how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
1106 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| Wait one 1. Net Neutrality law has not passed but; do not court the chickens before they hatch.
2. IF Net Neutrality law does pass it would open a new business opportunities for the telecoms. Any regulation the internet would crimp and investment on the internet. Goggle will clog the internet with videos. Instead of the internet new infrastructure will be sold to business as dedicated clutter free connection. If anything Net Neutrality would smother the internet as Goggle will find out you can’t force private business to give you bandwidth to grow you business for free* and, private corporations will turn to faster and clutter free private dedicated connections.
* I know what some of you all are going to say, but “Me and Goggle has all ready paid for the pipes”. This is true but only in part. You do not pay for the backbone but to move data on the pipes at a current bandwidth service, you did not pay for any improved and faster service. Like many companies you do not have a right to get a premium service for free. For example you can not expect to buy a hamburger and expect to get prime rib or buy a coach ticket and expect to get first class seat and service. | |
 major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | said by richardpor: Goggle will clog the internet with videos. Instead of the internet new infrastructure will be sold to business as dedicated clutter free connection. Ok, Ted. And did you only just receive your Internet today when your staff sent your Internet on Friday? The Internet is not a dump truck. It's a series of tubes, dammit! And Goggle is clogging it!
--
The Toll
| |
| reply to richardpor
said by richardpor:Any regulation the internet would crimp and investment on the internet. Goggle will clog the internet with videos. As far as I know, there's no way for Google to "clog the Internet with videos." This would assume that they are purposefully broadcasting tons of video files all over the Internet whether people wanted them or not. The reality is that Google might make tons of videos available, but it is the users who decide which videos (if any) actually traverse the Internet.
said by richardpor:I know what some of you all are going to say, but “Me and Goggle has all ready paid for the pipes”. This is true but only in part. You do not pay for the backbone but to move data on the pipes at a current bandwidth service, you did not pay for any improved and faster service. Like many companies you do not have a right to get a premium service for free. For example you can not expect to buy a hamburger and expect to get prime rib or buy a coach ticket and expect to get first class seat and service. Actually, "Me and Google" will pay for all of the bandwidth costs including any improved and faster service. Let's say Google wants to make tons of videos available, they'll pay their ISP for the bandwidth needed. That ISP buys their bandwidth from an upstream provider and so on to the top of the chain. (The "top of the chain" companies have peering arrangements as their traffic tends to even out.)
On the user end, the user pays their ISP for some bandwidth. Their ISP pays an upstream provider and so on up the chain again.
Now, if an ISP sees that their network is slowing down and/or they want to get a competitive advantage, they'll upgrade their network. Users who want this upgraded network (with the faster speeds) will likely pay more. (If they don't pay more, the upgrade is factored into normal costs of doing business just like an advertising budget.) Web companies who want faster speeds will also pay more. Sure, an infrastructure investment might not break even and become profitable overnight, but if/when it does it will be because the users paid for it. | |
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | reply to richardpor
First off, you might look at returning to grammar school and try to relearn that whole reading and writing thing. Your grammar is awful and takes a decode ring to decipher.
said by [user-richardpor :
]IF Net Neutrality law does pass it would open a new business opportunities for the telecoms. Any regulation the internet would crimp and investment on the internet. Everyone says that, but no one can prove that. Additionally, net neutrality regulation would protection the ability of new comers to the internet to create new services and make investments. Without it, no one would be able to compete after having paid their monthly protection bribe to the ATT mafia for packet protection.
Goggle will clog the internet with videos. And if "Goggle" doesn't do it, the Telcos are going to do it. Sorry, believing the telco line that Google is going to kill the internet is foolish.
If anything Net Neutrality would smother the internet as Goggle will find out you can’t force private business to give you bandwidth to grow you business for free* and, private corporations will turn to faster and clutter free private dedicated connections. Actually, Net Neutrality wouldn't do any of that. Thanks for playing. Additionally, "Goggle" doesn't get any "force private business" to do anything... So, thanks for playing, please come back again.
said by richardpor:I know what some of you all are going to say, but “Me and Goggle has all ready paid for the pipes”. This is true but only in part. You do not pay for the backbone but to move data on the pipes at a current bandwidth service, you did not pay for any improved and faster service. Like many companies you do not have a right to get a premium service for free. For example you can not expect to buy a hamburger and expect to get prime rib or buy a coach ticket and expect to get first class seat and service. Certainly shows how little you know about this issue. Actually Google DOES pay for premium level service from backbone providers. The costs of that level of service are certainly enough for those providers to invest in infrastructure upgrades.
I recommend you brush on this subject because you clearly have a lot to learn about the whole NN debate, as do most of the people who post about it.
--
Prove it... | |
jtel
join:2005-06-28
Bristol, RI | I would think that if Google has the fiber and the traffic that they are peering not paying. | |
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | said by jtel:I would think that if Google has the fiber and the traffic that they are peering not paying. Arguable. If they aren't paying for ANY bandwidth, than they would classify as a Tier 1 network, which they are not. I can guarantee you that Google is paying for bandwidth at some points in their network. The fibre they invested in was mostly for invest datacenter traffic.
--
Prove it... | |
1 edit | reply to bmn
said by bmn:Actually Google DOES pay for premium level service from backbone providers. The costs of that level of service are certainly enough for those providers to invest in infrastructure upgrades. Where is your evidence? Do you know exactly how Google connects to the Internet, and how much they pay who and for what? Have you seen an invoice or other itemized detail? Maybe some others here have things to learn.
