idiots just have
to suffer and die.
--http://www.overheardintheoffice.com/
_______________________________________________
members mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members