Google Shows Three Fingers To BellSouth, Says Read Between The Lines
from the you-tell-em dept
As the hot air continues to come out of the telcos regarding their plans to make internet companies pay up to use “their pipes”, Google says they can forget about getting it to pay the protection fees. “Google is not discussing sharing of the costs of broadband networks with any carrier. We believe consumers are already paying to support broadband access to the Internet through subscription fees and, as a result, consumers should have the freedom to use this connection without limitations,” someone from the company told a Networking Pipeline reporter. Just yesterday, Jeff Pulver said Google should publicly and vocally say they won’t pay, and while it’s doubtful the statement is in response, it’s nice to see Google saying they won’t play ball. BellSouth and the other companies still don’t seem to grasp that it’s these internet companies they’re trying to fleece that make people want their connections. Cut off that access, and they’re going to cut off a lot of customers, too.
Comments on “Google Shows Three Fingers To BellSouth, Says Read Between The Lines”
Telcos
On the one hand, the larger sites are the major bandwith hogs on the internet. So by right maybe they should be paying more, as they’re the ones making the big bucks, thus can afford it.
On the other, it may seem like a form of racketeering, or having to dole out ‘protection’ money. But I disagree with that analysis. If the network infrastructure were unlimited with an unlimited amount of hardware and servers, it wouldn’t be a problem. However, that is not the case; there is a LIMITED amount of network infrastructure to compete over. So I can understand why some would think that the ones who utilize the most of that infrastructure should be paying the appropriate percentage of that use.
Whether you agree with it or not, the telcos do have a valid argument.
Re: Telcos
“On the one hand, the larger sites are the major bandwith hogs on the internet.”
They’re not the major hogs on the internet. The millions of people willingly visiting those sites combines together are the hogs of the internet and they pay for the pleasure.
The big sites, and any site for that matter also pays hosting fees on their end.
If you have a site, and already pay your down and upstream to your hoster, and your visitors also pay their own down and up stream, then where’s the ground that the ISP-s suddenly want those streams paid twice.
Also given you can be accessed from any point in the world, would you be willing your site to be forced to pay up to literally every ISP in the world.
It just makes no sense.
Re: Re: Telcos
I agree. It is the equivalent of me paying a phone bill to make calls and having the telco also want each of the folks I call to pay them for calls from me. I’ve paid for my access, they already pay for their access on their end.
Re: Re: Re: Telcos
“I agree. It is the equivalent of me paying a phone bill to make calls and having the telco also want each of the folks I call to pay them for calls from me. I’ve paid for my access, they already pay for their access on their end.”
Uh…isn’t that the definition of a cell phone call?
Re: Re: Re:2 Telcos
Uh…isn’t that the definition of a cell phone call?
I believe mobile networks differ in that you’re utilizing two different networks to make your call.. This may end eventually, or may not. Some networks do (used to?) make calls within their own network cost you to make but the caller receiving the call didn’t have to pay anything.
With international telcos and the postal systems I believe they just have reciprocity agreements – you only pay your post office to sent a letter to Germany, and not another time when your German friend goes to the post office.
Re: Re: Re: Telcos
I agree with John D. I’m from Canada and I know the weasel isp’s up here are already charging me enough. and if it were not for google which is the only search engine I use. I would not even want their broadband connection.And would quickly cancel my connection without blinking an eye.
Re: Re: Telcos
“The millions of people willingly visiting those sites..”
True and without those sites there would be no millions of visits, hence no bandwith hogging at that central point.
“It just makes no sense.”
I agree. Yet when a telco is faced with the prospect of raising fees for customers against fierce competition from the cable co’s, it’s faced with a dilemma: should it risk alienating new business from increasing user fees, or should it go down another road to try and squeeze profits from the other end of the pipe?
Looks like they decided to choose the latter.
Re: Re: Re: Telcos
“True and without those sites there would be no millions of visits, hence no bandwith hogging at that central point.”
And some other site would take its place, completing the circle of life.
Re: Re: Re: Telcos
True and without those sites there would be no millions of visits, hence no bandwith hogging at that central point.
That’s a totally bogus argument. The telcos are already being paid for all that bandwidth.
Really what you’re saying is that the telcos lied about what they sold everyone when they sold them connections originally, and now they can’t actually deliver what they sold. In most cases that’s fraud, not a situation where you get to go back and double charge.
