Quote Of The Day

Hurin, you accuse others of not acknowledging the nuance of the situation, but your counter argument is clearly guilty of the same thing. So, for the sake of understanding, the situation is that as customers we pay for our bandwidth through our Service Provider, we pay for our calls through our VOIP Service, before VOIP we used to pay for our access to foreign networks as well through the standard telephone network (now we don't because we now know how much it really costs and we've got options, also we're not stupid enough to pay it anymore). As Service Providers, the telcos get paid for Internet access (payment 1), they also get paid for the VOIP service that they provide (payment 2), they also want to get paid for the access to foreign voice networks like they always have in the past (payment 3). Now I realize that some rual service providers don't offer broadband or VOIP service, and in that small set of circumstances perhaps some remedy is needed. In that particular situation the market has already recognized that something needs to be done, because the VOIP providers have already tried to make offers to the rual telcos (offers that were refused by the way). Therefore I recommend research and mediation NOT LEGISLATION as Mr. Ted ("the internet is made of tubes") Stevens advocates (whom I personally wouldn't trust to run a cash register at McDonalds). The rual telcos are complaining to congress that this "phantom traffic" cost them $2 billion last year, with no evidence to back that up, so I'm not inclined to take them at their word. The rual customers also have other options besides the rual telcos, they can purchase broadband internet access through satellite service providers, and VOIP as well, so their customers will not be left out (they may perhaps even be better off). The rual telcos should have see this coming (just like the record companies), and when I say that they should offer VOIP service and take advantage of the same IP "fairy dust," I'm being 100% sincere, the competition would only help the customers. Hell, the rual telcos can even invest in satellite service for their customers and pull the existing copper that they have in the ground out and sell it since it is now selling at 4x what it was in the past and even make a pretty penny in the process... Does that pretty much sum up the situation? I'm not discounting the argument completely, but the remedies that are being suggested by the telcos and Mr. Stevens are outrageous.
 
Hurin said:
Amen.

Apparently, telecommunication companies that act as "man-in-the-middle" networks that transmit another corporation's voice calls are just shit-out-of-luck as soon as the originating company "sprinkles IP fairy dust" on the calls.

Few people in this thread seem able to grasp the nuance. The article is not about charging individuals for using Skype. It's about Bullmoose Telecom not suddenly being without its major revenue base when Lionshare Telecom suddenly converts all their voice communications to IP and then expects Bullmoose Telecom to suddenly start transferring all their voice calls for free. If I were Bullmoose Telecom, I'd certainly want to know why I now need to handle all of another company's calls for free when they were just paying me to do the same thing last week. . . and why just making those called IP-based suddenly makes it impossible and even immoral for me to charge for my network usage.

It's not about thinking that I should get paid because I always have. It's about me providing a service and not allowing people to circumvent paying for that service by just "sprinkling IP fairy dust" on the calls and converting the transmission mechanism. If you're going to congest my IP network with data that used to be paid for. . . you're going to pay for the congestion and the use of my network. Not sure exactly what's so wrong or immoral about that. It's just common sense.

Again, it seems like the same mentality at work here that also makes people think that music should be free because the internet makes it readily available.

But, again, the real point is that people would rather say: "What an idiot" rather than think about how his remark in context might be attempting to convey a valid point. Those who actually read the article and understand the nuances should realize it's not merely as simple as blaming the "evil corporations" or tying it all into the net neutrality issue or even some fanciful view that anything that can be transmitted over IP should be free.

H
Click to expand...


Granted that you think the guy has a point that maybe it needs to be regulated. But data networks are way way easier to control and maintain than regular voice networks (circuit switching). Packet switching is next to nothing for telcos. And I do have to agree that any packet you're transmitting over your Internet Connection should not be taxed [additional cost] on just because it's a SIP [VOIP protocol] packet or what not. Voice packets are not much different than any other packets you transmit over the internet. That's like saying that you're paying an MMORPG and just because you're making those connections you're gonna have to pay for it.
 
no he doesn't have a point. this is simply retarded. when cable first came out they advertised how millions of phone calls could be handled with the fiber optical cable... lowering costs to near free or free... THEY FARKING PROMOTED IT!!! saying that copper could only handle a few ten thousand phone calls in the same area (lets say a small town).. so a small town with cable would have excessive bandwidth for phonecalls... making it almost free.. or free...

this is why its all bullshit. a phonecall is less than 50kb connection... if done right... you could have it be 1mb... leaving me 14mb of the bandwidth i pay for free. this is a marketing gimic to keep people paying for shitty phone services.
 
