view:

topics flat nest

Gbcue

Premium Member

join:2001-09-30

Santa Rosa, CA Gbcue Premium Member Greed Greed strikes again.



I thought part of your bill was for infrastructure upgrades as is. If not, I want a discount. gorehound

join:2009-06-19

Portland, ME gorehound Member Re: Greed exactly.more signs of extreme greed for making a buck any way possible even in bad taste. matrix3D

join:2006-09-27

Middletown, CT matrix3D Member Re: Greed I've always been of the mindset that Google, or any other content provider these ISPs attempt to extort money from, should simply block all access from these ISP's networks. After all, an Internet connection that can't access anything is pretty damn useless! I'm willing to bet these ISP's would quickly start whistling a different tune when their customers begin jumping ship to their competitors who aren't blocked. jp498

join:2011-08-01

Rockland, ME jp498 Member European ISPs Sounds like their utopia of ultra cheap Internet isn't sustainable. We've seen the press releases and hype where they have cheaper and faster Internet in various countries. Open wholesale access, population density, are reasons for it being financially feasible AND cheap. If they charged a tiny bit more, they wouldn't need to go after google's money.



Sorta like rural DSL in the US. The phone companies like to sell it cheap, then complain it's not financially feasible to do DSL in remote areas. If they had different pricing for different areas, it would be feasible. It often doesn't need to be much more to make it feasible, and prices could come down as things are paid off or competition increases.



Don't mistake me being a proponent of expensive access; Underpriced access is just apt to be a shell game or a bait and switch or some other tactic. In this case, it's a shell game. I'm in this business and I've seen many tactics over the past 16 years. Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06 Wilsdom Member Re: European ISPs Corporations' infinite appetite for profit is the only thing that is obviously unsustainable. While ISPs boast about their profitability to shareholders they whine about not having enough funds to upgrade. Only one can be true, and if it were the latter they can present a cost analysis for the upgrade and add a couple of dollars on bills until it is done. But they keep their profits unregulated while demanding that the government sanction their monopolies and give them taxpayer money.

HappyAnarchy

@iauq.com HappyAnarchy to jp498

Anon to jp498

That would be the case if they weren't already profitable. They are.

Remember, AT&T used the same argument and we know they are making a great deal of profit on the flat rate billing model. This is artificial scarcity at its most basic.



It certainly is feasible, as judged by the many companies around the world doing it - and it should be noted that this talk of charging Google for bandwith started in the US where it certainly wasn't the default and spread from there. This is definitely not an idea that started in countries with a low cost internet trying to maintain profitability, as would be expected if that model was the problem. sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24

Cleveland, OH sonicmerlin to jp498

Member to jp498

said by jp498: We've seen the press releases and hype where they have cheaper and faster Internet in various countries. Open wholesale access, population density, are reasons for it being financially feasible AND cheap. If they charged a tiny bit more, they wouldn't need to go after google's money.



Sorta like rural DSL in the US. The phone companies like to sell it cheap, then complain it's not financially feasible to do DSL in remote areas. If they had different pricing for different areas, it would be feasible. It often doesn't need to be much more to make it feasible, and prices could come down as things are paid off or competition increases.



Don't mistake me being a proponent of expensive access; Underpriced access is just apt to be a shell game or a bait and switch or some other tactic. In this case, it's a shell game. I'm in this business and I've seen many tactics over the past 16 years.





Your example of rural US access is pathetic. Do you realize how many USF subsidies rural US carriers receive to "provide" rural access? Look at how much they're asking for now: »



It's not at all expensive to upgrade. The FCC's own commissioned study found that line-sharing ENHANCES private investment, due to the increase in competition.



Look at free.fr in France, who provides a triple play of internet, TV, and phone all for $40/month. Wait, so you've just actively repeated the same lies the telcos spout and you expect us to not mistake you for being a proponent of expensive access?Your example of rural US access is pathetic. Do you realize how many USF subsidies rural US carriers receive to "provide" rural access? Look at how much they're asking for now: » dslprime.com/dslprime/42 ··· in-place It's not at all expensive to upgrade. The FCC's own commissioned study found that line-sharing ENHANCES private investment, due to the increase in competition.Look at free.fr in France, who provides a triple play of internet, TV, and phone all for $40/month. jp498

join:2011-08-01

Rockland, ME jp498 Member Re: European ISPs I am a big proponent of line-sharing, as I'm from the independent ISP business (unrelated to the indy telco business). I like for my customers to be paying for customer service, skillful use of technology/innovation, and choice rather than a simply an access commodity which is the telco style and a big part of why telcos are despised. Their consideration of it as a scarce commodity is the reason for their monopolies to exist.



The rural ILECs and former long distance people are the ones creating the bell-heads who think they should get paid for receiving Internet traffic in the manner these people are going after google. It goes back to reciprocal comp which is an outdated model. It was intended to keep consumer monthly costs down, but basically added more cost uncertainty to phone use and prevented innovation. In addition to the wasteful flow of money from this, much of the telecom regulation is designed to preserve this at the expense of creativity and innovation. If it weren't for this, we would have had unlimited voice service much earlier for example. Recip comp also let phone companies undercut small independent ISPs back in the dialup days. You'd perhaps have lots of small US ISPs if the quest to cash in on recip comp didn't kill them off before they could get past dialup and into newer tech. Anything based on recip comp is bad for the Internet access services of the future.



I compete with three rural ILECs and study the large amounts they get for their existence. I've paid my fair share into the USF fund as well. I'd rather USF dwindle away than what is proposed. It sounds OK, but will end up being morphed over time into the same sort of thing it is now. It's only expensive to upgrade because 1. they make it expensive so as to maximize their long term access to USF money. 2. they make it expensive as a barrier for competitors.



We won't have triple play for $40 because the industries writes the rules for TV, phone, Internet. They guide the FCC and have more political influence than any politician.



The non-industry people are not as knowledgeable and not as organized. So with the knowledge necessary to properly reduce regulation and costs, they end up doing the opposite; industry works to influences things to disfavor competition to their benefit, such as increasing barrier to entry. bmialone

Premium Member

join:2009-08-15

Anchorage, AK 1 edit bmialone to jp498

Premium Member to jp498

said by jp498: Sounds like their utopia of ultra cheap Internet isn't sustainable.





The problem is exhibiting itself throughout European cultures in a variety of economic areas: International corporations and corporations with ties to them (all of our larger American companies are really international now, not "American") pressuring their governments to follow our poorly regulated path, to the impending detriment of their citizens just like it has been detrimental to us. Their politicians are beginning to buckle under the pressure of powerful corporate lobbying efforts, meaning corporate money, as ours already did, costing us our middle-class, competitive business environment, and economy.



We succumbed faster because we do not have as long history of social and economic protections, but their system is being chipped away. Profit is not enough. It must always be more than the quarter or year before. Bigger with more profit regardless of the cost to the rest of us. That isn't the reason. The European companies have been making good profits with the system as it is. What is happening is European companies are trying to follow the American model for higher profits. The greed wagon is international. We've spread it abroad.The problem is exhibiting itself throughout European cultures in a variety of economic areas: International corporations and corporations with ties to them (all of our larger American companies are really international now, not "American") pressuring their governments to follow our poorly regulated path, to the impending detriment of their citizens just like it has been detrimental to us. Their politicians are beginning to buckle under the pressure of powerful corporate lobbying efforts, meaning corporate money, as ours already did, costing us our middle-class, competitive business environment, and economy.We succumbed faster because we do not have as long history of social and economic protections, but their system is being chipped away. Profit is not enough. It must always bethan the quarter or year before. Bigger with more profit regardless of the cost to the rest of us. Kearnstd

Space Elf

Premium Member

join:2002-01-22

Mullica Hill, NJ Kearnstd Premium Member Google is paying last I checked they had data centers around the world including in Europe. and last i checked they have to buy bandwidth to offer their product to the masses. and the viewers at home also have to pay for a connection.



its not like Google is getting a free ride here. also the ISPs have to remember the reason people buy their product is because someone else out there is offering a reason to use it.

