 SukunaiPremium
join:2008-05-07
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·ELECTRONICBOX
·TekSavvy DSL
| Let them try All Google needs to do is let them know the search engine will suddenly stop searching for them specifically without a fee being paid.
Google would only need to sit back and watch as the customer base MADE the companies stfu.
Simple reality here, this doesn't even need a court room.
I need Google more than I need my ISP. I can easily replace an idiotic company, I doubt you can replace Google. | |
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Callcentric
| Google Their rationale is like saying a toll road owned by a private company should be allowed to base the fees on the value of the goods you are transporting.
They are a prime example of why telecommunications should be nationalized and operated like a road. After all, data has become as essential as power to a home.
I applaud the growing number of developed countries that are doing just that. Having the government roll out a wholesale FTTH network; which any 'private' company can then utilize to sell their services over. | |
|
 |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: Google said by Telco:Their rationale is like saying a toll road owned by a private company should be allowed to base the fees on the value of the goods you are transporting.
They are a prime example of why telecommunications should be nationalized and operated like a road. After all, data has become as essential as power to a home.
I applaud the growing number of developed countries that are doing just that. Having the government roll out a wholesale FTTH network; which any 'private' company can then utilize to sell their services over.
Their rationale is that the very large content companies(especially those with video streaming) create the need for last mile upgrades, where costs are hugely disproportionate to the costs of the data center to backbone network costs that the content companies see. And that the content companies therefore are garnering a larger share of the revenue while incurring a smaller share of the costs. IOW, the last mile ISPs want a bigger slice of the pie.
And where governments can change the pie sharing percentages by changing the law, like in most of the EU, the telcos will use their lobbying muscle to get the rules changed.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·Charter
| Re: Google This would mean though that you should pay your ISP every time you upload. You should pay your isp for having things on the internet. If they are trying to argue that anyone using services should pay, then everyone and everything in the end would pay the isp. | |
|
| | nonymousPremium
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ Reviews:
·Callcentric
| [BQUOTE=Romney2012Their rationale is that the very large content companies(especially those with video streaming) create the need for last mile upgrades, where costs are hugely disproportionate to the costs of the data center to backbone network costs that the content companies see. And that the content companies therefore are garnering a larger share of the revenue while incurring a smaller share of the costs. IOW, the last mile ISPs want a bigger slice of the pie.
And where governments can change the pie sharing percentages by changing the law, like in most of the EU, the telcos will use their lobbying muscle to get the rules changed.
[/BQUOTEThe last mile ISPs can and do have CAPS and overages. Why should it matter what content the customer is using? They are billed according to their tier of service. If telcos wanted to and they do just put CAPs in place and charge for more usage. Oh wait customers revolt. So who is their next victim? | |
|
| |  KilroyPremium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Ann Arbor, MI | said by Linklist:And where governments can change the pie sharing percentages by changing the law, like in most of the EU, the telcos will use their lobbying muscle to get the rules changed.
And where we will continue to see the golden rule, "He who has the gold rules", put into application a.k.a. the best government money can buy.
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people. - V
--
Want the shirt? - »www.despair.com/thedestructor.html
Not afiliated or making any profit from sales | |
|
| | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | the thing is the whole reason Broadband is hugely profitable is the content companies putting stuff on the net that is worth buying the faster packages for.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: Google Bingo. And that's why ISPs will continue to raise rates for consumers as well as looking for these additional streams of revenue. | |
|
| | | | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: Google of course because the ISPs like to double dip.
best way to compare that I can find is this. the NJ Turnpike charging me a toll for using the road but also wanting General motors, Honda, Ford, Toyota, etc to also give them money for every one of their cars using it.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: Google Double-, triple-, quadruple-dipping, it doesn't really matter. The fact is that businesses like to make money and will conduct business accordingly.
How about the silliness of the Turnpike charging tolls in the first place when drivers already pay fees for licensing, road use, gasoline tax, income tax to both state and federal that is disbursed for highway improvements, etc.? How double-dippings is that? | |
|
| |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | This is as stupid as the idea that everytime I view a website, the owner should have to pay me. After all they should have to pay for "Access" to my home.
Or how about I deserve a commission from the website everytime I buy something.
ETC ETC ETC
It's all incredibly stupid.
Their users pay them. End of story.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | said by Telco:Their rationale is like saying a toll road owned by a private company should be allowed to base the fees on the value of the goods you are transporting. Toll roads do not, but railways do.
In the US, for example, railways base the transportation fee on the value of the goods transported. A container will cost more to ship than the same weight/volume of coal. Specialty industrial chemicals will cost more than ethanol, even if they are nonhazardous and thus require no additional handling.