Re: Re: Re: Telcos
I have to say that if my provider suddenly blocked my access to google or any other site, I’d be in search of a provider that didn’t block my freedom of surfing. In any large area, it would only take one internet provider NOT charging these fees and blocking those who won’t pay to make the others change their mind…because I suspect that’s where the people would go…
Re: Er, no...
“So by right maybe they should be paying more, as they’re the ones making the big bucks, thus can afford it.”
That’s not “right”, that’s communalism. “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” It’s just about 180 degrees from “right”.
Re: Re: Er, no...
‘That’s not “right”, that’s communalism. “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.”‘
Heh, you could hardly ask for a better opportunity for your username than this topic eh?
Re: Telcos
You are a retard. Everyone already PAYS for allocated bandwidth! I pay for my cable broadband and I do not a single “bit” more of bandwidth than I subscribe to. I am sure Google does not get one more “bit” of bandwith than they already PAY the carriers for. If there is BANDWIDTH CONTENTION it is because the carriers have OVER-SUBSCRIBED. A single CARRIER like BS can not do this themselves because a company like GOOGLE most likely uses several CARRIERS for redundancy. BS is only looking or a way to line thier pockets from other peoples success. Which they already do because carriers already charge you extra when you exceed you bandwidth and step into the BANDWIDTH-DEMAND-RESERVE.
wise up!
Re: Telcos
However, that is not the case; there is a LIMITED amount of network infrastructure to compete over.
I recall from my undergrad networking courses that there’s millions of dollars worth of dark fiber (that’s unused fiber optic cable for the uninitiated) laying all over the place. The higher-up ISPs are clambering to get customers to start using it.
I think the infrastructure isn’t as bad as the telcos like to make us believe. More than likely their costs originate in the archaeic lines they use to deliver the access to homes and businesses, and the hack they used to enable access.
One day every home will have fiber lines running to it and things will be simpler. Until then we have bandwidth pools and “bad” copper wiring in older (and poorly-built new-) buildings.
Re: Telcos
Your comment is somewhat devoid of logic. How does Google “hog” bandwidth? I feel like this is the same perception that casts Miscorosft in a poor light (at the times when they don’t deserve it) – being number one draws a lot of scrutiny. Effectively, telcos want to penalize popular sites for being just that – popular. Although the telcos don’t see it that way, they just see Googe and Yahoo, to name a few, making a lot of money – and they want some too. Companies like Google and Yahoo, as related articles point out, add a value to the service Telcos provide. If Telcos want wider profit margins then they need to hire clever engineers to invent new valu-added services.
Following that same logic, ISPs should go back to charging hourly rates and go back to profiteering off of the end user. Would you still thin Telcos had a point then?
Re: Telcos
“Bandwidth hogs”? Isn’t it the *visitors* of these sites that request the content from these so-called “bandwidth hogs”? Isn’t it the *visitors* that therefore “utilize the infrastructure”?
The existence of these sites increases the value (aka enjoyment) of my websurfing. To penalize sites for making their content available seems to me as downright insane.
Re: Telcos
Sorry sir, but I’ve gotta call “BullSh*t”!
I’ve got personal experience to back me up on this, as a used to manage an ISP that had to resell Telco monopoly ADSL lines. Believe me, if they didn’t think they’d get sued, they wouldn’t resell the lines at all. By reselling, I mean having an independent ISP pay for line access, strictly. The ISP pays for their own “Pipe,” customer support, and network services and gets their eyes gouged out in the process. Conveniently enough, the Telco gave us (and other resellers) the crappiest service possible and longest delays in getting lines up. Why not? Only takes customers away from them.
You forget that Telcoms and Cable companies are what we refer to as GEOGRAPHIC MONOPOLIES.
Look it up or take Economics 101.
The customer is already paying for the access, as is the hosted site. Where do you deduce that a monopoly has the right to extort money from sites that already PAY for the bandwith used by them by the CUSTOMERS that already PAY for their own access???!!!
“Preposterous,” says the Professor HighBrow.
Thanks Google...
The Telcos are businesses and are just trying to find another way to make some money. They have, however, crossed a line and it’s nice to seem them getting smacked back into place.
Re: Thanks Google...
If it were up the to the telcos, you’d still have to pay extra for each phone in your house. They took greed lessons from the oil companies and got an A+.
Re: Re: Thanks Google...
If it were up the to the telcos, you’d still have to pay extra for each phone in your house. They took greed lessons from the oil companies and got an A+.
Cable and Satellite companies do it.
Greed
Don’t the telco’s make enough money. All this corperate money making needs to slow down and let people make some money. The rich and Corperate america make more money than the other 95% of the population combined. That is not the way it should be. Let people make more money. And stop being so greedy.
Re: Greed
Sad to say, that’s how the world works. Well… most of the time
Last grasp of a monopolist
The telcos and cables are just monopolistic dinasaurs who refused to innovate and hence are now missing out on the money the innovators are making. Like the RIAA/MPAA they have chosen to fight tooth and nail to keep their old, outdated business model. They fear VOIP and Internet-based, on-demand programming in the same way that buggy-whip makers feared the automobile. I say, t.s. to all of them. I’ll enjoy watching their bloated, ineffective companies which have overcharged me for years sink into the chapter-11 abysis. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving crowd.
Sounds Fair to me **NOT**
lets see if i have this right.
1. I pay for my “UNLIMMITED” internet access.
2. GOOGLE Pays for its Internet access.
3. ?? Google should pay again because i go to the google webpage ??? (or googles bandwidth will get THROTTLED)
so if thats true then how about this ?
1. I pay my taxes.
2. My Grandma pays her taxes.
3. Grandma now owes extra money for every time I visit her.
DEAR BELL SOUTH I DARE YOU TO GO THRU WITH THIS YOU MONEY GRUBBING PIECES OF SH*T !
What they are doing is nothing more than what the mob used to do. (Nice internet business you have there. its making you lots of money. Be a pity if something bad happened to it. Maybe we can help PROTECT it)
PLEASE GO THRU WITH IT !
I see another ISP offering a really good deal for NEW CUSTOMERS soon .
COME ON BELLSOUTH DO IT !
I dont think your customers (The ones that stay with you) will sue the crap out of you and your protection racket. That would be as silly as Netflicks customers sueing because netflicks was THROTTLEING movie output on theyre high use customers”.
Lets see a bunch of customers LEAVE BELLSHOUTH
and a bunch file a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT.
PLEASE BELLSOUTH PRETTY PRETTY PLEASE DO THIS …..I need a good laugh
Also how would this work for webpages that have a Google Search Engine on them like VCDHelp.com .
would most of theyre page be normal speed and some be slow.
I hope no one tells BELLSOUTH how much money they could make by hooking all of the employees 18 Yearold daughters
I Can see it Now….
(Bellsouth Manager) Remember Smith whats good for the company is good for you. Plus you havent met your quota this month.
(John Smith) But sir Bettys only 15 years old !!!
(Bellsouth Manager)Great we can call it a Junior Executive training program for the Youth and then we wont have to pay her minimum wages !!
(John Smith)But Sir …..
(Bellsouth Manager) And remember Smith we just started giving out freebes as an employee incentive …to the upper management only of course.
No Subject Given
blah, blah, nose, something, something, spite, ramble, ramble, face…
I'll stand beside you google...
WE pay for our internet connection, and why do we pay for our internet connection? because we want to visit sites like google. So If anything the Telcos should be paying google to make the internet interesting. Its just the Telcos trying to push there weight around again. Like the issue with the cell phones, when you call someone you get charged to make the call, and the person you call, gets charged to recieve the call. Thats double billing, and should be against the law.
No Subject Given
The way I see it ?
When cable modems started getting popular the telco?s wanted in on the broadband action too, so they built all their infrastructure and started signing up people as fast as they could. At the same time they paid (oops did I say ?paid? I meant ?lobbied?) the government to ensure that they would be the only game in town when it came to DSL offerings and effectively killed any chance for competition in areas they controlled.
I?m of the opinion that the telco?s are tired of just being an ISP, that is after all what they are when you come right down to it. People pay them to connect to the internet, the whole internet and nothing but the internet, period (if you?re actually lucky enough to have signed up with one that offers naked DSL). And what others here have said, I think you?re right on the money, literally ? the telcos don?t like the fact that sites like Google, Yahoo whoever, are making money hand over fist because they?ve worked their collective asses off and now it?s paying off. The telco?s never did any real work in developing a portal or search engine or VOIP service etc. They sat on their collective asses, got fat and lazy, never thought about the future of the internet and how it applied to them and now suddenly realize that they?re losing out on all this cash. But instead of doing what the aforementioned sites have done (e.g. thinking ahead, working their ass off to deliver a good ?product?), they just want the money and do nothing. Typical spoiled brat logic.
