dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2008-12-04 14:31:46: If you recall, the network neutrality debate truly took off in the States back in 2005, when former SBC (now AT&T) CEO Ed Whitacre told Business Week in an article that Google wanted to use Ed's "pipes", for free. ..

prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · next

jsz0
Premium Member
join:2008-01-23
Jewett City, CT

jsz0 to goliath28

Premium Member

to goliath28

Re: This is ridiculous!

That's an interesting analogy because it kinda works both ways.

If a company wants to build a big mall off a narrow exit that leads to a small narrow street the city/town would deny the building permit. The city might pay to increase the capacity & quality of the road in hopes of generating more tax revenue by making it a good location for other businesses to move to.

Quite often the company will agree to pay for some, or all, of the construction to improve capacity & quality of roads. In CT one of the local casinos has paid for extensive road work -- including adding an extra lane to a stretch of highway.

And of course, if taxes alone cannot pay for the upkeep of roads many states have tolls to generate more revenue.
EPS4
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA

EPS4

Member

This Google talk...

This reminds me of the people claiming the oil companies needed a "windfall profits tax"- they're making a lot of money, they need to give us some!

goliath28
@comcast.net

1 edit

1 recommendation

goliath28 to googluva

Anon

to googluva

Re: Do no evil (or hide it well)

Wrong, let us not forget the whole reason people even turn those computers on and pay ISPs in the first place, TO ACCESS THE FUCKING CONTENT! What do you think that a bunch of people turn their computers on just so they can say they are connected to ATT? They do it to access Google, YouTube etc.. Instead of complaining about what Google is doing offer a better product so the user doesn't want to access Google, instead use the ATT better search engine (ugh, left a bad taste in my mouth when I said that).

All this has to do with is the fact that the ISPs don't have the talent to build a better product to keep traffic on their network instead they are losing $$$ to other better content providers and it is pissing them off.

ISPs shouldn't bite the hand that ends up feeding them, and in the end it ISN'T the customer it is the content provider who attracts the consumer in the first place and makes them want to get online. Just like with football do you really think a bunch of people would buy tickets to go to a stadium just to watch the grass grow?? No, they go their to see the game!

Lets face it the business model these providers want to go to is that of a casino. "Give me your money have a free 8 ounce watered down beer and shut up!"
Austinloop
join:2001-08-19
Austin, TX

Austinloop to DarkLogix

Member

to DarkLogix

Re: What google should do

It may very difficult to fire Ed, he retired around 2 years ago. And it is all Cinton's fault.

footballdude
Premium Member
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO

footballdude to DarkLogix

Premium Member

to DarkLogix
said by DarkLogix:

then At&t will learn that they should have fired Ed 3 years ago
Ed Whitacre retired in 2007. You'd think somebody at this site would have noticed that by now.

DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium Member
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX

DarkLogix to raye

Premium Member

to raye

Re: Internet connections could be more affordable for everyone?

ya in general businesses pay more per meg than consumers

1x T1 = 1.5Mbit/sec and atleast $200/month
1x Comcast HSI = 16down 2up and about $60/month

and it only makes since that if you provide a routers and other network gear (like google does) that add to the global internet backbone that you'll start getting some bulk savings

and its not as though At&t don't benefit from peering they do as they save on what they would otherwise pay to some other teir 2 ISP
Austinloop
join:2001-08-19
Austin, TX

1 recommendation

Austinloop to EPS4

Member

to EPS4

Re: This Google talk...

I never cease to be amazed by those calling for a wind fall profits tax. The people calling for the tax fail to realize that the company will pass on the tax to the customer. That is just the way it works. Tax their profits and you will pay the tax on the profit.

DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium Member
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX

DarkLogix to footballdude

Premium Member

to footballdude

Re: What google should do

wow why is ed at all relevant if he's gone?

in that case maybe At&t should sue Ed for (well let the lawyers work that part out)

as Ed will clearly hurt At&t if this keeps up
impala
join:2008-03-08
Clemson, SC

2 edits

impala

Member

how them pipes work

Would this be a viable simplification of IP traffic and costs?

A packet generated by the consumer travels across his ISP network to the nearest POP. At the POP, the packet is transferred to the backbone network serving the destination website's ISP. The packet then arrives on the website's ISP network and is delivered to the website.

The website generates a packet that travels across it's ISP network to the nearest POP. At the POP, the packet is transferred to the backbone network serving the consumer's ISP. The packet then arrives on the consumer's ISP network and is delivered to the consumer.

The website pays for it's bandwidth with it's ISP, inbound and outbound.

The consumer pays for his bandwidth with his ISP, inbound and outbound.

The website pays, through the ISP, for the inbound packets from the consumer traveling across the backbone.

The consumer pays, through his ISP, for the inbound packets from the website traveling across the backbone.

Consumers tend to consume larger and more packets than they send to the servers. So the consumer is paying for more backbone bandwidth than the website. Think youtube.com

packets travelling left to right only
consumer = isp1 = pop = quest = pop = isp2 = website
website = isp2 = pop
= att = pop = isp1 = consumer

consumer pays for bold part, website pays for italic part.
Of course, huge sites like youtube don't need an ISP, they are the POP.
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

1 recommendation

axus

Member

He got the conclusion in reverse

Obviously residential users should be paying 21 times less than they are now. Then Google would be paying their fair share.

