dslreports logo

    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


how-to block ads

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 page · 1 · 2

Chatham, ON

Seems Google had something to say about Cleland...

Mr Matt

Eustis, FL
·Embarq Now Centu..

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.

Jamaica, NY

Re: Deja vu all over again.

said by Mr Matt:

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.
Correct. Nobody is doing any charity on the internet. Nobody pays more than what they want or what their business models want. If you don't like the traffic, don't get any links to anyone else.

Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Tulsa, OK

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.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Bryn Mawr, PA
·Verizon FiOS

1 edit

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?

Brutal Video Vault
North Babylon, NY

1 edit

Words for Scott

Dear Scott Cleland,

Stop being a greedy c@#$.


A pro consumer user



This could save GM!

This theory just goes to show what morons they are in the auto industry. Those poor shlubs are only selling vehicles when they could also bill the new vehicle owner every time he transports something in his new vehicle whether it be people or cargo.
This theory could revolutionise the world!


Brooklyn, NY

Cleland is the most pathetic, worthless telecom shill EVER:

ArsTechnica sums up very well, why he's such a laughable PoS clown....

An excerpt:

If, in fact, I were to make such an argument, you would rapidly conclude that there are really only two possibilities: (1) I am a moron, or (2) I must think that you are if I expect you to find this persuasive.

I will let you decide which applies to the author of a "research study" of Google's bandwidth use being pushed by the anti–net neutrality site NetCompetition.org. Using some rather dubious proxy measures—which would be worth further scrutiny as well, if the fundamental premise weren't so manifestly bogus as to render such quibbling moot—telecom shill Scott Cleland estimates that Google and its subsidiaries "used" 16.5% of consumer broadband traffic in 2008, but only paid 0.8% of consumer broadband costs. This, the author brazenly claims, amounts to an implicit subsidy of some $6.9 billion to Google, and proves that Google "uses" 21 times as much bandwidth as it pays for.

This is stupid on so many levels I'm almost too stunned to know where to begin. Why would you ever imagine that the per-byte cost of getting upstream traffic out on a few enormous pipes would be the same as the per-byte cost on the downstream side, where the same traffic is dispersed to a bazillion consumers, each with their own broadband connection? (Nestle pays a lot less per pound than you do for sugar; I await a "research study.") What would possess anyone to posit that there's some inherently "fair" division of the cost of connecting end users to popular (mostly free) services anyway? Google adds value to the product ISPs sell, presumably helping them to attract customers; should Eric Schmidt be demanding compensation for the "implicit subsidy"?
Read the whole article, it's really worth that 2 minutes.

PS: did I mention Cleland is the stupides and thus the most worthless PoS paid mouthpiece ever?
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.

Montreal, QC

1 edit


It's called peering, people. Of course they're using more than they pay for, most of their bandwidth comes from peering.

Newsflash: Cogent pays $0 for bandwidth!

EDIT: As a note, I'm in Montreal. My ISP is in Toronto. My YouTube traffic goes through TorIX (the Toronto Internet Exchange).

In other words, neither my ISP nor Google pay anything for me to use YouTube. Because my ISP peers with Google.



Skewed and Obtuse

There is a fundamental disconnect on how the internet works and how it should be supplied. In your argument, people are looking for a handout that shouldn't be.

In the real world, the Internet, as it is built now; is scalable almost on the fly and every corporation that has a presence pays for their side. If they neglect infrastructure, they suffer. If an ISP fails to provide the bandwidth they need for their customers or charges too much, or limits access to areas people want to access. . . they too suffer. This is what competition and neutrality buys us. . . a steady supply of connectivity with options for when things go wrong. ISPs have to serve the people, upgrade their networks and make their profits as the market bears out. No one is forcing them to provide access to the internet, if it's not profitable, they may leave the game.

But unlike the Phone System of the old days, we're not accepting sub-par service and their leisurely installations because of regional monopolies.

Every user benefits by being able to have broadband connections at a reasonable price, (normally around $20 a month); and they can pay for more if they require.

Nobody is getting a free ride here. To think that we should remove the competitive access and give the ISPs Carte Blanche to charge whatever they want and limit usage to other networks as it pleases them is a hideous miscarriage of justice. You, sir, are flirting with a monopolistic idea far exceeding the reach of your intellect to control.

who fuckin cares

who fuckin cares
internet is internet




Old boys wanting their bills paid for...

Bunch of baloney...


Oilton, OK

1 edit

Google and Peering

The peering model only works if your content equals the number of eyeballs you provide. That way your input equals your output. That is why the large ISP's work on a balance of the two. Google should not be peering anywhere - they provide all content, and not one bit of eyeball presence (not including corporate use). Unfortunately somebody has to pay for that usage - and it will be the consumer.