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. .. |
Re: Deja vu all over again.
said by Mr Matt: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.
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.
Cleland is the most pathetic, worthless telecom shill EVER: ArsTechnica sums up very well, why he's such a laughable PoS clown....
quote:Read the whole article, it's really worth that 2 minutes.
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 antinet neutrality site NetCompetition.org. Using some rather dubious proxy measureswhich would be worth further scrutiny as well, if the fundamental premise weren't so manifestly bogus as to render such quibbling moottelecom 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"?
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.
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.