It's stupid, Google pays less partly because the physical cost of their provider is lower. Data centers don't need a last mile, they are right on the "highway". Having a terabit of bandwidth is more efficient per byte in real costs than a megabit.

Average people pay more so AT&T can pad Whitacre's annual bonus, and provide contracts for people like Cleland.

People with corporate welfare mentality are so hypocritical about the free market. The music industry thinking they are guaranteed revenue, and trying to get ISPs to pay them in perpetuity, is analogous to this. Do something that people want to pay you for, and do it efficiently, and you'll make money. Don't whine about economies of scale or someone getting a better deal than you.

JGROCKY
Premium Member
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON

JGROCKY

Premium Member

Seems Google had something to say about Cleland...

»googlepublicpolicy.blogs ··· gle.html
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL

Mr Matt

Member

Deja vu all over again.

As I reminded readers of this newsletter in 1997 the Local Exchange Carriers attempted to change all incoming lines serving Dial Up ISP's Modem Pools to measured rate. They complained that they would have to upgrade their switches and trunk groups to handle the traffic caused by subscribers calling into ISP's Modem Pools. The Local Exchange Carriers wanted the ISP's to bear the cost of upgrading the Local Exchange Carriers networks. The Federal Government said no. The Fed. could do so because voice telecommunication service is regulated. Unfortunately broadband service is not regulated and the service providers can charge whatever they want. As an internet insider I forgot the most fundamental fact about the internet. The internet consists of for profit internet businesses connected to for profit internet businesses. Each business wants to squeeze the maximum profit out of their portion of the network. If our highway system operated the same way, all roads would be privately owned toll roads and depending how the driver enters the highway system their transit cost would vary. I do not know of any portion of the internet network that is owned by the government except those segments serving the government's own networks.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to impala

Premium Member

to impala

Re: how them pipes work

said by impala:

packets travelling left to right only
consumer = isp1 = pop = quest = pop = isp2 = website
website = isp2 = pop
= att = pop = isp1 = consumer

consumer pays for bold part, website pays for italic part.
The consumer, ultimately, pays for ALL the parts. Websites get money from advertisers for the most part. Advertisers pass cost on to makers of products and services. Consumers buy products and services and part of that pays advertisers and the websites. The only thing going on is fighting over who is getting the biggest pieces of the pie - the websites, the advertisers, and makers of products & services.
Pv8man
join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN

Pv8man to DarkLogix

Member

to DarkLogix

Re: LOL@ed

It's not that AT&T is dumb, it's just that they expect everyone else is dumb.

goliath28
@comcast.net

goliath28 to jsz0

Anon

to jsz0

Re: This is ridiculous!

You are exactly correct and that is what Google is and has done. They have paid for larger pipes and paid for additional hardware as well as setup direct private peering to 'widen that exit and increase the capacity for their section of road' you speak of.

But in this case what the 'government (i.e. ATT and others) are asking is that they not only widen that exit and increase that section of highway but increase all lanes everywhere else in the world as well because someone 100 to 1000 miles away may visit that mall too???? That doesn't work for me.

goliath28

1 recommendation

goliath28 to goliath28

Anon

to goliath28

Re: Do no evil (or hide it well)

And now that I have thought even more about it ATT needs to be careful because Google could easily argue that since they are the 'content' provider they should be paid.

For example the producers of a TV show are paid by the broadcast company for the rights to show their TV show. Not the other way around, which seems to be the way ATT wants it. So maybe ATT and all the other ISPs should be flipping the bills for ALL content providers for the right to even access their content..

Hmmm interesting ain't it!


morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo to woody7

Member

to woody7

Re: So, in a nutshell (a Telco analogy)

said by woody7:

hmmm......isn't that what the cell phone companies do?you pay for incoming and out going........
that's why telco isn't freaking at the loss of landline customers. instead of a service costing $15/month plus 10-15 in taxes, cell phones cost most people $40/month plus 5 in taxes. cell service is their new cash cow.

wmcbrine
join:2002-12-30
Laurel, MD

wmcbrine to brandon

Member

to brandon

Re: So much slant.

a) There really is no legitimate "other side".

b) Opposing AT&T's outrageous position isn't the same as being "anti-corporate". Google is a corporation, too (and a big one now).

dsfsdds
@gci.com

dsfsdds to goliath28

Anon

to goliath28

Re: This is ridiculous!

You could even say google's private peering is like them building their own private underground highways directly to the shoppers block, completely bypassing the city streets.

JeffFromOhio
@protocall-pdi.com

JeffFromOhio to goliath28

Anon

to goliath28

Re: Do no evil (or hide it well)

said by goliath28 :

And now that I have thought even more about it ATT needs to be careful because Google could easily argue that since they are the 'content' provider they should be paid.

