🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7c4uuc$5tl$1@shell1.ncal.verio.com>, gerg@shell1.ncal.verio.com 
writes...
> For_Email@ddress.see.below_plea.se (Phil Koenig) writes:
> >In article <36e3ee16.75374101@news.ncal.verio.com>, Usenet@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US 
> >[snip]
> >> >Are consumers going to want bandwidth charges, or would they prefer
> >> >restrictions on types of equipment to be served by the connection?
> >> >"Neither" is not a workable answer.
> >> 
> >> Consumers already have bandwidth charges.  You're in effect just arguing
> >> that the charges are too low.  My counter is that the free market will set
> >> the price, now that we finally have a measure of free market competition.
> >
> >
> >This reasoning only works if the upstream providers (ie ISPs) 
> >are also somehow benefitting from this "free market".
> >
> >Last I heard, T-1 etc. connections to major backbone providers 
> >were going UP in price, not down.
> >
> 
> Really?  Quest (or is it Qwest?) isn't offering high-speed
> connections for less than Alternet/Sprint/GTE, etc.?
> 
> 
>   -Greg
> 


Even if true, is Qwest the only company that any ISP ever buys
transit/connectivity from?  I daresay they are not yet a 
majority player in the market.

Things may be different in a couple of years, but we're
talking about prices for DSL/cable customers NOW.



-- 
Philip J. Koenig         The Electric Kahuna Organization          [see below]
-----------------Computers & Communications for the New Millenium-------------
References to my email address in this message have been modified to foil
address-collection robots.  If you wish to send email, use the following 
address by removing numbers and spaces:  pjkunet64 @  ekahuna27 . c o m