♦ REFRESH to rotate MAAMAW'S CLICKY NOTES thru this space..... Timely Tips, Best of the Boards & More ♦

You'll find great information in this "Read Only" Archive, but remember..... things change.
Be sure to visit the Current Message Board when you're finished here.

We're very friendly, so don't be shy... just jump right in and post your question.
Scams outnumber legitimate biz ops about a bzillion to one, so it's well worth your time.

\| View Thread \| Return to Index \| Read Prev Msg \| Read Next Msg \|

FIB - Scams 101 - Ye Olde Archives

Re: Bandwidth is not the issue

Posted By: Tonya
Tuesday, 2 May 2006, at 11:24 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Bandwidth is not the issue (S. Tanna)

Perhaps it isn't black and white, but I would be more concerned with the following scenario:

1. Company A and Company B sell a similar product via the Internet (say Amazon and Barnes & Noble per the example in the initial forum post).

2. Company A enters into an agreement with AT&T to pay an additional percentage for superior service for their site. The agreement binds AT&T not to allow the same service to Company B.

3. Therefore Company A is able to offer a faster, better web experience for its potential buyers.

4. Company B is unable to meet the same standards and loses out on business because of it.

5. The consumer (or student, or whomever - this doesn't just apply to commerce) is the one who ultimately suffers due to the limitations that have been enabled.

And how does paying for connectivity improvement to just ONE company that funded it benefit consumers anyway, unless they are customers of Company X? The improvements you specify benefit exactly and only Company X and AT&T UNLESS they are made available to everyone.

Tonya

1. Imagine there is a new content company, let's call them company X.

> 2. Imagine content company X wants to sell movie and music downloads (like
> Apple does with iTunes) to their customers.

> 3. Imagine content company X wants to pay AT&T to build a better cabling
> to your (and other consumers') houses or local exchanges, so that company
> X's content can be delivered faster.

> Right now, step 3 can not realistically happen, because even if company X
> were to pay AT&T to improve connectivity, the improvement that they paid
> for wouldn't be just available for company X, but available for every Tom,
> Dick and Harry in world.

> And, as a result, step 3, which would benefit consumers, never happens.
> The improvement in connectivity that could have happened, didn't happen.

> Net neutrality isn't nearly so simple, nor nearly so black and white, as
> some people seem to think.

Messages in This Thread

Have you read MAAMAW'S CLICKY NOTES today?
Excuse me... You MISSED them??
At the top o' the page in the blue bars (sheesh!).

Subject: Congress is selling out the Internet (views: 480)
Tonya -- Monday, 1 May 2006, at 3:31 p.m.
- Congress is "for sale" (views: 471)
  Bluto -- Tuesday, 2 May 2006, at 12:34 a.m.
- Re: Subject: Congress is selling out the Internet (views: 451)
  Bill Cornelius -- Tuesday, 2 May 2006, at 7:47 a.m.
  - Bandwidth is not the issue (views: 466)
    Tonya -- Tuesday, 2 May 2006, at 10:38 a.m.
    - Re: Bandwidth is not the issue (views: 460)
      S. Tanna -- Tuesday, 2 May 2006, at 11:02 a.m.
      - Re: Bandwidth is not the issue (views: 434)
        Tonya -- Tuesday, 2 May 2006, at 11:24 a.m.
        
        Re: Bandwidth is not the issue (views: 450)
        BenV -- Tuesday, 2 May 2006, at 12:08 p.m.
        
        It's not that simple (views: 459)
        Mel. White -- Wednesday, 3 May 2006, at 6:15 a.m.
        