For example the producers of a TV show are paid by the broadcast company for the rights to show their TV show. Not the other way around, which seems to be the way ATT wants it.
There's one essential difference there, though. In the world of TV, the production company which creates the TV shows doesn't sell any ads directly to advertisers [ok, well, they do sell product placements, so that can kind of qualify as ads]. Instead, ABC, NBC, et. al. get to sell the ads. ABC, NBC, et. al. then give a portion of the revenue back to the show's producers.

With Google, when you use a Google property, Google is the one selling the ads, not AT&T.

However, there is one good point to your posts, about the ISP's needing Google in order to sell Internet connections to consumers. I think that if AT&T starts to play hardball on this issue, Google should stop serving any of their regular content to AT&T customers for a day or two. Instead, they should get a minimal/low-bandwidth page from Google explaining the situation, that the customer has paid for an Internet connection, but because of the policies of AT&T's executives and lobbyists, Google may no longer be able to provide them service in the future, and that they can consider this a taste of the Internet without Google, GMail, Youtube, etc. Then, prominently in the page, provide an email address for AT&T customer service so that customers can communicate their position on the issue to AT&T.

I bet that would shut AT&T up fast.

long time member
@senate.gov

1 recommendation

long time member to redhatnation

Anon

to redhatnation

Re: Thank you, Karl

We do.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

KrK

Premium Member

Take an agenda, throw in some mega-bias....

Add in some heaping spoonfuls of wild-ass guesses and stir in some pure speculation, then bake in a political broiler and you'll come out with a study like that.

Not even worth the paper it's written on.
KrK

1 recommendation

KrK to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5

Re: Key analogy has merit

Sorry TK, I don't buy it. Google has to pay for every bit of bandwidth they use, whether it be from their webcrawling or from users coming to Google sites.

This argument that somehow Google gets a free ride or a mega-subsidized ride makes no sense at all. What you have is connection providers who also want to be content providers and see Google as direct competition--- and hate their successes and want them gone, by hook or by crook.
ross7
join:2000-08-16

ross7 to brandon

Member

to brandon

Re: So much slant.

said by brandon:

Once again, I wish I could hear the other side of the argument so I could make an informed decision. Instead I get Karl's anti-corporate slant and that's it.

It's not your blog, Karl. Report the news, or call everything an editorial.
I guess your computer has no keyboard/mouse, or your ISP limits you to just this site on the internet, and precludes you from visiting thousands of other sites on the internet that are more "corporate friendly", and less pro-consumer biased. I feel so sorry for you being unable to get enough anti-consumer propaganda roughage to clear your colon. You must be awfully "backed-up". While entitled to your opinion, I suggest you stop wishing and go somewhere else to get your "news".

Facts are facts, and no amount of pseudo-science can do more than obfuscate them. All Karl is doing is pointing out the blatant errors in the reasoning espoused by Ed Whitacre, Scott Cleland and the rest of the Telco astro-turfers. BTW, it's called journalism. Or, do you believe DSLR should simply republish Telco bullshit without comment, or payment?

Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA

Jerm to canesfan2001

Member

to canesfan2001

Re: "You gotta pay the troll toll...

That has WIN sauce all over it!

Greenman FTW!
ross7
join:2000-08-16

ross7 to Austinloop

Member

to Austinloop

Re: What google should do

said by Austinloop:

It may very difficult to fire Ed, he retired around 2 years ago. And it is all Cinton's fault.
Ed retired from AT&T, but his ridiculous views are still stinking up the place...who the hell is Cinton?

RayW
Premium Member
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT

RayW to impala

Premium Member

to impala

Re: how them pipes work

Sorry ma'am, but that is not correct, I pay for total usage, UP + DOWN = TOTAL in my base price. I see that when I check my stats, in my contract, and on the website.

yock
TFTC
Premium Member
join:2000-11-21
Miamisburg, OH

yock to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5

Re: Key analogy has merit

Analogies don't make arguments, precedents do. Communication infrastructure isn't funded in the same way public roads are funded. We all pay for our own connections out into the wild digital yonder. The data I request from Google comes to me off my dime, evidenced by the fact that people on metered billing have that traffic count against their total. Having Google pay for that transmission AND metering that transmission against the customer is double dipping.

If Google has to start paying for the transmission all the way into my PC, I want free Internet.
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Bryn Mawr, PA

1 edit

qworster

Member

So let me get this straight....

The big Internet companies want to charge me TWICE, once for having Internet service and a second time for actually using it?

This completely sounds like a 100% measured 'message unit' telco model-where they used to charge you a fee just for having a phone-and then charge you for any calls you made on it.

That model is long dead-replaced by flat rate calling and wireless phones.

Now they want to trot it out again for Internet???

What are they smoking?

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK to brandon

Premium Member

to brandon

Re: So much slant.

said by brandon:

Once again, I wish I could hear the other side of the argument so I could make an informed decision. Instead I get Karl's anti-corporate slant and that's it.
Duh. That's about the densest thing I've read in a long time. Karl's post is bashing the report---- HE LINKS TO IT. If you want to see the OTHER side of the story, read the report!

... and then maybe you'd realize Karl is right. Oh, and BTW: Google is a large corporation.
prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · next