dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1045
share rss forum feed


annonymiss

@comcast.net

Google?

Google is a perfect example.

They have $26 B I L L I O N dollars in the bank that they made by using infrasructure they paid NOTHING for.

There are tens of thousands of potential GOOGLE's out there. Why aren't the guys that actually BUILD THE HARDWIRE PIPES allowed to make a profit?

If you're going to bitch about ISPs wanting to make money, you surely MUST be OUTRAGED at what Google has made on the backs of others?

Of course you're not, because you just "hate the man". You don't have a clue about busness and how there are tons of companies that make far far more profit then the ISPs do, yet somehow they are the hittler companies of the world.

Sorry you don't like it Karl. In the end even YOU are making money off the backs of ISPs. When's the last time you paid to get your packets all the way to the reader?

There's a seachange about to happen, bits are going to be paid for at every cross connect, and that WILL be aggrigated to YOU, the subscriber. And you will cry for the day when you had what you have now and wish people like Karl had NEVER convinced you that what you have now is somehow immoral or unfair.


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

1 recommendation

You do realize that Google has spent billions on network infrastructure including undersea fiber routes, and that the "free ride" argument is a bunch of nonsense made up in telco meeting rooms to justify efforts to get content companies to fund network builds so they don't have to upset myopic investors?

Why aren't the guys that actually BUILD THE HARDWIRE PIPES allowed to make a profit?

Also, the idea that ANYONE is arguing that ISPs can't make a profit is a silly straw man argument. What's being debated is consumer value in these new pricing plans -- as in -- they don't provide any.


ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
reply to annonymiss
you must be in favor of VAT?

BlueC

join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Integra Telecom

1 recommendation

reply to annonymiss
What the hell are you even talking about?

Google vs. ISPs? Really?

And what's this talk about "bits are going to be paid for at every cross connect"?

I have cross connects currently and I can certainly tell you what you just said makes little to no sense at all. There are paid cross connects in certain data centers, and they are a flat fee. That's always been the case with most places. How that would change is beyond me, I don't see how that would be restructured, and every data center has different policies.

So please, enlighten us all on that part.

As an ISP, I do know how this all works, and yes, certain ISPs are screwing their customers over. I'm all for companies making a profit, but when they put a strangle on their customers (who might have no choice to go elsewhere), it's unethical. Especially when they can clearly afford the upgrades and are taking in our tax money via USF.


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39
It's the "Google free ride" talking point phone company execs came up five years ago, and gets repeated by ISP industry folks because they believe it's their god-dictated destiny to get some of Google's ad money. Why? Because Google runs over networks, so obviously network owners should get an extra cut, even if content companies buy (and own) their own bandwidth, and the end user pays for bandwidth as well. It makes absolutely no sense, but it continues mindlessly forward both here and overseas:

»Scott Cleland: Google Using 21x The Bandwidth They Pay For

It's particularly ridiculous in the case of Google given all the money they spend on global network infrastructure.

BlueC

join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Integra Telecom
reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:

Also, the idea that ANYONE is arguing that ISPs can't make a profit is a silly straw man argument. What's being debated is consumer value in these new pricing plans -- as in -- they don't provide any.

No kidding. The profit that's raked in from the actual layer 1 construction is quite up there (with Google's margins).

Anyone that honestly thinks "the guys that actually build the hardware pipes" are not making (or not allowed) any money is 100% clueless.

BlueC

join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Integra Telecom
reply to annonymiss
said by annonymiss :

There's a seachange about to happen, bits are going to be paid for at every cross connect, and that WILL be aggrigated to YOU, the subscriber. And you will cry for the day when you had what you have now and wish people like Karl had NEVER convinced you that what you have now is somehow immoral or unfair.

This part still bugs me.

When we have Residential ISPs like Comcast that are trying to get PAID to increase their core capacity, I find it very hard to believe that the costs are going UP.

The big ISPs have leverage and they're trying to use it to increase profits. Are they going to pass the profits down to the user? Of course not. After all, they're leveraging their own users to get that said profit. Clearly they aren't looking out for them.


Thunderlips
Get It Up Fly A Hull

join:2001-12-07
reply to annonymiss
Talk about making money off the backs of others. Genius, if it wasn't for sites like Google and DSLReports, we would all dump our ISPs and then you...er, they, would really be screwed. If there are no sites worth going to, WE DON'T NEED YOU! Your entire business model is to make money off what others are doing on the internet. This entire argument is a perfect example of the stupidity you, er, they are using to try and justify absolute greed.
--
You could get hit by the boom and die. You could fall overboard and die. You could capsize and die. Or, you could stay home and fall off the couch and die.

amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·KCH Cable
reply to annonymiss
"...wish people like Karl had NEVER convinced you that what you have now is somehow immoral or unfair."

I'm not sure Karl has ever said anything along those lines... Nor do most posters here (edit: I've visited this site since about 2000 )

If UBB made any sense, we would have had it by now. We don't.

Karl pays for hosting/bandwidth. So do millions of people, myself included. It isn't free. Nobody just up and "has a website" of any sort (I don't mean "free" hosting stuff, or a facebook page) without PAYING for it, and in most cases, if it's a popular site, it's certainly NOT cheap...

It's real simple; apparently too simple.
I pay hosting company, they pay their bills. I could also host my own site, and pay for whatever class of connection I could afford, power, servers, cooling, maintenance, software licensing, etc., etc... Neither option is free!

Person at home pays their ISP, they pay their bills. Done. What happens in between is also very simple - Long haul transit for data is either already owned (and largely paid for) by ISP, or a "peer" who gets their cut from, guess who, BOTH ISPs (host's ISP and customer's ISP).

Telco's, "Peers," etc., just didn't get into the same games that others did (Yahoo, Google, Amazon), but why would they? Should they also sell cars? Insurance? Be a record label? Sell pizza? Wtf?

The fact that anyone makes money from using services is a miracle, OMG! Better not tell that to all the businesses out there that pay OUTRAGEOUS prices for all their phone/data services, yet still manage to profit enough to stay afloat, or, capitalism forbid, become richer than those whom they PAY for services

jagged

join:2003-07-01
Boynton Beach, FL

1 recommendation

reply to annonymiss
ok genius, I pay for my Comcast connection at home so I can access my two servers in Washington DC, for which I pay as well so they can be seen online.

How's that a free ride, explain?


annonymiss

@comcast.net
reply to Karl Bode
Hmm, I missed any fiber that Google has built to someone's house?

Maybe you can point the thousands of paying subscribers that they have used their couple of billion dollar fiber build out for?

Oh, BTW, almost every major ISP in the US has spent far more then that every single year for the last 5 years.

Let's see, 3 billion Google has spent, 100billion the ISPs have spent.

Yeah, that seems fair to me for the 26 billion google has.

Get real if you think Google is anything more then a leach that pays nothing to the people that distribute it's packets. They spent a drop in the bucket compared to what all US IPS' spend every year.

Nice try Karl.

BlueC

join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Integra Telecom
»www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=15169

There's your "leaching" Google.

People choose to peer with them. How do you think they manage to have a presence in all of those locations?

Now... how exactly are they a leach?

rahvin112

join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT
reply to annonymiss
ESPN is a perfect example.

They make Billions of dollars every year using the infrastructure they paid nothing for.

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
reply to annonymiss
said by annonymiss :

When's the last time you paid to get your packets all the way to the reader?

Why should he pay to get them all the way to me? I already pay for my end of the connection, why should Karl, Google or anyone pay for it a second time?


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39
reply to jagged

How's that a free ride, explain?

Because some executive in a board room at the telco or cable company he works at told him so in 2007. Either that or he's paid to repeat nonsense. I'll listen to a wide variety of arguments, but the Google "free ride" one is, again, based entirely on nonsense. Last time I feed the troll, I promise.

bn1221

join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY
reply to BlueC
Wow...I didn't know Google owned doubleclick No wonder Chrome whitelists ad.doubleclick


Atticka

join:2001-11-26
Montreal, QC
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to annonymiss
Google pays for their bandwidth just like any other customer out there. When they open an office or a data center they PAY the local provider or interconnect in their area for a pipe just like EVERY OTHER COMPANY OR WEBSITE OPERATOR OUT THERE.

If sufficient bandwidth is not available in a specific geographic location then Google will build out their own network.

How exactly is Google getting a free ride?

Likewise, I pay my ISP for access to the internet. If I want to run my own website I need to make sure I have the right connectivity.

This is standard internet practice, everyone pays for up/down connectivity.


kamm

join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
reply to BlueC
said by BlueC:

said by Karl Bode:

Also, the idea that ANYONE is arguing that ISPs can't make a profit is a silly straw man argument. What's being debated is consumer value in these new pricing plans -- as in -- they don't provide any.

No kidding. The profit that's raked in from the actual layer 1 construction is quite up there (with Google's margins).

Anyone that honestly thinks "the guys that actually build the hardware pipes" are not making (or not allowed) any money is 100% clueless.

Average ISP bandwidth including Comcast MARKUP is BETWEEN 1000-1500% (yes, PERCENT) on EVERY BIT they deliver.

Scumbags, scum of the Earth - especially COmcast: a true corporate PARASITE, like a cancer it's metastasizing through its illegal monopoly.
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE]


kamm

join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:

How's that a free ride, explain?

Because some executive in a board room at the telco or cable company he works at told him so in 2007. Either that or he's paid to repeat nonsense. I'll listen to a wide variety of arguments, but the Google "free ride" one is, again, based entirely on nonsense. Last time I feed the troll, I promise.

I BET he's some corporate scum - he sounds too stupid to be a paid astroturfer.
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE]


rchandra
Stargate Universe fan
Premium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105
reply to Karl Bode
Gee, Karl...might that be akin to "Windows Genuine Advantage?"


tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:9
Reviews:
·G4 Communications
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
reply to annonymiss
said by annonymiss :

Get real if you think Google is anything more then a leach that pays nothing to the people that distribute it's packets. They spent a drop in the bucket compared to what all US IPS' spend every year.

This is obviously something you are passionate about but I'm having a hard time understanding your argument.

1) Sites like Google, Netflix, BBR and even my own site pay for Internet access.
2) Users like me and you pay our respective ISP for broadband.

They "meet in the middle" metaphorically and everyone is happy.

The argument ISPs spend more then Google is irrelevant. I pay my ISP $35 a month, I doubt Google nets a 1/10 of a percent of that from me from advertising revenue.

If you want to argue web sites should pay ISPs for access to customers why is the opposite not trure, that ISPs like Comcast, should charge content owners for the right to access their customers? This is the opposite of the way it is being done now, Cable companies pay big for the right to distribute TV programs?

The end-to-end model is extremely powerful both as a technology and business model. Screw with it and you destroy the Internet.

/tom


MonkeyLick78

join:2002-01-27
Hixson, TN
reply to annonymiss
I'm all for Karl paying my monthly ISP bill.
Seriously, any time you're ready, Karl.

madseven

join:2011-02-22
Toronto, ON
reply to annonymiss
Wrong. Europe and other countries went from unlimited to UBB and now they are all going back to unlimited..why is that??