dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


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. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next
redhatnation
Premium
join:2005-06-02
Woodbridge, VA

1 edit

3 recommendations

Thank you, Karl

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.
moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

Re: Thank you, Karl

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

DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3

1 recommendation

Re: Thank you, Karl

said by moonpuppy:

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.
You are assuming Congress is actually smart enough to see through the BS spewed by these so called "objective" lobbyists.
Your assuming that they have any interest anymore in the good of the people

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

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

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

Re: Thank you, Karl

said by DarkLogix:

said by moonpuppy:

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

jimbo2150

join:2004-05-10
Euclid, OH

1 recommendation

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
Wow... seems like so long ago...

We had:
•Just Lobbyists
•a non-tech savvy Congress
•a president willing to sign any legislation from "his" congress
•a president dumber than congress

Then we had:
•Lobbyists... and the congress-men (and women) willing to get in bed with them (figuratively AND literally)
•a non-tech savvy Congress willing to prove it
•a president willing to veto any legislation not conforming to "his" views, even if it was good and bipartisan
•a president dumber than congress

I don't see how our incoming president could make it any worse...
--

- "Techie" Jim

CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County

Re: Thank you, Karl

That would have been all of my points as well.

Millenniumle

join:2007-11-11
Fredonia, NY
Which assumes they even care. There is money and career to consider.

imakeholsinu

join:2008-01-24
Saint Louis, MO
said by moonpuppy:

You are assuming Congress is actually smart enough to see through the BS spewed by these so called "objective" lobbyists.
That's an oxymoron. Emphasis on the moron.

long time member

@senate.gov

1 recommendation

We do.
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

Re: Thank you, Karl

said by long time member :

We do.
Oh ****.

Either this is a proxy on a botnet-ed computer, or must be a minimum wage administrative assistent or clerk or intern.
ctggzg
Premium
join:2005-02-11
USA
kudos:2
said by redhatnation:

Well written summary.
Yeah, what a great, objective, unbiased summary.

en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

AT&T is using old Telco model

Basically = AT&T wants to make the Internet become 2 parts, just like phone service = pay for the local loop, then pay for the interconnection (aka long distance ) on a per byte rather than per minute use.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

Re: AT&T is using old Telco model

wouldnt shock me because VOIP and Cell Phones made their "Local Long-Distance" bullshit obsolete. when i lived in CT it was cheaper for me to call Seattle then Hartford. so they need to find a new cash cow.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
wistlo

join:2003-01-04
New Orleans, LA

Re: AT&T is using old Telco model

Perhaps that is why their proprietary VOIP product is being moved from general availability (CallVantage) to an accessory product available only with U-Verse.

canesfan2001

join:2003-02-04
Hialeah, FL

"You gotta pay the troll toll...

...to get into that boy's hole"
--
OASAASLLS

Jerm

join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
kudos:2

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

That has WIN sauce all over it!

Greenman FTW!

youkilledkenny

@comcast.net

haha

@the southpark clip

NetAdmin1
CCNA

join:2008-05-22

Peering

Don't forget peering. Google eliminates a lot of their transport costs by peering directly with large network providers. Not only is that good for Google, it is good for network providers because their transport costs are reduced.
--
There is no such thing as too much vacation, but I would wager that there is such a thing as too little.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

Re: Peering

they also have Datacenters around the world which means they have less distance to cover to each user. which im sure effects cost and performance for everyone involved
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

fcisler
Premium
join:2004-06-14
Riverhead, NY
Google will peer (paid or SFI) with just about anyone.

My ISP (Cablevision/OOL) hops directly out of their network right onto google's network...5 hops out of mine and then another 10 hops to google.com.
Methadras

join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA

Google to become an ISP

At this stage of the game it seems feasible for Google to begin, if they haven't already the process of becoming their own net neutral ISP. Offer people broadband speeds at a fair price, use their pipelines to get internet without having google be a watchdog outside of advertising datamining. Wishful thinking? I could be wrong.
probboy

join:2008-01-10
Natick, MA

1 edit

1 recommendation

Re: Google to become an ISP

Based on recent events (like the 700Mhz auction), Google has no desire to become an ISP since that would take money and decrease their profits.

