 
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
1 edit | Silliness. Incumbent execs keep looking at the money being pulled in by outfits like Google, and want a slice of those profits to help subsidize upgrades.
Whereas we keep wondering how these execs keep pulling in their multimillion dollar paychecks, and where all of our money is really going, if not to help upgrade networks (in part).
And if those monies aren't enough, why we're expected to pay by someone other than the ones actually charging us.
--
"You do not secure the liberty of our country and value of our democracy by undermining them, that's the road to hell." - Lord Phillips of Sudbury. | |
|
 | 
Not You
@nycbug.org
| Re: Silliness. Problem with cable is they already have an environment where they pay for video content and then mark it up and pass it on to their subscribers. They certainly don't want the tables flipped where the most popular content destinations start charging the ISPs for access. It's not a terribly large jump for a Google to start demanding a royalty for ad-free content (for example).
This is more of a defensive 'offense' than anything. Doesn't make it any less silly though... | |
|
| | 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Silliness. That's a pretty long stretch to say sites like Google will start charging ISP's. The whole business model for Google is to provide free content paid for by advertising. Much like broadcast television, which has been around for over 50 years and not once have they resorted to charging anybody access even when they see cable companies showing the same content for a fee. | |
|
| | | Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH | Re: Silliness. Cable companies pay the local network stations for the rights to carry their content. | |
|
| | | | clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
| Re: Silliness. You are wrong. Local stations are carried free under must-carry rules. No money trades hands for the OTA signal. If the local station wants to broadcast another channel (like a subchannel of the HD signal), then that's a separate negotiation that may require payment to the cable operator. | |
|
| | | | | Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH | Re: Silliness. Your right. I was confusing local stations with ones from other cities that want to be carried in other areas. Channel 10 in columbus, is carried by TW in areas that they can not be gotten via an antenna. | |
|
| | | | | 
roamer1
sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
1 edit | said by clickie  :You are wrong. Local stations are carried free under must-carry rules. Local stations can elect must-carry or can demand payment from cable companies (aka retransmission consent.) In general, most major network affiliates take the latter option but some take the former; PBS stations and religious stations are always must-carry. See »www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/cblbdcst.html
-SC
--
"it seems like all you ever buy is Abercrombie and cell phones" --a friend | |
|
| | | |
Not You
@216.237.x.x
| said by Nuts :Cable companies pay the local network stations for the rights to carry their content. Uh, no. They are required to carry local stations, and the TV station can't charge for that. | |
|
| | | | | 
Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA | Re: Silliness. they are required to carry the channels, and yes the channels can charge the cable provider | |
|
| | | | | |
bob2-00
@swbell.net
| Re: Silliness. In 2005 Abilene TX went through the whole "we are a local station and we want money from COX cable" disaster. Our NBC station wanted money from the cable company and until they got it their station was not on cable. They finally after months of propaganda from both sides are back on the cable system.
»www.broadcastingcable.com/articl···Features | |
|
| | |
Not You
@88.198.x.x
| You missed the key part of that comment: "Ad free". Google is a restless beast. At some point they'll get into charging for "premium content" just like they've done with Google Earth.
Back to the issue at hand...I'm quite sure that broadcast TV stations never ever imagined they'd be forced to pay to be on cable, but that happened to a certain extent with paid channel placement. It is a very short walk from that to charging high-profile websites for "premium placement" via unencumbered network QoS through an ISPs (or backbone's) data paths. If they don't want to be on the Internet equivalent of channel 73 instead of 7, they'll have to pay.
Don't kid yourself. The cable companies are drooling into their morel encrusted Kobe beef fillets at the prospect. | |
|
| | | |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Silliness. I thought you were saying the cable companies are trying to be proactive and start charging before content providers like Google do. I am in complete agreement that the incumbent data carriers (cable and telco) want to double dip the revenue pot, and that they shouldn't be given a chance to.
In regards to Google I have no issues with them charging for premium content as long as they continue to keep the current free services free. Heck, Google has been expanding their free services for quite some time now so if they continue to add free content I would even be more satisfied even if they charged for the top shelf stuff. | |
|
| |
| |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Pay per bit solves all Per bit pricing was done away with years ago. The problem isn't bandwidth saturation, which last I heard hasn't nearly tapped the potential of all that dark fiber yet. The problem is these companies want more money. They want that money from other companies that have very successful online business models. They are envious because other companies found a way to make a lot of money while they are still placating to stockholders and playing with their own budget numbers.
The solution is for the incumbent telcos and cablecos to simply shut up. If they want more revenue they need to work on a revenue stream that actually offers their customers something more instead of restricting customers of what they currently enjoy. | |
|
| | sjr
join:2006-08-27
Osseo, MN
| That sounds exactly like traditional landline pricing for long distance service of old. But cell phones and now voip are largely killing off that pricing model. Why would one go back to it for something else?
If one was to price that way are the isp's going to guarantee that you will not get things like spam with attachment of large files and for that matter are the isp's not going to send their own buy more of our stuff emails with lots of images and such in them? I certainly don't want to pay for crap I don't want or didn't request to get. I already don't use Comcast's portal page and I sure wouldn't with all the crap they have going on there if I was paying by the byte.
The only way I could see that plan working anywhere in the customers favor is if you start at a bandwidth amount for the month then go per byte rate when you go over that amount. But it needs to start at some reasonable number like 100gb/month. | |
|
| |
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Honestly TK, if "bandwitch hogs" are draining that much money, the ISPs are doing something seriously, grossly, negligent. | |
|
| | 
Myhrddin
join:2003-12-12
Beaumont, TX
| Pay per bit.. Are you Bill Gates.?
This mess needs to be stopped before they're deciding what websites you can have and on what tier of service. I'm sorry, that site isn't available with standard expanded internet.
Would you like to Biggie Size that.? | |
|
| | 
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·Packet8
| said by LiamJunket :The solution that should be implemented to address all bandwidth hog issues - a pay per bit pricing model. With that model, those who consume the most bandwidth pay the most money. This does 2 things: It puts the burden of upgrading infrastructure on those causing the need for an upgrade. And it puts a self-limit on those biggest bandwidth hogs - how much are they willing to pay to consume huge amounts of bandwidth. At some point they will cut their usage to match their available funds. Uh, not again... you and your corporate shill PR points... no, we are not going to give you, cable shills the option to charge EVEN MORE when you cannot deliver anything better than the 14-15th place on the world list - we are already paying more than the top3. | |
|
| 
footballdude
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| Re: Silliness. said by tsu9 :Whereas we keep wondering how these execs keep pulling in their multimillion dollar paychecks, and where all of our money is really going, if not to help upgrade networks (in part). Even if the CEOs of the telcos gave up their paychecks entirely it wouldn't begin to cover the costs of upgrading their gigantic networks.
--
What's certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1) - Ann Coulter | |
|
| 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
 ·AT&T Southwest
| said by tsu9 :Incumbent execs keep looking at the money being pulled in by outfits like Google, and want a slice of those profits to help subsidize upgrades. Such stupidity. Hey I know....
Consumer broadband users keep looking at the money being pulled in by outfits like AT&T, Time Warner Cable etc, and want a slice of those profits to help subsidize Internet expenses.
Hey, if they wanna "sell" "access" to me to companies like Google, ebay, etc then I think it's only fair I charge them for "Access" to me!
Yeah! that's it! I should send AT&T a notice that starting Oct. 1st they will pay me $9.95 a month for the right to provide Internet service to me!
LOL
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| 
rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL
| Honestly, I'd happily pay for GMAIL. I won't pay for Google. Maybe Google should start charging ISPs since Google is a popular site as well as MySpace, YouTube, etc.
"Our customers can't access Google even from our website powered by Google. They are ticked!"
"When you wanted $$$ from us, we blocked ALL AT&T customers including your employees."
"What?"
"If you want Google back, we want royalties!"
"Yer kidding! It's our pipes!"
"Pretty useless pipes when people can't get anywhere." | |
|
| |
Myhrddin
join:2003-12-12
Beaumont, TX
1 edit | Re: Silliness. You realise that Google already makes income and that they have even stated in relation to their video that they've been working to provide free content.
Its fine if they wish to provide an additional, no-ad service but, let's not hop on a bandwagon to begin paying for service with commercials. Especially since the commercials are there to pay for the programming in addition to generating their own revenues.
and ..pipes.. If they wanna sell water to you, they get to pipe it to your home. If they wanna sell internet to you guess what.. yep, they get to pipe that to you too.! It seems like it'd be an extra fee to pay additional for internet on top of already paying for internet.
dee dee dee | |
|
|
Same as Yesterday
@rr.com
| One way of addressing the interesting policies of the those in CEO and other high paying positions is to pass a law that the highest paid person in the company can make no more than 20 times what the lowest paid person working for the company is compensated. This would include consultants, temps and those mowing the grass. Pay is defined as total compensation.
Another way of improving the country is to force any politician who received money from a company that found itself in a ENRON position to pay back the amount plus interest at credit card rates. | |
|
|
Myhrddin
join:2003-12-12
Beaumont, TX
| I guess that a lot will be going on from now until it all turns to fiber. I'm talking about "the last mile" fiber, not what's in place already.
It makes sense that they're gonna try to get you and lock you in on a service now, pre-fiber while they can still make claims about the delivery technology. Soon it won't matter whether it's phone, net, tv, radio or whatever.. you'll have wireless and fiber.
At that point it will really become about the value and the overall combination of data-types provided I think.
With the advent of inter-system laser data paths and fiber right up to your door, the focus won't be on bandwidth anymore but on what you get for your dollar, yen or euro. At least in a really ghestalt way.. forgive the spelling. | |
|
twc rulzzz
@rr.com | toll booth www.google.com beep beep . not so fast pay the toll first Wile E. Coyote | |
|
| Techie714
join:2005-08-02
Anaheim, CA | Re: toll booth said by twc rulzzz :
www.google.com beep beep . not so fast pay the toll first Wile E. Coyote
Ok, that was funny!
BTW: New Firefox RC1 is working great!! | |
|
aj004
join:2006-05-28
Forest Hills, NY
| Maybe Google can buy RCN then? If Time Warner wants to charge Google, then this could leave open a HUGE opportinunity for RCN's infrastructure with the acquirer who could be Google OR a partner. Considering Google is moving into 111 8th avenue in NYC as well as the Hibernia Atlantic expansion at 111 8th avenue and everything inbetween, I see this could be a niche opportunity.
RCN right now is RATED the WORST provider in customer service as per the new J+R Power reviews. WoW was on the top. RCN does have the infrastructure in place which could be upgraded at a relatively low cost and customer service could be vastly improved as well if they can attract better talent. | |
|
| 
Maggs
Premium
join:2002-11-29
Woodside, NY
·RCN CABLE
| Re: Maybe Google can buy RCN then? RCN is rated the worst provider by whom? In fact, I've seen their service improve drastically since the end of their bankruptcy protection. They had a lot of people worrying about losing their jobs, and at the time they weren't focused on providing service.
I haven't had to call RCN related to service issues in a few months now, excluding the fact that Con Ed lost power, and to call for service credits.
