dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1415
share rss forum feed

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 edit

1 recommendation

Key analogy has merit

»www.netcompetition.org/study_of_···sts2.pdf
Since Google often compares the Internet to the public highway system, the study also examined how the U.S. highway system apportions costs among business users and consumers. The analysis of public highway funding shows that businesses/trucks, which put the most cost burden on the highways, pay substantially more than consumers/cars – the exact opposite of Google’s recommended broadband model, where consumers shoulder most all of Google’s costs for using and profiting off the Internet more than any other entity. The study highlights the inconsistency in Google’s position supporting government ownership/regulation of the Internet like the U.S. highway system, but not adopt the economic model and fairness of the highway system -- where the heaviest users that cause the most costs -- shoulder most of the costs.
Google, as usual, wants to have things their way - make lots of money off the infrastructure paid for by others without carrying the real costs incurred(because of the huge discounts they get).

In the end, however, the consumer in the home ends up paying the bill one way or another
- to ISPs, or to Google thru higher costs of goods that pays all that advertising money going to Google, or to the gov't if some get their way of having the Feds pay for infrastructure improvements to the internet.

All the sturm & drang between content providers(like Google); ISPs; and the government is really just a fight over who gets to keep the biggest pieces of the internet pie. When all the fighting is done, the cost is the cost and will be paid by end users one way or another. All anyone is doing here is picking sides to determine which CEOs and/or pols are going to make out the best.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

1 recommendation

Re: Key analogy has merit

Sorry TK, I don't buy it. Google has to pay for every bit of bandwidth they use, whether it be from their webcrawling or from users coming to Google sites.

This argument that somehow Google gets a free ride or a mega-subsidized ride makes no sense at all. What you have is connection providers who also want to be content providers and see Google as direct competition--- and hate their successes and want them gone, by hook or by crook.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Miamisburg, OH
kudos:3
Analogies don't make arguments, precedents do. Communication infrastructure isn't funded in the same way public roads are funded. We all pay for our own connections out into the wild digital yonder. The data I request from Google comes to me off my dime, evidenced by the fact that people on metered billing have that traffic count against their total. Having Google pay for that transmission AND metering that transmission against the customer is double dipping.

If Google has to start paying for the transmission all the way into my PC, I want free Internet.

HEDP

join:2008-04-27
Miami, FL
If Google was using 21x more of their current internet usage, then why is the provider selling it at such a rate? Why does google need to pay a special rate or are we basing price now on success? That's the case in my eye's and if that where true then the little guy who has barely any success will be paying the cheapest price.

Sorry this idea does not fly, you sell a product or service for the amount you will get a return on it. If all the sudden you are not happy with the amount of return you are getting for your investment, then that's your fault for not setting the price correctly from the start. This is a very simple case of dirty business and anything a telecommunications company has to say about it can simply disconnect themselves from Google altogether.

There are thousands of other peering points that Google can use, if they want to be stingy anyone with a AT&T IP simply won't have access to Google services. It's clear that the consumer is more interested in content, rather than speed and the moment they can't access services they use online every day they will quickly switch to a provider who does.

Imagine how many people will call in to cancel their internet service because myspace is no longer accessible on AT&T's network, yet other networks who do have access start receiving new customers or customers of a specific bank cannot do online banking because there is no peering point connecting those networks.

It will lead to nothing more than a broken internet, so if I sign up for AT&T I get myspace and youtube, but I will need to sign up for comcast to do my online banking. Great business plan, thanks for taking the internet back to square one.
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

Re: Key analogy has merit

said by HEDP:

It will lead to nothing more than a broken internet, so if I sign up for AT&T I get myspace and youtube, but I will need to sign up for comcast to do my online banking. Great business plan, thanks for taking the internet back to square one.
But its like mobile to mobile minutes, your employer is Sprint, your drinking buddies are ATT, your relatives are Verizon, and you are T-mobile
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
said by FFH5:

Google, as usual, wants to have things their way - make lots of money off the infrastructure paid for by others without carrying the real costs incurred(because of the huge discounts they get).

In the end, however, the consumer in the home ends up paying the bill one way or another
- to ISPs, or to Google thru higher costs of goods that pays all that advertising money going to Google, or to the gov't if some get their way of having the Feds pay for infrastructure improvements to the internet.

All the sturm & drang between content providers(like Google); ISPs; and the government is really just a fight over who gets to keep the biggest pieces of the internet pie. When all the fighting is done, the cost is the cost and will be paid by end users one way or another. All anyone is doing here is picking sides to determine which CEOs and/or pols are going to make out the best.
If an ISP doesn't like how much incoming traffic there is to their network, why don't they do something about it? like lowering everyones speed by 75%, or discontinue all peering links, and have only a 1 gigabit connection to the outside world/internet?
moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
said by FFH5:

All the sturm & drang between content providers(like Google); ISPs; and the government is really just a fight over who gets to keep the biggest pieces of the internet pie. When all the fighting is done, the cost is the cost and will be paid by end users one way or another. All anyone is doing here is picking sides to determine which CEOs and/or pols are going to make out the best.
So TK, when do you plan on sending checks to ATT every single time someone looks at your webpages because they say you are using their pipes for your content for free.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
last i checked google had to pay for their links to the web. now maybe they do get a huge deal compaired to others, but that is likely due to their providers wanting to keep google happy as they know google isnt going to disappear tommorrow night. more profit in a lower cost contract that will go on for a long time.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports