Slashdot Mirror
Google Won't Pay Bell South
grandgator writes "Google has offered
a clear response to Bell
South's proposal to charge content providers an additional fee for access
to their network: They won't pay. In an email, Google's Barry Schnitt told the
folks at networkingpipeline:
'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'"
I commend Google for standing up to the Dark Lord for us.
Free Beer!
I was wondering when someone was going to get a clue. Looks like Google is going to force the hands of providers' to keep billing for structure and not content. The Bells wished they could have done this with VoIP. Their loss; everyone else's gain.
I am not giving them a dime, either.
Damn right! Way to go google! Not that anyone else is gonna pay those bastards.
That'll teach 'em good.
$ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
There has been talk about applying extra fees for "higher quality network" for a long time. In the beginning it sounded like a great idea: data that needs to be transported in realtime (phone calls, stock ticker) would be charged more then data where in time or even in order delivery would be unimportant (ftp transfers etc.)
But something else happened: transfer and bandwidth exploded. I think I remember predictions that by 2008 (????) the average internet user will transfer about 600MB per day. At the same time the bandwidth needed for voice transfer (and even video conferencing) is decreasing. So even if the carriers would charge ten times more for a high "Quality of Service", the data transfered for these services is neglectable and would not justify the extra cost for providing networks with different levels of QoS or even the extra cost for billing it.
So if you want to maintain the idea of "extra charges", you have to look for important data services with "high importance", maybe not being just in time, but being always accessible. There was an outcry a couple of days ago, when (I think) del.icio.us wasn't accessible for some time, the same would be true for ebay or amazon. So the idea is economically right, if you still believe in QoS.
But in reality bandwidth the amount of bandwidth made reserving part of it for special purposes less necessary, other problems can be solved by technology, like caching for video streaming. And since those all work on raw IP networks, there is no big challenge to make a better offer than the bells, once they increase their operating costs by adding technology to enable delivery of QoS network transfers and their billing. I'm sure the carriers know that, so this will never happen. I think it is more PR and demanding "protection" from the market. Usually followed by lobbying to change some law to protect the poor companies from the non existing harm they just created themself.
memomo: free web based language trainer DE-EN-ES-FR-IT
Of course they want to clamp down. The money is in the content, not the backbone, so they want to limit content to that which they have a financial interest. This way, it can be slow, expensive, and limited.
Google is Good today.
...to the corporations...???????????????...
No, it just doesn't feel right, at all, ever.
they did no evil!
I meta-moderate because I care.
The summary: Give us more money, and we won't throttle traffic to your site. In response, Google tells them to [results filtered by safe search].
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Thatll show them!
Between this and resisting turning over search data, it looks like Google is really trying to "do no evil". I was beginning to wonder about them from some of the more recent stories, but this helps restore my confidence in Google.
Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration, which is why engineers sometimes smell really bad.
If the other major sites publicly state this it will help to nip this in the bud.
Double charging for network access is not equitable period, and yes, US consumer are paying too much comparitively already.
Damn Google! Looks like I might need to get myself a new username...
This guy's the limit!
I don't know anyone that doesn't use google ... and because of them my ISP now has to raise my monthly fee's ... the ISP's crushed torrents and now they are gonna crush google.
You heard it here first.
Having Google stand behind this is Bad for Bell South and good for everyone.
What is bell south going to do? Block Google Everyones favorate search site. Why can't old relic companies just die, except for dieing while brining down everyone else they can.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"Google's Barry Schnitt told the folks at networkingpipeline: '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'" Way to go! Google sure gave then Schnitt!
This story was posted yesterday and it infuriated me. These telcos are trying to extort more money from providers and us. Big players like Google/MS/AOL/etc need to come out and bring this issue to the forefront so it can be obliterated. Or Google can just by these companies :)
http://religiousfreaks.com/What might make more sense would be a pay-per-use plan, where you pay a flat rate for X amount of bandwidth or whatever and more if you use more. But of course if customers don't like the complication, they will choose another ISP.
a hell yeah!?
I realize this isn't because they are wonderfully great freedom fighters here to save us from the tierany of corrupt *big business*, regardless it is nice to see a company with backbone. Who, while saving themselves a few dollars, is willing to stand up for consumer who pays hard earned dollars for a service they expect free and fair use of.
What I fear more than anything else in this whole "tiering" push is the following:
BS eventually implements a tiered QOS policy. Google responds by saying, "fine. You charge us for the pipes, we'll charge you for the content that makes them useful." Cue the lawyers, who huddle up, then spit out a cross-licensing agreement such that BS pays Google exactly what they charge Google for the pipes. Google goes away happy; nothing has effectively changed. BS goes away not particularly happy with Google, but in a position where they absolutely can demand a net positive cash flow from content providers with less market clout than Google.