--
When the lights go out, just draw a KMAP, and all is good. | |
|
| | aj004
join:2006-05-28
Forest Hills, NY
3 edits | Re: Maybe Google can buy RCN then? The latest JD Power report came out:
Customer Satisfaction Index Scores
High-Speed Providers
(Based on a 1,000-point scale)
WOW! 765
Bright House Networks Road Runner 735
BellSouth 727
EarthLink 718
Verizon 716
Cox 711
Qwest 707
Frontier 704
CenturyTel 701
Time Warner Cable Road Runner 697
Cablevision 694
High-Speed Segment Average 693
AT&T Yahoo! 690
Embarq 680
Windstream 670
Insight 659
Charter 648
Comcast 647
Mediacom 633
RCN 628
Consider yourself lucky. Hold times and repair times are horrendous now as well as customer service IF a problem does arise. cdr 1000 spent over 20 minutes on hold.
I laughed when Peter A. of RCN (the big guy ya know) said Verizon should think twice about coming into RCN markets.  The reason Verizon is rated so high is because of Verizon FIOS.
RCN is pulling a WORSE than Charter and Comcast now and that level is piss poor. | |
|
| | | ibpitcher2
join:2003-10-29
New York, NY | Re: Maybe Google can buy RCN then? I dont know who was involved in that poll, but whoever they are they probably dont live in NYC, where I've had service for over 5 years now and almost never have had any problems. | |
|
L0GiX
When all else fails, theres always L0GiX
Premium
join:2000-06-30
South Bay,CA
clubs:
·Speakeasy
| "...this whole Internet phenomenon will come crashing down" Looks like TimeWarner wants out of the ISP market unless they can overcharge for everything.
TimeWarner - Shutdown your services and get off the internet. We don't need idiot companies like you wasting bandwidth when the people clearly want the service and will get it from someone that won't limit, and won't redirect you to their content only.
Nuff said.
--
Nothing says lovin' like mutton. | |
|
| DMWCincy
join:2004-04-27
Fairfield, OH | Re: "...this whole Internet phenomenon will come crashing down" I've used TW for a few yrs now and have never had any limits put on and have never been redirected to their content... | |
|
| |
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: "...this whole Internet phenomenon will come crashing down" Hasn't happened yet, but the way the incumbents are talking if they can get the okay to do away with net neutrality that might not be far from the horizon.
Even if worse comes to worse there is a silver lining because if TW does start throttling content, or worse block it, they will either lose customers or lose their piece of the duopoly. Because if TW is your only cable provider, and they are messing with the content you want, and you cannot find an alternative provider, then it will be pretty obvious that there is not enough competition in that area. When that happens look out for new regulation that will open the lines once again in some way, shape or form. | |
|
|
Myhrddin
join:2003-12-12
Beaumont, TX
1 edit | 'bout:: Time Warner Quote above
"..Unless they can overcharge for everything.."?
I thought they already were overcharging for everything.! | |
|
AquaBlaze
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| Turnabout is Fair Play Honestly, these high-traffic sites that ISPs are wanting to get a slice of (ie. Google) should turn around and de-prioritize their traffic on their servers. Want to charge Google X amount of dollars or slow speed? Fine. Have the ISP pay Google back the same amount, or their IP range gets a best-effort "meh" from their search databases. Or simply just don't pay the additional extortion-fee, and let Time Warner's customers flood their ISP help desk with "why's Google so damn slow on your network?" calls. | |
|
| 
Jovi
join:2000-02-24
Mount Joy, PA | Re: Turnabout is Fair Play Wonder if Google could/would block Time Warner customers/content in their search engines to not pay. Then customers would be complaining.  | |
|
| | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
1 edit | Re: Turnabout is Fair Play Google is RoadRunner's Search Partner on the RR Portal page. And every time I've called Help they've always referenced to Google so why would they even charge them? Maybe they have some type of partnership and are talking about charging others such as: Yahoo!
Add: Also why must everything on here be about charging Google when others maybe charged as well; Yahoo! MSN, MySpace, etc?
What about charging BroadBandReports/DSLReports? | |
|
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL | ! For god sakes raise the prices you idiotic morons, that's a pitiful excuse nothing more. | |
|
| 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: ! Amen.