XoX

join:2003-08-19

Qc, Canada XoX Member Re: Google is paying said by Kearnstd: last I checked they had data centers around the world including in Europe. and last i checked they have to buy bandwidth to offer their product to the masses. and the viewers at home also have to pay for a connection.



its not like Google is getting a free ride here. also the ISPs have to remember the reason people buy their product is because someone else out there is offering a reason to use it.





The trouble is... People do not subscribe of for Internet access just to look at the ISP web page... Without content, people would not use it They know about that but hey, they want someone else to foot the bills and keep their money so they blame Google.. In fact, if they could, they would try to blame other content provider and ask them to pays their bills but since Google is the biggest of them all, they are targeting it.The trouble is... People do not subscribe of for Internet access just to look at the ISP web page... Without content, people would not use it sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24

Cleveland, OH sonicmerlin to Kearnstd

Member to Kearnstd

said by Kearnstd: last I checked they had data centers around the world including in Europe. and last i checked they have to buy bandwidth to offer their product to the masses. and the viewers at home also have to pay for a connection.



its not like Google is getting a free ride here. also the ISPs have to remember the reason people buy their product is because someone else out there is offering a reason to use it.

Google's the biggest ISP in the world. They just don't serve residential customers.

r81984

Fair and Balanced

Premium Member

join:2001-11-14

Katy, TX r81984 Premium Member Re: Google is paying Hardly, google is has very little isp customers in california and now in Kansas City compared to other isps.

Googles customers pay for their own internet access to get on the internet to use google.

Google pays for its internet access so their customers can reach them.



Now google does operate their own fiber/backbones for google traffic only to cut 3rd parties out of some transmission cost, not for others to use. Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29

Eustis, FL Mr Matt Member Make service unaffordable to delay capital expenditures! When Touch Tone (DTMF) service was offered in 1965 the price was set to deter all but the richest subscriber from ordering the service. In some cases the ILEC charged almost 50% the cost of the access line for Touch Tone Service. In 1997 when Dial Up Internet Access finally started to take off the ILEC's found that they had to upgrade their switched networks in order to carry the additional traffic. Their solution was to apply to the FCC for a ruling to allow them to convert all ISP dial up access lines to measured rate service at $0.10 per minute or $6.00 per hour. That would make internet access unaffordable for many customers thereby reducing the demand and cost for switch upgrades. Fortunately the Clinton Administration refused to allow conversion to measured rate service. That is why the incumbent ILEC's have lobbied up. Paying lawmakers for favorable treatment. Bottom line is that we are all screwed. When Touch Tone (DTMF) service was offered in 1965 the price was set to deter all but the richest subscriber from ordering the service. In some cases the ILEC charged almost 50% the cost of the access line for Touch Tone Service. In 1997 when Dial Up Internet Access finally started to take off the ILEC's found that they had to upgrade their switched networks in order to carry the additional traffic. Their solution was to apply to the FCC for a ruling to allow them to convert all ISP dial up access lines to measured rate service at $0.10 per minute or $6.00 per hour. That would make internet access unaffordable for many customers thereby reducing the demand and cost for switch upgrades. Fortunately the Clinton Administration refused to allow conversion to measured rate service. That is why the incumbent ILEC's have lobbied up. Paying lawmakers for favorable treatment. Bottom line is that we are all screwed. amungus

Premium Member

join:2004-11-26

America amungus Premium Member this is perfect I think that out of all the articles concerning this topic so far, that this one is the most concise, well written one I've seen here.



Every major point is clearly covered, with links all over the place.



How this "debate" is even still alive, I do not understand.



It also baffles me that anyone is surprised that more people want to USE the internet that they pay for.

megarock

join:2001-06-28

Fenton, MO megarock Member Once again... This is simple.



The internet is content. Without the content the internet is nothing more than networking a computer to another. If that's the only purpose of the internet then we don't need it.



When as a provider of the internet service (which is a connection to the content) tries to charge anyone for accessing the content they are essentially trying to charge for the same service TWICE.



Would you pay for a car repair then have to pay again to drive it?



