In article snipped-for-privacy@telecom-digest.org, snipped-for-privacy@bbs.cpcn.com at snipped-for-privacy@bbs.cpcn.com wrote on 4/21/06 12:26:
(quoting from the MoveOn original item):
>> If you've never heard about this bit of business history, there's a
>> good reason: it never happened. Instead, A.T. & T. had to abide by a
>> "common carriage" rule: it provided the same quality of service to
>> all, and could not favor one customer over another. But, while "tiered
>> access" never influenced the spread of the telephone network, it is
>> becoming a major issue in the evolution of the Internet.
> It is curious Move-On cited the old style common carrier policy as a
> justification for their position.
> Yes, in the old days it was equal access, equal rates for all, and
> common carrier. But MCI successfully sued to throw all of that out of
> the window along with the courts and Congress. MCI claimed the right
> to carry public customers at lower cost when and if it suited them.
> That claim created "tiered" service. Our telecom service has been
> operating that way, for better or worse, ever since.
And now look who owns MCI!!
Most telecom services today are deregulated. That means you pay for
> what you want in a competitive marketplace. If your provider rips you
> off, too bad, it's buyer beware.
> I can't help but suspect Move-On is being a little selfish here.
> Their operation works on mass emails -- to their members to promote
> causes, from their members to push politicians. Cheap or free email
> is necessary to do that. Perhaps Move-On is afraid of having to pay
> for what it now gets for free.
> Sorry, but just because they're a non-profit doesn't mean they get a
> free ride. Another poster correctly pointed out that someone has to
> pay for the Internet. I don't want to subsidize Move-On.
> Indeed, perhaps someone like myself who is a prolific Usenet poster is
> getting a free ride. Admittedly I like that deal very much, but I
> must admit it's not very fair.
> Another poster noted the problems of spam and abuse. I think there are
> stll some "purists" or "romantics" out there who still think of the
> Internet as a pure form of like-minded people when it served only a
> very select audience of researchers. Those days are very long gone.
> BTW, there's a intermediate load of mail I call "semi-spam". It's
> mail from someone you know and converse with, but stuff you're not
> really interested in. For example, say one of your friends is
> religious and keeps sending you little Bible quotes and the like,
> things you didn't ask for and always delete. (Or it could be
> political messages). Organizations -- both profit and non-profit of
> course do it all the time. A lot of people do this because it's so
> easy and free. This represents a wasteful load on the network.
> As to Move-On's fear that major ISP controllers will restrict access
> to sites, I question that. Undoubtedly favored sites will get top
> billing, but that does not mean other sites will be degraded in
> access. TV and cable networks don't do that to favor their own shows
> or channels. They can't because consumers would raise hell if they > did.
> Actually, as I consumer, I wonder if some sort of "bit tax" might be a
> good idea. My dial-up home is essentially worthless these days
> because sites have some much layered overhead bloat you gotta have DSL
> to do anything in a realistic amount of time. That bloat doesn't give
> one any more information, only more pizazz on the screen. On the rare
> event I find an old site my dial up works just fine and the text flows
> and small graphics through quickly. At the present rate plain DSL
> will be obsolete and will have to go to industrial strength DSL or
> FIOS at much higher cost to us consumers. It is worth it to see pop
> up ads blink on and off?
In article snipped-for-privacy@telecom-digest.org, Waitman Gobble at snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote on 4/21/06 8:10:
Hello,
> I'm not sure that the typical consumer would have the patience for a
> broken Internet. If average Susan decides to "shop store x" and the
> site isn't working properly, her patience will wear thin. If this
> happens to multiple sites, It is my opinion that she won't merely be
> "trained" into going to the sites approved by the government. She'd
> probably just jump ship and scrap the whole notion of the Internet.
> Which would mean she'd just call up her provider and disconnect
> service. She has better things to do.
The Internet is broken now and the only way to really fix it is to start over again!!
The bit about "tiered access" is curious, because it JUST happened to a
> client of mine. He has been using DSL in his home for years without
> much of any trouble. However in the past month his service has been
> offline about half time, which has been extremely frustrating for him.
> The problem is that a few weeks ago, it was down for a week and they
> said that some tech had "accidentally unplugged 50 lines in his
> neighborhood and his was included". It actually took them a week to
> "plug it back in". Then after a week of uptime it went down again (for
> another week) and the providers' response was "there's water in the
> line". The word he received from his provider, which is the company
> named in the article, was that he should upgrade his account to "their
> business level service to get better service and have trouble-free
> Internet". After that phone call, he called his local cable company and
> ordered their Internet service. That's a true story.
> We'll see what happens I suppose :)
> Take care,
> Waitman