Should be interesting to see how this little drama plays out.
Telco's.... I don't mean to use a swear word but a
I have worked for both AT&T and SBC (they both stink incidentally). That having been said SBC has a very poor attitude when it comes to their over inflatted sense of self importance. This stems from Ed Whittaker (if he is still there) on down to the mid level management. It truly does run down hill.
What surprises me is that the telco’s don’t see that they are not in the driver’s seat on this one – they are in the hot seat! They are making plenty in the way of revenues from ISP connections. Their is NO additional or undue strain put of their network aka Outside Plant. They are just looking for a way to increase revenue to assist their poor stock prices. This would, of course, make share holders happy. A company can increase revenue just by charging Internet related company’s for something that Internet company’s are already paying for – the line. Internet company’s pay the rest… and they are not public utilities like the Bell company’s or AT&T are. I think SBC and the other bell companies should think twice before picking a fight with the many companies the are directly attached to the hand that feeds the phone companies. Copper is on it’s way out and the phone companies know it. It will be fiber to the building in our lifetimes. Granted maybe 20, 30 or even 40 years but it is going to happen in my life time. When this occcurs services will change, signal strength will change & bancwidth will change, and phone companies will be suffering all the more – they are prodominently copper connections to homes and business at this writting but that will change and competitors are surrounding these phone companies on all sides. If someone asked me I’d say – Google, Micorsoft, Earthlink, AOL, etc…, tell the companies who are asking for extra $$$$ to take a hike. Because I WILL cancel my Cable modem and my second phone line- if they start fishing for extra cash regarding the Internet.
Thank you,
Johnny V
Former OSP Loop Electronics Engineer for SBC & former Office Manager and Project Manager for AT&T.
p.s. They are not all that great to work for either!!!
Telco's.... I don't mean to use a swear word but a
I have worked for both AT&T and SBC (they both stink incidentally). That having been said SBC has a very poor attitude when it comes to their over inflatted sense of self importance. This stems from guys like Ed Whittaker (if he is still there) on down to the mid level management. It truly does run down hill.
What surprises me is that the telco’s don’t see that they are not in the driver’s seat on this one – they are in the hot seat! They are making plenty in the way of revenues from ISP & Internet company connections. There is NO additional or undue strain put of their network aka Outside Plant. They are just looking for a way to increase revenue in order to assist their poor stock prices. This would, of course, make share holders of telco’s happy. A company can increase revenue just by charging Internet related company’s for something that Internet company’s are already paying for – the phone line. Internet company’s pay the rest… and they are not public utilities like the Bell company’s or AT&T are, they are not governed by the PUC’s. I think SBC and the other bell companies should think twice before picking a fight with the many companies that are directly attached to the hand that feeds the phone companies. Copper is on it’s way out and the phone companies know it as is circuit switching for phone calls. This will eventually be taken up by company’s like Vonage and the rest with few exceptions. It will be fiber to the building (fiber optics) in our lifetimes. Granted maybe 20, 30 or even 40 years in some aeras but, it is going to happen in my life time for certain. When this occcurs services will change, signal strength will change & bandwidth will change, and phone companies will be suffering all the more – they are prodominently copper connections to homes and business at this writting but that will change and competitors are surrounding these phone companies on all sides as I type. If someone asked me I’d say – Google, Micorsoft, Earthlink, AOL, etc…, tell the telco’s who are asking for extra $$$$ to take a hike. Because I WILL cancel my DSL and my second phone line- if they start fishing for extra cash regarding the Internet. Internet is “Hands Off” it is supposed to be as free as possible to the public. Not a profit Bucket for greedy right-wing businessmen.
Thank you,
Johnny V
Former OSP Loop Electronics Engineer for SBC & former Office Manager and Project Manager for AT&T.
p.s. They are not all that great to work for either!!!
Let's see... what is Bell South?
Bell South and others seem to forget what they are… UTILITIES. What they are selling is a service… electricity, water, telephone, and now, Internet access. Their job is to provide that service under the terms agreed to. Used to be, Internet, and before that, computer BBS system like the original America Online and PC Link, was sold by the minute or by the kilobyte. Telephone companies likewise charged by the minute. Now, you can get unlmited phone service, even landline, for a fixed fee, and unlimited Internet access for a fixed fee. If Bell South thought they could get people to cough up more money, either as a fixed fee or by swithing to a “pay as you go” model, they would. Instead, they’re trying to squeeze money out of the other end.