BTW, your grammar isn't exactly English 101, either. | |
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | said by viperlmw:Where is your evidence? Do you know exactly how Google connects to the Internet, and how much they pay who and for what? Have you seen an invoice or other itemized detail? Maybe some others here have things to learn. Sorry, but you have examples of Google having nothing but peering agreements where ? Considering a lot of peering agreements are placed under non-disclosure agreements, how could you produce such evidence without suddenly being open to a lawsuit ? Sorry, but the assumption is that Google is paying for transport in locations where they aren't peering. Additionally, if you had an idea about the type of traffic that Google generated, mostly unidirectional, it is unlikely that they would exclusively have SFI (settlement free interconnect) or free peering agreements. They may be at some of the major exchange points and some of the smaller ISPs may have interconnected with them just to reduce their costs, but a large network that is incurring a cost from having Google peered with little return isn't going to let them enter into an SFI agreement for long. Google is paying for the bandwidth it is using.
Clearly you need to get a bit more familiar with the way the internet works.
BTW, your grammar isn't exactly English 101, either. 
The OP's post takes the cake for bad grammar. Perhaps you should note that you have grammar oddities of your own too. Either way, the OP's posts have always between poorly written rants.
--
Prove it... | |
| said by bmn:said by viperlmw:Where is your evidence? Do you know exactly how Google connects to the Internet, and how much they pay who and for what? Have you seen an invoice or other itemized detail? Maybe some others here have things to learn. Sorry, but you have examples of Google having nothing but peering agreements where ? Considering a lot of peering agreements are placed under non-disclosure agreements, how could you produce such evidence without suddenly being open to a lawsuit ? Sorry, but the assumption is that Google is paying for transport in locations where they aren't peering. Additionally, if you had an idea about the type of traffic that Google generated, mostly unidirectional, it is unlikely that they would exclusively have SFI (settlement free interconnect) or free peering agreements. They may be at some of the major exchange points and some of the smaller ISPs may have interconnected with them just to reduce their costs, but a large network that is incurring a cost from having Google peered with little return isn't going to let them enter into an SFI agreement for long. Google is paying for the bandwidth it is using. Clearly you need to get a bit more familiar with the way the internet works. BTW, your grammar isn't exactly English 101, either. The OP's post takes the cake for bad grammar. Perhaps you should note that you have grammar oddities of your own too. Either way, the OP's posts have always between poorly written rants. I just noticed this reply to my post from almost 2 weeks ago, but can't let it stand. Where do you get off telling others what they need to do? You throw around buzzwords and terms like peering and SFI and tell me I need to "get a bit more familiar with the way the internet works", without any evidence to support your assumptions.
I never said that I "have examples of Google having nothing but peering agreements". You are assuming that they do not: "Sorry, but the assumption is that Google is paying for transport in locations where they aren't peering", however you offer no evidence, just buzzwords (kinda like what you accused me of months ago about net neutrality and Cisco, and told me then that I needed to learn more).
Your tag on your Sig says "Prove it", yet you fail to do this. I have never made any personal statements about you (either good, bad, or indifferent), with the possible exception of "BTW, your grammar isn't exactly English 101, either". It appears you are somewhat defensive, trying to justify your attack on the OP "The OP's post takes the cake for bad grammar. Perhaps you should note that you have grammar oddities of your own too. Either way, the OP's posts have always between poorly written rants". I never said that I don't have grammar oddities. You're pointing out that I have oddities seems kind of small. I was trying to prompt you to come up with some evidence as your tag indicates you need, but you have not come up with any. As a result, all of your assumptions aren't worth spit, and your 'superior knowledge' has been shown to be hollow.
You appear to be an ExMod, yet write in a very un-moderator way (I don't suppose the Ex part and your tendency towards personal attack have anything to do with each other). Please stop the personal attacks. I like many others here still have lots to learn. If you are so smart, and so knowledgeable and so connected with the industry, then please help impart that knowledge to others, as well as me, in a non-judgemental, non-condescending manner. And always remember, if you are going with the tag "Prove it", then remember that others will hold you to that standard as well. | |
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
2 edits | Wow... Talk about getting hung up on something.
Your tag on your Sig says "Prove it", yet you fail to do this. I never have to prove the negative. You made an assumption that Google pays for none of their bandwidth. I merely pointed out that your assumption was faulty because you had no proof to back it. Ergo, your assumption held no water. As for buzzwords and technical terms, they are relevant to the discussion.
Additionally, telling you to get an understanding of SFI before you step into the discussion where the issue is going to come up when it seems that you don't know how SFI works its perfectly excusable. If you had an understanding of SFI, you would know EXACTLY why Google has to be paying for bandwidth.
You appear to be an ExMod, yet write in a very un-moderator way (I don't suppose the Ex part and your tendency towards personal attack have anything to do with each other). Nope... As for the way I write, it has to do with the fact that on a regular basis I have to respond to many people who have NO clue about X but think they have a clue about X and try to sound like they have a clue about X. That's not specifically directed at you, honestly, rather at years of people coming on the boards and calling X a Y, saying something totally wrong about Z, etc. etc.
You should just let this drop...
--
Prove it... | |
|
