Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » Will 2007 Be The Year The Internet Slows Down? » chip in some change?
Search Topic:
Share Topic:
RSS topic:
toggle:
flat / full
normal / watch
Post a:
Post a:
« NO way.  
AuthorAll Replies


asdfdfdfdf

@Level3.net

reply to GOLFnSUN
Re: chip in some change?

Where does Schmidt say the government should pay "his" costs? Google pays for it's transport now and it isn't asking for government to subsidize its transport costs.

Schmidt says that the problem is last mile access and that the government should be involved in making sure that all citizens have broadband access. This isn't a request for the government to pay "his" costs. Google doesn't own or control the last mile. They are not in the last mile access business. The cablecos and telcos control the last mile.

"The Deloitte report asserts there can't be a free ride"

Google does NOT get a free ride. You and I don't get a free ride. They pay for their transport needs, as do you and I, just like every other user and business does. If google needs more transport for it's growth it will spend the money it needs to buy the transport that it requires.

As for return on investment I think it is bogus to continue to insinuate that these companies aren't making a return on their infrastructure investments. Whether they are or not, however, is not google's problem. Capitalism doesn't guarantee a return. Google does not own and control the infrastructure and they are not under any obligation to guarantee that the ATTs of the world make a certain return on their investment. The investments that ATT and verizon are making are investments to get them into the video business. Why is google obligated to shoulder the costs of telco video content dreams? Why shouldn't the telco's video customers be shouldering that cost? If the costs of getting into the video business are so large that ATT can not recoup its costs through its video customers then it has a failed business model and shouldn't be in the video business.

Google video, unlike telco video, isn't demanding special privilege or transport on the network. It is treated as other traffic is treated so it is nonsense to claim that anyone who uses internet transport for video should be paying for the infrastructure upgrades of the telcos, who intend to use their upgrades to provide privileged transport for their own telco video. Again, their own telco video customers should be bearing the cost of upgrades for their telco video business.
Forums » Will 2007 Be The Year The Internet Slows Down?« NO way.  


Tuesday, 10-Nov 22:30:01 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.republican-creole
page compression OFF
Most commented news this week
· [122] Moto Sold About 100,000 Droids
· [94] Verizon Keeps Swinging At AT&T
· [86] VoIP Over 3G Still Not Working For iPhone
· [67] Government Will Release Some Telco Wiretap Lobbying Documents
· [61] Verizon's Hanging Up On Rural America
· [47] Verizon's Higher ETFs Annoy Senator
· [34] Bill Would Force ISPs To Block Financial Scams
· [30] Sprint Announces Job Cuts
· [24] Mediacom Hints At 50, 100 Mbps Speeds
· [21] Google Offers Free Holiday Airport Wi-Fi
Most people now reading
· Google Has Acquired Gizmo5 [VOIP Tech Chat]
· Windows 7 boot manager editing questions [Microsoft Help]
· House inspector failed to find major gas leak [Home Repair & Improvement]
· RG Firmware update to VDSL2 this morning [AT&T U-verse]
· Massive Slowdowns? [cover,1584]
· [Rant] windows 7 is the most retarded os ever and its broke to [Rants, Raves, and Praise]
· 3.x Feral Druid - Bear Tanking Guide [World of Warcraft]
· I miss trash... [World of Warcraft]