The analogy would be to, instead of raising your phone rates, going to your mom, who you call regularly on your phone, and telling her that if she wants to continue to recieve phone calls from you, she’s going to have to pay up. Crazy!
Re: Let's see... what is Bell South?
“The analogy would be to, instead of raising your phone rates, going to your mom, who you call regularly on your phone, and telling her that if she wants to continue to recieve phone calls from you, she’s going to have to pay up. Crazy!”
This analogy is somewhat flawed, as your mom likely doesn’t receive 3 million phone calls a day. If she did, then she certainly would be tying up the lines of communication, and likely every circuit available would be assigned just to handle all of her incoming calls. Which would slow service to a crawl for everyone else.
The phone company would then have to buy additional equipment to handle all of those millions of calls to your mom, in order to restore a level of acceptable service for everyone else. So..should the cost of that equipment be passed on to your mom, as the primary recipient of those calls? Or should the cost be distributed to all customers as a shared expense, with everyone’s phone bill adjusted accordingly? Who should have to pay for your mom’s popularity? Should I have to pay? Should you?
I believe that would be a more correct analogy.
Re: Re: Let's see... what is Bell South?
That analogy is fine Bob. And the answer to your question is the phone company. The phone company should pay for whatever expenses there are to keeping their promise. If they promise UNLIMITED phone calls and UNLIMITED received calls then it doesn’t matter HOW popular your mom is she gets UNLIMITED received calls!
For the phone company to say “you are receiving more phone calls than we expected so you have to pay more for your UNLIMITED service” is for them to say they lied about it in the first place!
In your analogy everyone paid for what they are getting but because the phone company can’t deliver what they promised your mom is stuck with the bill.
That is bogus my friend.
Re: Re: Let's see... what is Bell South?
This analogy is somewhat flawed, as your mom likely doesn’t receive 3 million phone calls a day. If she did, then she certainly would be tying up the lines of communication, and likely every circuit available would be assigned just to handle all of her incoming calls. Which would slow service to a crawl for everyone else.*****************************************
The phone company would then have to buy additional equipment to handle all of those millions of calls to your mom, in order to restore a level of acceptable service for everyone else. So..should the cost of that equipment be passed on to your mom, as the primary recipient of those calls? Or should the cost be distributed to all customers as a shared expense, with everyone’s phone bill adjusted accordingly? Who should have to pay for your mom’s popularity? Should I have to pay? Should you?
****************************************************
So then are you saying that its not the telcos and cable co’s duties to manage their own equipment. So If you had a business is it the duty of your customers to pay for the desk’s chairs and pens that your employees need to do their work ? Ok then what are they doing with the fees you pay them for service and the profits that they are making ? Today though thats what most big comapanies are trying to do like the stupid inssurance companies. Dont be stupid. You paid for a service, you should get the service.
TELCOs
Wouldn’t it be “REALLY” funny if Google just bought Bell South… It goes along the same lines as the free wireless Google has been quietly rolling out…
I would not mind paying a Google owned telco 1/2 of what I am paying for cable…
Shame on the media
Let’s start by clarifying the comments made by BS and SBC and Verizon. They do NOT mention cutting off access to any website. Reporting that this is the intent is a scare mongering tactic and is grossly negligent.
What the leaders of the Bells are stating is that they are not going to allow bandwidth intensive services – like IPTV – max out their bandwidth while someone else makes the profit. Additionally, they are not even claiming to block a service but instead are advocating that the “best effort” model willbe availble for those that opt out and give priority status to those companies that want to guarantee a high QoS. Let me put it this way? Why should these companies invest BILLIONS in fiber if there is no money to be made. Go one step further and imagine that the Bells decide that they are cancelling their FTTx roll outs. Now what? Do you really think that Google is going to invest in a PUBLIC infrastructure and allow Apple to sell movies on it and cannabilize their revenue stream?
Also, you do not have unlimited anything on the internet. If you look closely at your TOS you will see that their are limits to what you can and cannot due with your connections. Additionally, most companies have the right to change the price plans with minimal notice. If the websites choose not to pay, as so many of you are cheering them to do, watch how quickly the $/Meg increases for our high speed conenections.
Re: Shame on the media
Let’s start by clarifying the comments made by BS and SBC and Verizon.