This whining makes as much sense as an all-you-can-eat buffet complaining about the football team coming in twice a week. The ISP's solution makes as much sense as telling the team's fans that "if you don't pony up some additional cash, we won't be able to guarantee your team won't get sick after they eat here...."
If your pricing is screwed up TO YOUR CUSTOMER, fix it.
Don't try to extort money from someone else to cover your flawed pricing.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | Not Bloody Likely Time Warner to Google (et al): "You have to pay us to allow our customers to access your free service".
Google: (unprintable)
Customers: "Why the (unprintable) can't I get to Google? What am I paying those idiots at Time Warner for?" | |
|
| 
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Not Bloody Likely Thank you for stating the obvious! If I can't get to Google, but I can using another service, I'm not going to say "Google sucks"...I'm going to say "my ISP sucks" and take my dollars and move on.
Not to mention, most cable companies get their backbone from AT&T (and the likes). If AT&T charges Google, then Time Warner tries to charge Google, do they reaaaalllly think Google will take that laying down? Amazon laying down? Ebay laying down?
What's the point of the Internet if the Internet turns it's back on the ISP?
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: | |
|
texans20
Weapons of Masturbation
Premium
join:2002-09-28
Texas!
clubs:
| What Google Should Do If TW or anyone else starts to throttle bandwidth from Google, then Google should put the following message on their homepage when it detects a TW owned IP:
"We regret to inform you that Time Warner has chosen to slow down your internet connection to Google. If you do experience slowdowns using any of Google's products or services, please know the issue is outside of our control. Time Warner could quickly return normal speeds to Google simply by pushing a button. Please voice your concern. Contact Time Warner at xxx-xxx-xxxx today." Each call to a call center, on average, costs anywhere from $3 to $8. If we flood their call centers with callers, that'll hurt them in the pocketbook.
This whole limiting bandwidth crap will only work if companies such as MS, Google, Amazon, etc actually pay the ISPs for a good QoS. If nobody pays, then nothing is accomplished. The ISPs limit bandwidth, slowing down the internet, and looking like idiots in the process.
--
Show me just what Mohammed (pos) brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached | |
|
| 
Jim Gurd
Premium
join:2000-07-08
Plymouth, MI
·Comcast
| Re: What Google Should Do BINGO!!! That's exactly what they need to do. If all companies who were threatened with this extortion simply refused to pay and posted a similar message their plan would fail miserably.
Google and others should issue a press release stating that they will not be participating in this program. Are the ISPs stupid enough to block them totally? If they are they will go out of business quickly.
--
Correlation does not imply causation. | |
|
| |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: What Google Should Do Google, with its spectacularly "clean" main page, has a unique opportunity to drive this type of traffic. With classic Google reserve, I suspect that they've been holding off until they really need it, or until they really think it will work.
A similar message, easily regionalized by IP addresses, inviting calls to one or more local Congressional representatives might also work wonders.
I don't think the ISP's have any sense whatsoever of who they are messing with or what cr@p may rain down on them.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
Gandalf1315
Freelance Philosopher
join:2001-05-23
Indianapolis, IN
·Vonage
·RoadRunner Cable
| Yep.... These greedy assholes are well on their way to destroying the NET. I hope they enjoy it when they push people to the point of just plan not using the NET. Hope they find another use for all that infrastructure.
--
No man's life, liberty or fortune is safe while our legislature is in session.--- Benjamin Franklin | |
|
hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
clubs:
1 edit | doesnt bother me there are search sites to be used. (yahoo,msn, and so on)
doesnt bother me any.
too much F*** greed now a days | |
|
| 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY | Re: doesnt bother me But what if they decide to charge Yahoo, MSN, etc. as well? Do you really think they would limit themselves to just Google? | |
|
| | |
| | Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH | Get Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Apple all pissed at the ISP's. Now that would be interesting. MS has what, $50B in cash. I wonder how much fiber they could run with that. | |
|
MysticGogeta
The Robot Devil
Premium
join:2005-03-14
League City, TX
clubs: | Ridiclious/Way to get another buck I dont get it how the hell could you charge a website because alot use it? This is just a way to try to get more money and its really pathetic. I bet myspace is next  | |
|
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| if... If anything is true here, it's that the entire mess is almost toatally mis-understood by the ISP, be them cable or telco.
