<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Topic &#x27;Just because you&#x27;re paranoid...&#x27; in forum &#x27;&#x27; - dslreports.com</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Just-because-youre-paranoid-20978983</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:48:32 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:48:32 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: Just because you&#x27;re paranoid...</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-because-youre-paranoid-20979361</link>
<description><![CDATA[Jason Levine posted : That would be Ed Whitacre.  He thought that Google should have to pay him so they could access his users or else they were getting a free ride.<br><br>Of course, he was ignoring some basic facts:<br><br>1.  Google pays for their bandwidth.  Their ISP pays for their upstream bandwidth and so on up the pipe until you get to the peering arrangements with the largest ISPs.  So Google wasn't getting a free ride at all.<br><br>2.  Users request files from Google before Google sends it to them.  Google wasn't just sending large video files to users at random.  The users would first request the files and then Google would send them.  If anything, Google was offering a service that increased the value of the Internet and made it possible to sell high speed access to users.  So perhaps Whitacre should have been paying Google to allow his users to access Google's website.  (Just kidding, of course, but Whitacre's "logic" could easily be flipped around.)<br><br>I often used the analogy of a pizza restaurant that has phone service with Verizon.  AT&T notices that their customers are calling the pizza place to order pizza.  AT&T then accuses the pizza place of profiting off of AT&T's phone lines without paying AT&T, and demanding a cut of the profits.  AT&T, in this example, is ignoring that the pizza place pays for their own phone service through Verizon just as Whitacre was ignoring that Google paid for their own bandwidth through their own ISP.<br><small>--<br>-Jason Levine<br><b>Support a children's charity.  Buy a calendar.</b>  <A HREF="http://www.ShootingForACause.com/2008/">Shooting For A Cause</a><br><A HREF="http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/">Jason's Toolbox</a> | <A HREF="http://www.PCQandA.com/">PCQandA.com</a></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-because-youre-paranoid-20979361</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:19:39 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Just because you&#x27;re paranoid...</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Just-because-youre-paranoid-20978983</link>
<description><![CDATA[anon posted : doesn't mean they're not out to get you.<br><br>So, who planted the seed of this "paranoia"? Was it a telco CEO saying that he thought Google should pay his company due to all of its customers who were using its network to get to YouTube? (as if the ISP has the right to dictate where its customers may go on the Internet using the access that they purchase from the ISP)<br><br>Don't I remember reading that even the Comcast engineers who were tasked with implementing the 24/7 forging of packets thought it was a stupid idea but that management told them to do it anyway? Maybe "managers" should stay out of network "management" too.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Just-because-youre-paranoid-20978983</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:06:20 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>

