Scott Cleland: Google Using 21x The Bandwidth They Pay For

said by redhatnation:

Well written summary.

Would be nice if the various Congressional committees, the FTC, and the DOJ, who are sniffing around this issue read dslreports.com.

said by moonpuppy:

You are assuming Congress is actually smart enough to see through the BS spewed by these so called "objective" lobbyists.

said by DarkLogix:

Your assuming that they have any interest anymore in the good of the people

so add these up
"Objective" lobbyists
a non-tech savvy Congress
a congress with no interest in the people anymore
a (soon to be)president that won't veto "his" congress
a president that is just as dumb as congress

=we're in for some real ****
oh Supreme court help us

said by DarkLogix:

so add these up
"Objective" lobbists
a non-tech savvy Congress
a congress with no interist in the people anymore
a (soon to be)president that won't veto "his" congress
a president that is just as dumb as congress

said by moonpuppy:

You are assuming Congress is actually smart enough to see through the BS spewed by these so called "objective" lobbyists.

said by long time member :

We do.

said by redhatnation:

Well written summary.

said by woody7:

hmmm......isn't that what the cell phone companies do?you pay for incoming and out going........

said by Matt:

I believe you're onto something there ....

said by woody7:

hmmm......isn't that what the cell phone companies do?you pay for incoming and out going........

said by morbo:

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.

said by jmn1207:

If Google were to fork over 2 billion dollars, only .0001% of the wealthiest employers would see any benefits. I'm offended that it was even mentioned that the regular consumer could save money on our internet service if only Google paid their "fair share". That is complete BS.

said by Sammer:

This is simply an argument about whether AT&T should be able to to legally steal some of Google's profits and has nothing to do with consumers.

said by jmn1207:

This story underlines the basic faults with most major corporations. The focus on providing a quality service or product is completely lost. Instead, making money becomes the business. Whatever they are selling is just a means to an end and it is all about the profits with little or no regard to what is being sold or what initially made them successful.

I'm sick of these mega-companies with their skeleton crews and piss-poor customer service making enormous profits while spreading this wealth in such a lopsided, anti-consumer distribution ratio.

said by DarkLogix:

its hard to believe that At&t could be so dumb

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.

said by raye:

AT&T charges about $200 per T1 line local loop charge more for T3 and higher what will chaqrging Google more do to reduce that ripoff?

said by Cleland :

Any analysis of public highway funding will show that businesses/trucks, which put the most cost burden on the highways, pay substantially more than consumers/cars – the exact opposite of Google's recommended broadband model, where consumers shoulder most all of Google's distribution costs.

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.

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.

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.

Since Google often compares the Internet to the public highway system, the study also examined how the U.S. highway system apportions costs among business users and consumers. The analysis of public highway funding shows that businesses/trucks, which put the most cost burden on the highways, pay substantially more than consumers/cars – the exact opposite of Google’s recommended broadband model, where consumers shoulder most all of Google’s costs for using and profiting off the Internet more than any other entity. The study highlights the inconsistency in Google’s position supporting government ownership/regulation of the Internet like the U.S. highway system, but not adopt the economic model and fairness of the highway system -- where the heaviest users that cause the most costs -- shoulder most of the costs.

said by Austinloop:

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

said by DarkLogix:

then At&t will learn that they should have fired Ed 3 years ago

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.