They (ISP's) have been consistently (for the most part) upgrading both their infrastructure, and plant operations since their inception. This includes, say, new routers/switches, some new lines, newer nodes (Cox uses fiber, then coax...). They are obviously still making money in the process.
What really gets me to agree with the "neutral" side of the debate are statements like the following from Mr. Thinks-he's-hot-in-the-pants...
“in order for the Internet to keep up with it [growing bandwidth consumption]…it’s going to require investment” and therefore someone has to pay for the investment.
...Yes. And that is you sir, the ISP. You have done this for years. Others have been doing this for years.
I'd really really really like to hear somebody honestly debate this point. Seriously. They can afford their high end equipment, the massive bandwidth, so I'm at a loss here.
Search engines use so LITTLE in terms of file sizes for their pages, it's really absurd to think of them "clogging" in ISP's bandwidth. What they're likely more upset are people really using their bandwidth for everything else. So what if Google has a bazillion ads all over the entire net, making them some money. The cost of transporting even MILLIONS of their banner ads to AND FROM them is likely much less than two people sitting at home sharing a .WAV file.
Say I collaborate with a musician across the country. We're working on an album. Not sharing mp3's, I'm talking sending each other .WAV's or FLAC's. Even one song, 5 minutes long, would equate to more than I don't even know how many thousands of search pages or ads bouncing across the wire.
The job of an ISP is to make sure their wires transmit and receive data in a stable and timely manner. Nothing else. If they crave more income, then develop something else that people will buy. Simple as that. If they want to offer up something cool like ATT's Blue Room, and webcast entire concerts, let them. Thing is, that's free right now. It might not be in the future. Hmm... there's one way to make a buck right there.
Partnering with subscription services like Rhapsody... = $$$ for ISP's... It's a service people actually want to pay for because it's worth something.................
Charging either customers, or corporations more money for absolutely nothing makes no sense. Both parties already pay for their connection... I fail to see where this magical 3rd charge should originate.
This whole stance on charging more for companies who actually make money is sick. Absurd. Borderline insane.
I'd really like to see an honest debate on this. | |
|
Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL | Ironic Timewarner wants to charge while their sister company AOL wants to offer free broadband content to everyone on the internet. | |
|
i1me2ao
Premium
join:2001-03-03
TEXAS
·Comcast
| twc twc should just die. after receiving there cable and trying there broadband, i am quite sure in the fees that no one is able to explain we are paying for this. each day out of the 78 channels we have 6 are ads for twc services. the rr one advertises 24/7 about all the benefits of being able to d/l all you want..
--
(insert company name)we are not responsible for defective products or could care less about your product after we have your cash.. | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
Eric Martin
join:2005-06-19
66308
| Drawing a line in sand Google and other internet companies to unite and tell them to f*** off.
In fact , have most of the internet neutrality people should organize and do a boycott of their networks.
Let them create their cellphone like networks. They will not get access to the best internet web sites then.
Whats the use of Dsl or cable then ? | |
|
jagged
join:2003-07-01
Boynton Beach, FL | So Why Pay then???? Google pays for access to the backbone and such.
We pay for access to google thru the backbone
So why are paying then? Or does TW get to make money 3 times? | |
|
| thefoxbox
go fox box go
Premium
join:2004-10-14
Irving, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
·ViaTalk
 ·Verizon FIOS
·voip.com
| Re: So Why Pay then???? said by jagged :Google pays for access to the backbone and such. We pay for access to google thru the backbone So why are paying then? Or does TW get to make money 3 times? I'm with you, all the way. | |
|
|
|
|
Time Warner Eager to Charge Google?
Pay per bit solves all