bmorg003 said:
Hurin, you accuse others of not acknowledging the nuance of the situation, but your counter argument is clearly guilty of the same thing. So, for the sake of understanding, the situation is that as customers we pay for our bandwidth through our Service Provider, we pay for our calls through our VOIP Service, before VOIP we used to pay for our access to foreign networks as well through the standard telephone network (now we don't because we now know how much it really costs and we've got options, also we're not stupid enough to pay it anymore). As Service Providers, the telcos get paid for Internet access (payment 1), they also get paid for the VOIP service that they provide (payment 2), they also want to get paid for the access to foreign voice networks like they always have in the past (payment 3). Now I realize that some rual service providers don't offer broadband or VOIP service, and in that small set of circumstances perhaps some remedy is needed. In that particular situation the market has already recognized that something needs to be done, because the VOIP providers have already tried to make offers to the rual telcos (offers that were refused by the way). Therefore I recommend research and mediation NOT LEGISLATION as Mr. Ted ("the internet is made of tubes") Stevens advocates (whom I personally wouldn't trust to run a cash register at McDonalds). The rual telcos are complaining to congress that this "phantom traffic" cost them $2 billion last year, with no evidence to back that up, so I'm not inclined to take them at their word. The rual customers also have other options besides the rual telcos, they can purchase broadband internet access through satellite service providers, and VOIP as well, so their customers will not be left out (they may perhaps even be better off). The rual telcos should have see this coming (just like the record companies), and when I say that they should offer VOIP service and take advantage of the same IP "fairy dust," I'm being 100% sincere, the competition would only help the customers. Hell, the rual telcos can even invest in satellite service for their customers and pull the existing copper that they have in the ground out and sell it since it is now selling at 4x what it was in the past and even make a pretty penny in the process... Does that pretty much sum up the situation? I'm not discounting the argument completely, but the remedies that are being suggested by the telcos and Mr. Stevens are outrageous.
Click to expand...
All of that seems reasonable and valid. Unlike all the "LOL what an idiot" posts by those who don't seem to grasp that Henagan had a valid point of view and that his "IP fairy dust" comment was attempting to illustrate a valid (if unpopular) rather than exposing him as some sort of "the internet is like a series of tubes"-style rube. He probably knows more about IP networks than most of the people pointing and laughing at him right now. . . and though most here don't agree with his company's point of view, they only betray their ignorance and/or their inability to see both sides of the issue when they post nothing more than: "LOL! What an idiot!"

But I guess pointing and laughing is just more fun than thinking.

H

P.S. After five years here, it's that sort of attitude that has me and so many others regretting the general collective attitude of these forums nowadays. It's really become just a group-think echo-chamber filled with weenie wagging and gotcha-posting. I seem to remember that it used to be about helping each other and talking about the technology we liked instead of Red vs Green and constant incessant whining about how some company is screwing us over or engaging in dark conspiracies to raise prices (not this thread. . . though it seems like every other one recently). But, I digress.
 
Well some of you understand that "regular" phones have been using the "new" packet idea for decades...

That is probably part of what this guy is getting at. He probably points out that these new companies are skirting around taxes which make up a large percentage of a regular phone bill.
 
WallisHall said:
That is probably part of what this guy is getting at. He probably points out that these new companies are skirting around taxes which make up a large percentage of a regular phone bill.
Click to expand...

Close, but not quite. From what I understand, it's about line-sharing agreements among the telcos. I pay for my calls to go through your lines, you pay for your calls to go through my lines. If one of them two of them uses IP (Internet Protocol) based packets instead of traditional methods of passing along telephone voice data, right now that's exempt from those agreements, hence one of the sides losing lots of money from the agreement. Of course, there's also the argument that the other side could do it too, saving lots of money along with then also getting out of their side of the agreement...
 
All I'm hearing from this guy (in the OP) is the crying of an outdated service platform making last-ditch efforts to get as much money as they can... after having gouged us for decades. Hence the utter lack of sympathy on my part. It's not that I don't understand his point, it's that *I don't care*. And I don't care because of the past attitude of these very same telcos towards us, their customers.

As far as I'm concerned, they're grasping at straws while the revenue stream moves to other, more advanced services. Good riddance to them.
 
My quote.

"Just because WE found a more cost effective way to communicate with friends and family, it doesn't mean you are automatically eligible to have a way to overcharge us for the connection. Now go away..."

Frickin Corp-Heads.
 
ClariorHincHonos said:
Telco and cable companies can eat a dick. Seriously. How many times are they going to be allowed to rape us for money?

Digital cable TV + internet is a great example to me. They charge you like they have two completely separate networks for each. Funny thing is these use the same lines, which would then use the same network equipment. So where is the double cost??? .
Click to expand...

Your point is not really valid, and here's why: The bandwidth used by your intertubes is purchased in bulk by the cable operator, they have to since your bits do not stay exclusively on their system. Every bit you send to someone other than a fellow cable modem subscriber is paid for by the cable operator. Hence a fee separate from the TV service. The bandwidth used by your cable modem is bandwidth that is not being used for ad infested video or on-demand content as well. Hence the fee you pay.

