| reply to Pake
Re: And the Greedy get greedier,.... Google pays for internet connectivity to someone, maybe it is actually BellSouth. I don't know, nor do I care. Point is that whoever it is that Google is paying for connectivity only needs to concern itself with providing the SLA and speed/bandwidth they are contracted by Google to provide. Now if Google comes to the above and says "Hey we want our traffic at a higher priority then any other traffic for companies that you are hosting" then that company is free to charge whatever Google is willing to pay to have their packets routed at a higher priority once it hits the hosting companies network. Provided of course that every other customer of that provider has already agreed (thru a EULA or whatever) to allow them to lower the priority of their packets. Because you can’t raise the priority of one packet without lowering the priority of every other packet.
No connectivity provider (backbone, ISP, Telco, Cable Co) has any right to interfere with any packet coming across the internet. Regardless of the number or the destination of such packets. They should remain transparent packet routers who's only concern should be with the SLA and speed/bandwidth they were contracted to provide. If they want to limit speed and amount of packets that one can send/receive so be it. Let ISP's and hosting companies create the packages for us to review and make an educated decision to buy or not to buy. And US would include user's as well as content providers like Google.
If BS is implying that they should be charging Google or any other company for packets directed to their servers from a BS client on the BS network, they are simply entering waters they have no business being in. They have absolutely no right to interfere with a user’s packet in any way as long as that user is within the scope of the speed/bandwidth that they have contracted for. If the user goes outside of that limit, then and only then does BS have a right to interfere with that specific user’s connection. |