Would you pay for food then have to pay again to be able to eat it?



Nope. Then make sure any company that demands to be paid for people accessing the internet through their already paid for internet service hear LOUD AND CLEAR that it's not the way to go. Call them, e-mail them, b**ch about it on FB, Twitter and blogs. Spread the word LOUD AND CLEAR that without the content there is no reason for the internet.



Because - there isn't. MaynardKrebs

We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.

Premium Member

join:2009-06-17 MaynardKrebs Premium Member Next: Fedex & UPS need Next thing they'll be asking for is for Fedex, UPS, and every other courier company to pay extra for the roads ....because the courier company is making money using the roads.



Sure, toll roads have their place.

But companies also pay taxes - federal, state, and municipal - and some of that money does towards roads.**



You don't see incumbent telco's for a 'cut' except from companies like Google - not from Sony, whose TV's are sold on-line...... not from Best Buy, who actually sells the Sony TV....and not from Amazon...who sells the DVD that the end user watches. All these orders went over somebody's "pipes" and nobody gets shaken down....except for Google.



Time to treat the telco's correctly....charge them under RICO statues.



-------------



**Of course in a Republican/Tea party world, Fedex and UPS would each have to build their own roads, because there'd be no government built/operated roads. Kamus

join:2011-01-27

El Paso, TX Kamus Member Be careful what you wish for... I wonder if statements like these will come back and haunt them at some point.



Sure, Kansas alone isn't a cause for worry. But if you do live in Kansas i can think of no reason why you would want anything less than Gigabit Internet.



I think it's going to be interesting to see just how many customers Cable and Telcos manage to keep there.

ohrly

@virginmedia.com ohrly Anon On the UK... Many of the ISPs who whinged about the iPlayer tend to be those who work on the "sell service for ultra cheap, build network to reflect that model". Tiscali (which is now extinct, having been bought by a marginally better competitor) was well known for being cheap, and was notorious for their god-awful service - slow speeds, traffic shaping, poor customer service - it was all there.



The problem is that iPlayer et al has delivered a shock to the business models of such ISPs - no longer can they get away with massive overselling. Meanwhile, others who give their customers a proper usage limit and build their networks accordingly, suffer so such issue. But then they charge a lot more than £6 a month (plus £11 line rental) than some of the cheaper outfits are charging.



Even the UK's dominant telco is realising this - they've finally pulled their finger out their arse and are rolling out ADSL2+, VDSL and FTTP on a massive scale, with wholesale prices to reflect the higher usage that those speeds will attract (it's cheaper than their current ADSL network is).

r81984

Fair and Balanced

Premium Member

join:2001-11-14

Katy, TX r81984 Premium Member Huh??? Google pays their ISP bills, why should they pay for other peoples bills?? SuperWISP

join:2007-04-17

Laramie, WY SuperWISP Member It makes sense. Shouldn't the company that's raking in the most bucks from the Internet pay to maintain and expand it?

MonkeyLick78

join:2002-01-27

Hixson, TN MonkeyLick78 Member Re: It makes sense. Sure, as long as all of the ISP's share their profits with Google every month. The ISP's are no longer needed if the content providers are stuck paying the bills for access. It's like charging the most profitable store in a mall for mall maintenance because they bring in more people.

NOCMan

MadMacHatter

Premium Member

join:2004-09-30

Colorado Springs, CO NOCMan Premium Member How is this Google's Fault How much bandwidth does search and email take up.

anuragbhatia0

join:2010-03-28 anuragbhatia0 Member Re: How is this Google's Fault A lot. A big LOT!



I didn't saw any numbers recently from them but I believe it would be something as high as few Peta-Bytes an year. Google search + Gmail + Youtube consume lot's of bandwidth but yes as other members already pointed out - Google does pays to them for their upstream.



Google operates it's own backbone and purchases upstream from players whereever required. They usually lease a lot of dark fiber and run their own network over it for domestic as well as International routes to most of big countries and for reaching end users on incumbant players, Google pays for sending bandwidth on their network. Thus in that case question of Google taking advantage is meaningless.



Anurag your comment..