Meanwhile TV travels only on their system, and the hardware used to source and route that content is totally different from the system used to provide the IP network. At least for now.

Then there is the simple fact that it is their service, they exist to MAKE MONEY and they are not a fucking charity. TANSTAAFL. Don't like it? Get DSL.

The guys whining about VOIP have a simple point: other companies are getting a free ride on their 'tubes. But I think their point is bogus, because the ISPs are being paid for their bandwidth by the users. So the telcos sniveling about VOIP need to STFU, since the bits are being paid for and bits are bits. The minute we start charging different rates for bits based on what the bits carry is the minute the net starts to suck monkey ass. That is what needs to be avoided: sucking monkey ass.
 
ianken said:
Your point is not really valid, and here's why: The bandwidth used by your intertubes is purchased in bulk by the cable operator, they have to since your bits do not stay exclusively on their system. Every bit you send to someone other than a fellow cable modem subscriber is paid for by the cable operator. Hence a fee separate from the TV service. The bandwidth used by your cable modem is bandwidth that is not being used for ad infested video or on-demand content as well. Hence the fee you pay.

Meanwhile TV travels only on their system, and the hardware used to source and route that content is totally different from the system used to provide the IP network. At least for now.

Then there is the simple fact that it is their service, they exist to MAKE MONEY and they are not a fucking charity. TANSTAAFL. Don't like it? Get DSL.

The guys whining about VOIP have a simple point: other companies are getting a free ride on their 'tubes. But I think their point is bogus, because the ISPs are being paid for their bandwidth by the users. So the telcos sniveling about VOIP need to STFU, since the bits are being paid for and bits are bits. The minute we start charging different rates for bits based on what the bits carry is the minute the net starts to suck monkey ass. That is what needs to be avoided: sucking monkey ass.
Click to expand...

Just doing some research and learning more about this, but this makes me think that the data would be sent over the same network as data, then converted at the box just as a computer does:

Digital Compression
The idea of sending multiple programs within the 19.39-Mbps stream is unique to digital TV and is made possible by the digital compression system being used. To compress the image for transmission, broadcasters use MPEG-2 compression, and MPEG-2 allows you to pick both the screen size and bit rate when encoding the show. A broadcaster can choose a variety of bit rates within any of the three resolutions.

You see MPEG-2 all the time on the Web, on Web sites that offer streaming video. For example, if you go to iFilm.com, you will find that you can view streaming video at 56 kilobits-per-second (Kbps), 200 Kbps or 500 Kbps. MPEG-2 allows a technician to pick any bit rate and resolution when encoding a file.

There are many variables that determine how the picture will look at a given bit rate. For example:

* If a station wants to broadcast a sporting event (where there is lots of movement in the scene) at 1080i, the entire 19.39 megabits per second is needed to get a high-quality image.

* On the other hand, a newscast showing a newscaster's head can use a much lower bit rate. A broadcaster might transmit the newscast at 480p resolution and a 3-Mbps bit rate, leaving 16.39 Mbps of space for other sub-channels.

It is very likely that broadcasters will send three or four sub-channels during the day and then switch to a single high-quality show that consumes the entire 19.39 Mbps at night. Some broadcasters are also experimenting with 1- or 2-Mbps data channels that send information and Web pages along with a show to provide additional information.
Click to expand...
 
ClariorHincHonos said:
Just doing some research and learning more about this, but this makes me think that the data would be sent over the same network as data, then converted at the box just as a computer does:
Click to expand...

Nvm, talked to some folks. Different freq on the cables I guess or something, which would require diff systems. D'oh...should have known that.
 
Hurin,

You are the one who is insulting everyone here and generally making the [H]ardforum less pleasant. You have no valid point whatsoever. Talking about voip traffic clogging networks...hah! It is not bittorrent traffic we are talking about here.

And with your ramblings about one telecom talking to another...blah, blah, blah. Why should the consumer have to pay for a poorly thought out contract between 2 telecom companies? It is not our fault that they are unaware of the ever-adapting technological circumstances surrounding their company and market. Adapt or die. Instead they start bitching when they can't handle it. Not sure why you choose to ignore this fact and continue to defend your misguided position with hovercraft analogies and fictitious conversations. :rolleyes:
 
Hurin said:
P.S. After five years here, it's that sort of attitude that has me and so many others regretting the general collective attitude of these forums nowadays. It's really become just a group-think echo-chamber filled with weenie wagging and gotcha-posting. I seem to remember that it used to be about helping each other and talking about the technology we liked instead of Red vs Green and constant incessant whining about how some company is screwing us over or engaging in dark conspiracies to raise prices (not this thread. . . though it seems like every other one recently). But, I digress.
Click to expand...

sorry meant to quote this ...
 
ryko said:
Hurin,

You are the one who is insulting everyone here and generally making the [H]ardforum less pleasant. You have no valid point whatsoever. Talking about voip traffic clogging networks...hah! It is not bittorrent traffic we are talking about here.