Yes lets CLARIFY this.
They do NOT mention cutting off access to any website.
And Guido never said he was going to trash your store or break your arms ..he just mentioned it would be a pity if something bad happened.
What the leaders of the Bells are stating is that they are not going to allow bandwidth intensive services – like IPTV – max out their bandwidth while someone else makes the profit.
1. Sounds like they need more bandwidth (their businss problem not ours. They new how much bandwidth they could handle before they sold (ie took our money) all of that UNLIMMITED Internet Access.
2. sounds like the RIAA crap (APPLE is making money from their IPODs because it plays OUR MUSIC so we want a cut of the IPOD sales….even though Apple already pays for the music they sell)
Additionally, they are not even claiming to block a service but instead are advocating that the “best effort” model willbe availble for those that opt out and give priority status to those companies that want to guarantee a high QoS
Like i said Guido NEVER said hed break your arms. He will do his very best to make sure nothing bad happens to you or your store BUT since you arnt paying the EXTRA PROTECTION FEES …accedents do happen.
Let me put it this way? Why should these companies invest BILLIONS in fiber if there is no money to be made.
There is money to be made. They get paid but they see someone making money besides them and they want a cut of that too.
Its like if i owned a piece of land and the phone company needed to put a line thru (over) it and agreed to pay me for using my land.
Now i find out the phone company has been running a new service sending data over these lines to china and are making a ton of money.
Should i be able to say Hey why should i let you use my land to run your phone line over just so you can make a ton of money I WANT MY CUT.
Go one step further and imagine that the Bells decide that they are cancelling their FTTx roll outs.
Lets see if there is a service to be offered and no-one is doing so that means SOMEONE ELSE WILL.
Also *THE BELLS* arnt doing their FTTx rollouts out of the kindness of their hearts theyre doing it because they KNOW they will make money. They just want MORE (its called GREED)
I also noticed how you said “**THE BELLS** decide that they are cancelling their FTTx roll outs”…as if they are all acting like one company…warnt they forced to breakup.
Now what? Do you really think that Google is going to invest in a PUBLIC infrastructure ?
Accually yes i do. if you keep your ears to the ground you might hear something interesting about some GOOGLE TRAILORS
Also, you do not have unlimited anything on the internet
Ah yes i forgot how they are allowed to LIE ABOUT THE TOS UNLIMMITED doesnt mean UNLIMMITED.
Additionally, most companies have the right to change the price plans with minimal notice.
HMM actually i signed up for X dollars a month for 6 months. its called a contract. Id bet the words CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT would be heard alot if people they promised such a deal to were suddenly charged more.
If the websites choose not to pay, as so many of you are cheering them to do, watch how quickly the $/Meg increases for our high speed conenections.
Yes and also watch how quickly $/Meg that we pay for our high speed connections goes to another company. Cable anyone How about Wireless. Internet over Powerline or any of a billion billion other neat new ways to connect that are right around the bend.
Hell if Bellsucks…err i mean Bellsouth does deside to screw the pooch on this one most likely youd see stuff like Internet over powerlines and other exotic new crap come out faster. Where there is a demand for something and no one is supplying it THATS A BUSINESS OPPERTUNITY.
So I sat PLEASE BELLSOUTH PLEASE DO IT..it would be a huge handfull of nails in their company coffin.
Re: Shame on the media
Oh great, a telecom shill.
What the leaders of the Bells are stating is that they are not going to allow bandwidth intensive services – like IPTV – max out their bandwidth while someone else makes the profit.
Heh. Again, the ISPs already sold the bandwidth to both parties. Why do they get to go back and charge again? Someone else making a profit is irrelevant. The only reason their lines have value is because of these useful services online.
Google’s ability to profit online ADDS VALUE to the telcos lines. They should encourage it, not stifle it.
Why should these companies invest BILLIONS in fiber if there is no money to be made.
You really think there’s no money to be made? It seems pretty clear that broadband is a booming business, and they’re already selling broadband. Faster broadband drives even more usage.
Go one step further and imagine that the Bells decide that they are cancelling their FTTx roll outs. Now what?
If there’s demand, and there is, then there’s money to be made. Let’s see the Bells stop their rollouts of fiber, and watch cable companies and other technologies eat their lunch. Go for it. I dare them to. They know they NEED to upgrade to fiber just to keep up.