There is an implicit societal judgment involved -- that grain and coal should get to use the railway at slightly above cost. In contrast, the railway should be allowed to make more of a profit on the high-value cargo, which can better bear the transportation charge.
In addition to the per-commodity pricing, there are also discounts for types of traffic that costs less for the railroad to handle. A single unit train will cost less than the same number of cars spread over several mixed trains. An unscheduled train that is permitted to be delayed will cost less than a high-priority scheduled train that pushes the other trains into sidings. | |
|
| | I love the spin! Not a single telco/cable/backbone provider pays for their own upgrades. Every single one of them incur revenues from their consumers and it is those consumers that pay for ALL the upgrades and keeps your lights on.
All they are simply doing is trying to create a new revenue stream. They are not trying to recoup cost of upgrades. It are the content companies that are the single most important part of the internet. We can all have 100GB symmetrical fiber connections to our brains, but if there is not a single thing out there we want it will go unused.
So ISP morons, stop trying to bite the hands that feed you.
EDIT: Love the crying baby picture for this though.  | |
|
| | | Re: I love the spin! That pic made made me laugh. | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | said by Skippy25:Not a single telco/cable/backbone provider pays for their own upgrades. Every single one of them incur revenues from their consumers and it is those consumers that pay for ALL the upgrades and keeps your lights on. Amen. The end users pay for everything. The end users want to access YouTube or Netflix? Then their ISP better provide the network necessary to do so. That's WHAT THEY ARE BEING PAID FOR.
These days, they want to FORCE consumers to pay them, and also not have to provide anything at all, and just pass the costs to EVERYONE else but them, but they keep all the revenue.
It's asinine in every way. Greed, lack of competition, lack of true choices all fuel this entitlement mindset.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: I love the spin! said by KrK:Amen. The end users pay for everything. The end users want to access YouTube or Netflix? Then their ISP better provide the network necessary to do so. That's WHAT THEY ARE BEING PAID FOR. And the argument from ISPs is that they should be paid more for you to be able to access YouTube, Netflix, or any other content for that matter. | |
|
| | | | | Re: I love the spin! So let them raise their prices. They are certainly capable of doing that and there isnt even any competition in a vast majority of the markets to prevent them from doing so.
So let them raise their rates and see how much that limits the usage. If it is not enough, let them keep raising them until they discourage enough people from using their resources that it frees up the necessary bandwidth they feel they "need". | |
|
| | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: I love the spin! said by Skippy25:So let them raise their prices. They are certainly capable of doing that and there isnt even any competition in a vast majority of the markets to prevent them from doing so. I agree. And it will continue happening. The rhetoric coming from the ISPs is just that, nothing more. ISPs will not be successful with charging content owners for priority routing or for directly connecting them to consumers.said by Skippy25:So let them raise their rates and see how much that limits the usage. If it is not enough, let them keep raising them until they discourage enough people from using their resources that it frees up the necessary bandwidth they feel they "need". That's happening here in the US. Caps and overages are only the first step. Next comes metered usage....IMO. | |
|
| | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: I love the spin! Only because of regulatory capture and the prevention of competition however is this possible. | |
|
| | | | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: I love the spin! So? I don't believe you'll find many to dispute the limited competition that the US currently has on the ISP front. | |
|
| | | | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: I love the spin! Many do. They argue the market takes care of itself, and no regulation to foster competition is needed. They compare apples to oranges, like Satellite Internet to Cable, DSL to LTE or FTTH to everything else.
They act like there are so many choices and options and everything is fine.... just fine.
It isn't.... and barring competition, consumers aren't really freely able to vote with their wallet or walk away from bad policies or service.
Therefore they have to accept hikes, caps, overages, metering.... no matter how much they don't like it or agree. It's like forking over money for the crumbs they choose to give you, not what you actually want. Sure, you could always do without. People argue that that is a choice as well, claiming it's all a luxury and frivolous.
I disagree.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | | | | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: I love the spin! Sorry, I should have qualified my statement. Many to legitimately argue the lack of competition in the US. I won't dispute the lack of competition, but I will argue that if there's a will, there's a way. Startups, businesses branching to new territories and ventures, and even municipalities if done properly and fairly. I'm not sold on the need for regulation, or if it will necessarily make the market healthier or not. I believe it's a dangerous road that needs to be tread on carefully. Regulation is not the answer to everything...especially poorly thought out regulation. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: I love the spin! said by openbox9:Startups, businesses branching to new territories and ventures, and even municipalities if done properly and fairly. Que Regulatory capture. Actual rules and laws that PREVENT said competition from ever getting rolling.