And with your ramblings about one telecom talking to another...blah, blah, blah. Why should the consumer have to pay for a poorly thought out contract between 2 telecom companies? It is not our fault that they are unaware of the ever-adapting technological circumstances surrounding their company and market. Adapt or die. Instead they start bitching when they can't handle it. Not sure why you choose to ignore this fact and continue to defend your misguided position with hovercraft analogies and fictitious conversations. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I stopped reading where you mentioned "consumers have to pay for a poorly though out contract between 2 telecom comapnies. . ." since that isn't at all what I (or anyone else who actually took the time to grasp the other side of the argument) am talking about. This is about what Telecoms charge each other when one suddenly goes "all IP" and then just expects the other to not notice that they're still handling all their voice traffic under a "different wrapper." It's not about getting you or any consumer to pay for your skype calls.

But, it's nice that you can come in with cannons blazing while fundamentally misunderstanding the issue. . . and then make me out to be the guy causing trouble.
 
I'm sorry Hurin, but Mr. Henagan and your points are invalid. Voice traffic is voice traffic. Voice is data. Data traffic alone encompasses anything and everything that can be sent as data.

What you're asking, is to discriminate as to the type of data. I suggest you keep track of Comcast's federal trial for packet-shaping and torrent throttling.. where the FCC has already deemed the practice illegal and is seeking net-neutrality legislation.

FYI, I'm a fully pledged and donating member of http://www.freepress.net/ ... and one of the 300,000 people who wrote in to make the FCC investigate the Murdoch monopoly, and push the agenda officially into congress now.

I would like to place a plug for that site right now, as its directly relevant to this conversation... those of you who posted how you feel about net neutrality and internet gatekeepers need to sign up to that sites e-mail.. it'll let you e-mail your congress and representatives instantly regarding freepress initiatives, with pre-made letters where you just have to fill in your name and address to prove you're a legit voting citizen.. its an amazing initiative, and no, it produces no physical mail to your address other than that your congressmen(women) send you in response to your mailings that will only take a few clicks of effort to make. Less than it takes to vote on a YouTube video or leave a comment or post there or here.
 
The Red said:
I'm sorry Hurin, but Mr. Henagan and your points are invalid. Voice traffic is voice traffic. Voice is data. Data traffic alone encompasses anything and everything that can be sent as data.
Click to expand...
So, they're not within their rights to renegotiate their contracts and raise prices for handling data traffic when the other telcos suddenly shift all their traffic to "IP only?" Do these guys own their own networks or not?

All along, my point hasn't necessarily been that I agree with Henagan, but that it's not nearly the "LOL, he's so stupid" quote that the headline made it out to be and other people swallowed uncritically. He obviously doesn't believe in "IP fairy dust". . . but it's just easier for people to point and laugh rather than read the story and try to understand the other side of an issue.

What you're asking, is to discriminate as to the type of data. I suggest you keep track of Comcast's federal trial for packet-shaping and torrent throttling.. where the FCC has already deemed the practice illegal and is seeking net-neutrality legislation.
Click to expand...
Yet this isn't really the same thing, is it? Clearly they can point out that they may need to look into other forms of collecting revenues from these networks that have shifted their transmission mechanism without violating net neutrality.

BTW, points that you don't agree with aren't automatically "invalid". . . I've repeatedly demonstrated that there are other interests at stake here. That's not invalid. Their point of view isn't "invalid". . . it's just unpopular and doesn't fit nicely within people's constructs of how they think the internet should operate (which, apparently, doesn't normally like to take into account that it operates on private networks and the owners of those networks will need to make appreciable amounts of money if they're going to continue to push our packets).
 
Voip this, data packet that, but we want our cash, but we want to keep it. In the end we are talking about telcos and phone service providers trying to give each other the high hard one with a blue whale sized loophole. Which ever side you are arguing for, you are arguing for a wealthy telco, isp, voip provider or cable provider. I think it funny that people are defending the rights of one telco to screw another telco. Which is all it this really is.

The government sanctioned, (at all levels, city, state, federal), monopolies is a separate issue. And what an issue it is. A depraved tale of fraud, abuse, treachery, tax evasion and deceit. All perpetrated upon the general public for financial gain, by pretty much every isp, cable service provider, and telco to ever do business in the US.
But that is another issue entirely.

The quote taken in context of cross pay arrangements makes perfect sense. Not that I really care, it is not as though the money will really be used to improve our infrastructure, regardless of who gets to pocket it. We will continue with the slow incremental upgrades to our infrastructure til people serving a sentence in an Iranian jail have a faster internet than us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top