Of course, if someone else is willing to give them spectrum for free (i.e., the white space debate) and someone else is willing to pay for the infrastructure (like sheeple buying white space adapters), Google is gladly ride on top of it serving up ads and collecting a buck.

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12

So, in a nutshell (a Telco analogy)

Let's make an analogy here:

Instead of the originating caller paying the long-distance toll charges, AT&T now wants to charge their customer for the long-distance per-minute toll and also charge the person their customer is calling a per-minute toll charge ... even though the person the AT&T customer is calling (or has been called by) may have a completely different phone company.

woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA

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

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

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12

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

join:2002-02-08
Brooklyn, NY

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

said by Matt3:

said by woody7:

hmmm......isn't that what the cell phone companies do?you pay for incoming and out going........
I believe you're onto something there ....
In your example only one customer is paying my carrier....me. ATT wants to go a step further and charge me and my counter party. It's like making a call or receiving a call from your friend's cell phone and getting a bill from your friend's cell phone carrier for the minutes you spend on the phone taking to them.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
Reviews:
·Charter
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.

fatmanskinny
Premium
join:2004-01-04
Wandering
Reviews:
·Vonage
·Comcast Digital ..

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

said by morbo:

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.
Just wait until the cable companies find their way into the cell business and deliver it better than the telcos.
--
God saved me from myself! Thank you, Lord, in the Name of Jesus!

jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1

1 recommendation

Broken System

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.

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.

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.
Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

2 recommendations

Re: Broken System

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.
You got that right, AT&T will charge consumers whatever the market will bear no matter what Google pays for internet service. AT&T would even like Congress to legislate that consumers have to pay more than they would ordinarily be willing to bear. 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.
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

Re: Broken System

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.
Why doesn't ATT then buy Google stock?

fatmanskinny
Premium
join:2004-01-04
Wandering
Reviews:
·Vonage
·Comcast Digital ..
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.
Amen! Amen! Amen!
--
God saved me from myself! Thank you, Lord, in the Name of Jesus!

DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3

LOL@ed

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

join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA

Re: LOL@ed

said by DarkLogix:

its hard to believe that At&t could be so dumb
Yeah, but their stupidity is shaping policy at this point. I'm not hearing the loud clarion call from the net neutrality advocates at this point and they don't have enough cash to pressure Washington to give them a fair hearing.
Pv8man

join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN
It's not that AT&T is dumb, it's just that they expect everyone else is dumb.
raye
Premium
join:2000-08-14
Orange, CA

Google would be happy to use AT&T's network

If they could actually find it. Even AT&T armed with a flashlight and a map could not find portions of their network.

Google buys bandwidth from just about every Tier One backbone provider including AT&T see »www.fixedorbit.com/AS/15/AS15169.htm

What is AT&T boo-hooing about? Sprint and Level3 have better backbones anyway dump AT&T.

googluva

@charter.com

Do no evil (or hide it well)

Google is great, Google is good, let us thank Karl for this Google food. Yum, yum, I love cool-aid.

Google has been driving down ISP costs with their massive size for years. This has a rippling industry impact. May sound good in principal, but traffic growth costs still exist and guess where they are going... quietly and completely to you and me.

Peering you say??? Well most smart ISPs know that peering with content is not really a good thing in the long run. May sounds good day 1 to save on today's transit costs, but it allows content growth to double, triple, 10x output without worry and at the expense of the ISP. Growth is something to watch. Shift in "who pays" is something consumer sites should consider.

•••
raye
Premium
join:2000-08-14
Orange, CA

Internet connections could be more affordable for everyone?

consumer connections average between 30-60/month that seems pretty cheap to me. would like to see greater download speeds for consumer and cheaper buiness lines.

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?

•••••

funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6

4 edits

The Neat Thing about Cleland's Article --

-- is that it's self-destructive.