This site regularly covers laws the incumbents have passed that ban, block, impair or otherwise stymie just said efforts to bring competition to the market.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | | | | | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: I love the spin! And this continues to be disproved for a majority of the situations. In most municipalities, competition is not prevented...even by the municipalities themselves.
BTW, the incumbents don't pass laws. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: I love the spin! Don't be naive. It's prevented in a myriad of different methods.
As for the incumbents not passing laws.... They just write them, and then give them to their beholden politicians to put it into effect.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | | | | | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: I love the spin! Don't believe all of the inflammatory headlines that you read.
Lawyers write laws, lobbyists push them on their Congress critters, then your elected officials go from there. This doesn't just happen in the world of telecom. | |
|
| | Call their bluff Google should simply call their bluff. All Google would have to do is say, "No, we won't pay, but we won't block your users, either. If you don't like it, then you can block your users' access to us." If these ISP's then choose to block their users, Google can simply point out that these ISP's customers are the ones paying the bills, yet they aren't getting their money's worth and that it's the ISP's, not Google, that's blocking access. The fallout will be lightning fast and severe to the extreme. I'd give it maybe two days before the blocks are removed. | |
|
| | | Re: Call their bluff THIS... do it like now. End this debate for good just like this. | |
|
| | | google should then ask them to share part of their profits. if it wasnt for sites like youtube netflix google and so forth less people would be connected less people would pay for the faster speeds. so it works both ways. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | said by ISurfTooMuch:Google should simply call their bluff. All Google would have to do is say, "No, we won't pay, but we won't block your users, either. If you don't like it, then you can block your users' access to us." If these ISP's then choose to block their users, Google can simply point out that these ISP's customers are the ones paying the bills, yet they aren't getting their money's worth and that it's the ISP's, not Google, that's blocking access. The fallout will be lightning fast and severe to the extreme. I'd give it maybe two days before the blocks are removed.
Exactly, calls into their support centers cost money. if they blocked Google their call volume would skyrocket and it would cost them way more money to man extra phones than it does to simply have an open link to Google.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | This debate is not much different than the one that routinely occurs between pay TV distributors and the content owners, except the roles are somewhat reversed. When push comes to shove, the hard choices usually aren't made. We'll see how this plays out. | |
|
| | Solution: Global Gfiber network. If the whiney entitled telcos won't 'let you ride their pipes for free', put em out of business. | |
|
| | | Re: Solution: Global Gfiber network. Who said anything about free? We the consumer pays our ISP. And Google invests in infrastructure, the content that makes use of all the bandwidth and they pay for bandwidth. There's no free ride on any side?
I see a few posters complaining about this argument popping up and I agree this is tiresome. It really is time to settle these internet issues once and for all. I just hope Googles Kansas experiment does well and Google decides to be an isp. I'm in Google sign me up! | |
|
| openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Great in theory for consumers, but the reality is that Google can't afford to wire the world. Incumbent ISPs aren't going anywhere, so we'll continue seeing statements like these thrown around and the whining back and forth between the content owners and distributors. | |
|
| | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: Solution: Global Gfiber network. I am guessing its investors that actually shut the ISPs up when they start this whining. Because while an investor loves profit over all else and nothing but profit. The smart ones know that the PR backlash of actually blocking say Youtube because Google did not pay into a protection racket will do more harm to their stock price than just eating the cost of last mile expansion so customers can stream HD video.
And profits can always be repaired fairly easy, reputation cannot be repaired easy. in all forms of business that is true though. reputation is earned over time and lost in a day. especially in the era of Twitter and Blogging where backlash moves faster than a PR spin team can ever hope to clean up.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: Solution: Global Gfiber network. said by Kearnstd:The smart ones know that the PR backlash of actually blocking say Youtube because Google did not pay into a protection racket will do more harm to their stock price than just eating the cost of last mile expansion so customers can stream HD video. Management is smart enough not to make that PR blunder without any investor activism. | |
|
WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | Problem solved This problem would disappear if customer billing was based on usage not a flat rate with no caps. The new content like video streaming do cost the the ISPs upgrade cost that do not bring in any more revenue. As each customer uses more data the ISP has to make the pipe upstream bigger. The only way to cover that cost is to raise the price or cut their profit margin. If there is competition it is hard to raise your price with out losing customers.
If networks, upgrades were so cheap to built and ISPs like the Telcos and Cable were rolling in money then there would be more ISP building the last mile network. Verizon tried with Fios and found out how much more it costs. At the moment Google Fiber is one of the few companies that is placing a new network in a big city. They are also one of the few that can absorb the costs.
To put it simply when your customers data use reach the capacity of a piece of equipment what ever the ISP does to increase capacity does not bring in a single extra dime unless more customers are added. | |
|
|
See 16 replies to this post |
|
|
·
·