        Re: It's not that simple (views: 478)
        Tonya -- Wednesday, 3 May 2006, at 7:21 a.m.
    - Re: Bandwidth is not the issue (views: 464)
      Bill Cornelius -- Tuesday, 2 May 2006, at 7:59 p.m.
      - Any idea why this is suddenly an issue? (views: 445)
        Mel. White -- Wednesday, 3 May 2006, at 6:28 a.m.
        
        nail----head (views: 449)
        Bill Cornelius -- Wednesday, 3 May 2006, at 8:45 a.m.
- Oh, by the way....... (views: 441)
  Bill Cornelius -- Tuesday, 2 May 2006, at 8:08 p.m.
  - By the way, you are incorrect (views: 476)
    Tonya -- Tuesday, 2 May 2006, at 9:29 p.m.
  - Not quite there, but keep trying... (views: 433)
    BenV -- Wednesday, 3 May 2006, at 8:27 a.m.

\| View Thread \| Return to Index \| Read Prev Msg \| Read Next Msg \|

FIB - Scams 101 - Ye Olde Archives is maintained with WebBBS 3.11.

NOTICE TO SCUMBEEZLES
(you know who you are... you scream "Foul!" when the truth comes out)

        PLEASE READ THIS LEGAL NOTICE CAREFULLY BEFORE YOU FILE A LAWSUIT OR EVEN WASTE TIME THINKING ABOUT IT. It has been done before, but never successfully. In fact, the last dodobird who tried it ended up being ordered to pay more than $77,000 in attorney fees ($65,000+ to my attorneys and $12,000+ to my co-defendant's legal advisor).
        If your attorney is worth his salt, he's going to tell you that the expense of filing a lawsuit you can't win is a whole lot worse than any "damages" resulting from messages posted on this insignificant little chunk of cyberspace.
        NEWS FLASH: I didn't just climb down off that ol' turnip truck yesterday. I'm well aware that expressing a negative opinion, relating one's personal experience, and restating provable facts are all legal in this country and do not constitute libel, slander, or defamation -- so you don't want to play games with me, and you sure don't want to start something you aren't prepared to finish. I don't take threats lightly, and I don't accept bribes (or did you call it a "mutually-beneficial arrangement"?). I'll turn you in faster than you can yell, "ARREST ME, I'M SCUM!!"
        Do yourself a favor and turn your legal team loose in greener pastures.
        Although we may, from time to time, monitor or review discussions, postings and the like on the Friends In Business (Scams 101) Message Board, we are under no obligation to do so. We are not responsible or liable for any claim arising from the content of any such discussions or postings or for any error, defamation, libel, slander, omission, falsehood, obscenity, pornography, profanity, danger, or inaccuracy contained in any information contained within such locations on the Site.
        You are prohibited from posting or transmitting any unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, scandalous, inflammatory, pornographic, or profane materials or any material that could constitute or encourage conduct that would be considered a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate any law. You are likewise prohibited from posting any false claims against any company or individual. We will fully cooperate with any law enforcement authorities or court order requesting or directing us to disclose the identity of anyone posting any such information or materials.
        By posting messages and/or content on the Friends In Business (Scams 101) Message Board, you give permission for Lesley Fountain/Friends In Business/Shoestring Success Publications to display, distribute and use the posting and content for publication, advertising, promotion, excerption or example. You grant Lesley Fountain/Friends In Business/Shoestring Success Publications complete, perpetual, but non-exclusive rights to use, archive, reproduce, adapt, modify, distribute, sub-license, repurpose, rework, compile, or offer for sale or resale the messages, postings or content appearing on this site in whole or in part, throughout the world and universe, on a royalty-free basis without remuneration. If you cannot accept or agree with the terms of service for this website and discussion board, you are advised not to post on this board.
        In closing, I would like to remind you once again that it is still legal, in this great country of ours, to express a PERSONAL OPINION, as long as it is presented as opinion and not as fact.
        And finally, all you scammers out there will do well to remember that TRUTH IS AN ABSOLUTE DEFENSE against charges of libel, defamation, and slander... so if you're operating just a hop, skip, and jump ahead of the law, you might want to think twice before doing anything stupid... (AND SHAME ON YOU!!).