It's been a bad week for the bad guys.

First, Richard Bennett running around claiming that VOIP and gaming were going to end because BitTorrent was switching to UDP (ignoring the fact that it has an even MORE conservative congestion method than TCP does).

Now, Scott Cleland with this "research" that says Google not only should pay its bills but ours too -- plus an extra 80% or so on top of that to account for "illegal" traffic that Google doesn't participate in.*

He picks on Google for actually answering web-page requests from its voluntary users and for spidering the WWW, which search engines have done since long before Google. Perhaps Google ought to reduce its site count by one -- and just wait until Cleland gives them "permission" to spider it -- I'd bet Cleland would gladly continue to foot the bandwidth bill.

Then he goes on to make this ridiculous comparison to the trucking industry.

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.
Now, "hands up" if you've ever bought something at the store or ordered anything that comes in a truck. Was shipping free? Nope -- you either pay shipping charges or price markups? Truckers, although nice people, don't carry the freight for free. Yes, road taxes are collected in the various taxes, fees, mileage and fuel surcharges heavily imposed on truckers but the consumer pays those -- in advance -- often as a separate "shipping" line-item on the receipt or the retailer pays them and passes the cost on to the consumer in pricing!

Keep talkin' guys. The consumers think you're doing a great job!

*in the report, Cleland dismisses 40% or so of the total bandwidth crossing the Internet as "Illegal" so he can subtract it from the denominator, which inflates Google's share of bandwidth by a factor of nearly two! This guy ought to work in the Treasury bailing out corporations!!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
CMoore2004
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Jonesville, MI

1 recommendation

Re: The Neat Thing about Cleland's Article --

Actually, in your quote there, it doesn't even need torn apart. The customers are the ones paying to access the Google content. Google charges the customer by advertising and collecting browsing habits. The ISP charges the customer for the connection (and if you have 20% of your traffic going down a free pipe, I'd think you'd be pretty happy).

I happen to drive truck and you wouldn't believe how many taxes are placed on the trucks. The Indiana Toll Road (or maybe it was Ohio) is debating raising tolls--for trucks. Why? Because not as many people are using the road. If less people use the road, isn't there less wear and tear? But don't worry about that, these costs are all passed on to you and everyone else who buys... anything. Then that money goes to the overseas company that has the 99-year lease on the toll road.

goliath28

@comcast.net

This is ridiculous!

So by their mentalitity:

I buy a car (my computer), I pay taxes to build the roads (my ISP), I go to the grocery store (google) who also BTW pays taxes to pay for the roads and other infrastructure (their ISP/transit providers); so that we can reach each other. Now what they are saying is that they want to add an additional tax to actually put the car on said road??? Who do they think they are, the government!

••••••

brandon
Some truth included in this post.
Premium
join:2003-03-31
Hurley, MS

1 edit

1 recommendation

So much slant.

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.

••••

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 edit

1 recommendation

Key analogy has merit

»www.netcompetition.org/study_of_···sts2.pdf
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.
Google, as usual, wants to have things their way - make lots of money off the infrastructure paid for by others without carrying the real costs incurred(because of the huge discounts they get).

In the end, however, the consumer in the home ends up paying the bill one way or another
- to ISPs, or to Google thru higher costs of goods that pays all that advertising money going to Google, or to the gov't if some get their way of having the Feds pay for infrastructure improvements to the internet.

All the sturm & drang between content providers(like Google); ISPs; and the government is really just a fight over who gets to keep the biggest pieces of the internet pie. When all the fighting is done, the cost is the cost and will be paid by end users one way or another. All anyone is doing here is picking sides to determine which CEOs and/or pols are going to make out the best.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?

•••••••

DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3

What google should do

Just simply Block At&t
de-peer and block all trafic from At&t

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

show them the benefit of peering with them by removing them
the At&t stock price will drop and the Chairman might fire Ed

•••••
EPS4

join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA

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!

••••••••
impala

join:2008-03-08
Clemson, SC

2 edits

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
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

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.