Also, you do not have unlimited anything on the internet. If you look closely at your TOS you will see that their are limits to what you can and cannot due with your connections.
Yes, but their marketing clearly states UNLIMITED! So, the bullshit excuse of “oh, you can’t in the terms of service” is pointless.
But, that’s not even the real issue. The fact is that both sides already pay for their bandwdith. What the telcos are trying to do now is double charge.
Re: Re: Shame on the media
That battle has begun. Adelphia has recently started increasing bandwidth in certain areas where Verizon FiOS is available. Their “new product” is dubbed Extreme.
The cable companies will lose this battle in the long run due to the limitations of copper. Unless, of course, they start replacing their lines with fiber too.
RE Telcos
There is something that people should understand about how the “charge for bandwith” works. There are companys that have to pay for the bandwith that they are useing, The more bandwith they use the more there charged. Thats because they are sending large amounts of data back and forth, WITHIN the company. Companys like Google are sending large amounts of small bits of data to customers that are already paying for the lines that there useing. So no Google would not have to pay for the ” large amounts of bandwith” that the consumers are useing to visit there site. Basicly its the consumers that are useing the data not the company.
Focused - Distributed... It's all the same
The telcos say Google and friends are using up all the bandwidth, and should have to pay for it. Let’s imagine, for a moment, what the internet would be like without Google and friends. We’ll also, for the purpose of this exercise, assume that there is roughly the same number of people on the web, and there are no comparable super-popular services to attract large amounts of attention.
So… Same amount of people, using the same amount of internet… Only now they are distributing the load across several sites, rather than it being concentrated largely on a few. Is there any difference in the amount of data being sent? No, not at all. It’s the same data, just from a larger number of smaller providers. The sum of bandwidth is the SAME.
This is why the telcos are bastards. Are people using more bandwidth these days? No doubt. Will the amount of bandwidth used continue to increase as people start using the internet for all manner of streaming data – voice, video, etc? Again, no doubt. This is, however, not the fault of the the sites that offer such services, it is the direct result of consumers becoming more and more comfortable with doing everything online.
If the telcos are worried about running out of bandwidth, then limit people/charge extra. That’s the problem, after all. People use too much. However, it’s a much easier sell to charge the big giants on the other end, even though the only reason that *any* data flows from them is because so many people *request* data from them.
Re: Focused - Distributed... It's all the same
Let’s imagine, for a moment, what the internet would be like without Google and friends.
Yes, lets. The net was once a wild, untamed frontier, the domain of nerds and programmers, intellectuals and scholars. It was a place for learning, a place of enlightenment. A place for the free flow of ideas and information. It was a wonderful sight.
Now fast forward to the internet of today, ‘Google and friends’ as you say. The commercial behemoths have seized the net, turning it into a giant, horrible shopping mall. Spyware and viruses pervade at every turn, patents run amok, lawsuits are the rule of the land, fascism is imposed, and information is no longer free.. it is sold.
That, my friend, is the internet you’re fighting for.
Think about it. The demise of the behemoths can only be a good thing for the net, and for society. The telcos, and the imposing of their harsh bandwidth fees, could bring about an abrupt end to the commercial dominance of the web.
Re: Re: Focused - Distributed... It's all the same
Think about it. The demise of the behemoths can only be a good thing for the net, and for society. The telcos, and the imposing of their harsh bandwidth fees, could bring about an abrupt end to the commercial dominance of the web.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. Oh, you make my sides hurt. The telcos (the TELCOS?!?) will bring about the end to the commercial dominance of the web?!?
WOW.
Re: Re: Re: Focused - Distributed... It's all the same
Funny huh.
I predict once your cable operator sees the telcos getting away with it, it won’t be long before they impose the plan on you as well. Because they can. One thing you can always count on is corporate greed.
Your side hurting is not from laughter, but from the cash about to vanish from your wallet.
I want what I'm paying for already...
The network providers want everyone to pay more for QoS – but they’ve never been able to deliver it on either end of the connection. Who actually gets more than 60-80% of the bandwidth their line is rated for?
Neither my DSL or cable gets better than that. And, since we started monitoring them for QoS, the T1’s at work fail to meet both uptime and network roundtrip guarantees too. If the refund wasn’t prorated those would have been free for 5 of the past 5 months.
Sure, web companies are already paying someone for QoS, but it’s to Akamai and the other cache-networks that can actually deliver on their contracts.