Consider VOIP: there are enough players in the VOIP game, and it's a small enough market, that no one company has the market leverage to demand much from BS. At the same time, a fairly small change in BS' service (a little bit of lag here, a little bit of jitter introduced over there) will result in completely destroying the VOIP company's ability to serve customers.
It'll end up being the same thing as the way large companies wield their patent portfolios. It means everything goes on just fine for the big players, but the little guys get screwed in the process.
I'm just keeping my fingers crossed that Google doesn't cave on this, even if BS offers up a cross-licensing agreement. Here's hoping "don't be evil" covers this.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Google is lean and mean and Gary doesn't take any Schnitt!
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
This positioning on the part of BS/Verizon/other money-grubbing ISPs has to be put down like a rabid dog. If they insist on milking not only their customers of the ~$30-60/month charge for their DSL service, but the sites that service their customers through their already-paid-for service, then I must insist on them choosing from whom they wish to derive their revenues - us, their paying ISP customers, or them, those Internet destinations that "us" wish to visit.
Any company that threatens to fracture the Internet as we know it doesn't deserve my dollars. How about yours?
Google has done well today, they told off Bell South and the United States Federal Gov't.
Google Trifecta is in play
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
If Google says, "no" then it's not going to happen (at least for them). Google has way to much weight to throw around in the Internet business. Service providers can't afford (no pun intended) to not give Google adequete bandwidth. [Most] users won't stand for it.
what would you do in this situation?
"We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - Major Mike Shearer, UK
That the various big Internet companies out there would not give in to this extortion. Now, if Yahoo, Amazon and eBay give the same response, the prospect of Bell South using this tool to gain way more control than they have any right to will be much dimmer.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Suck it, Trebek!
Agent Smith: "If I go to the airport, I can buy a coach standby ticket or a first-class ticket," Smith said. "In the shipping business, I can get two-day air or six-day ground."
Neoogle: Wow, that sounds like a really good deal, Bill. But I think I've got a better one. How about I give you the finger, and you give me my phone call.
Maybe this is why Google has bought up so much dark fiber, when the telcos & ISPs shaft people with QOS based fees, Google will become the network provider. This in turn will further shaft the telcos and ISPs, giving Google more cheep fiber to buy...
Didn't we (shareholders/taxpayers/markets) already pay/subsidize for the massive install of 'dark-fiber' (unused fiber optics cables) in the dot.com runup? There is so much unused fiber out there that ISP prices should be dropping, not increasing.
..are Google. First the monkey man Bush and now the US telcos. Gotta say, I'm loving it. Nice to see someone standing up to those one generally considers asshats. And if the telcos, don't wanna play by Googles rules? Hell then they'll just move into ISP and put them out of business. And if the neofascists get pissy about not having their big brother data grab, well hell Google can just publish a vast list of Whitehouse, FBI and NSA searches. Google are in a position of power, they know it and they aren't taking any shit from noone. Let's hope the "Do no evil" thing sticks, cos there's a new player on the block.
Statements from large Internet presences such as this one from Google, combined with competition in the ISP arena, will ensure that stupidity such as the tiered bandwidth model will never materialize. If BellSouth starts clamping down on bandwidth for content providers who won't pay, then their competitors just have to start running ads saying that they offer service that's just as fast, just as cheap, and that gives you the full power of their service no matter what website you visit or what service you use.
In fact, the only uncertainty in this equation is whether there is sufficient broadband competition in all markets. Since the stakes for the consumer are increasing due to BellSouth's plan, one would hope that the federal legislature would take a closer look, but BellSouth also happens to be a massive political donor as well.
Google has been showing a very large ammount of testicular fortitude lately. First Google says no to US government's request for logs of searches and now they told Bell South to stick it.
Its only a matter of time before Google hires Chuck Norris to simply roundhouse kick all of their enemies.
Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
Mister Schnitt, it is extremely unfortunate that we are not able to come to some kinda mutual agreement with youse. By the way, is this your son? Cute kid you got there. It would be a shame for anything ta happen to him. I'm just sayin', you got to think about the kids. Think it over and get back to us.
If my ISP wouldn't let me connect to google some day (or my work's ISP)...we'd be on another the next day. I'm not on any of the aforementioned ones, but if I was I'd start thinking about doing it any way. -TLAY
If Google ain't gonna pay, nobody is going to pay. I guess I was right in my response to the previous post on this topic entitled, "What if nobody pays?"
SBC/AT&T, Bell South, and soon others will be at Congress's heels to get the concept changed.
The mentality of the telcos, now that their monopolies are being rapidly deregulated, is to get as much revenue as possible from their infrastructure. Now that voice is virtualized and becoming removed from their revenue models, they feel they have to make money some way to compete with cable, BPL, fiber, and other broadband providers to survive.
They won't be shaken easily, and a pooh-pooh from Google won't slow them down an inch. These are guys that go into Congressional offices armed with a dozen lawyers-- per visit-- every visit. Do not mistake their resolve.
This is just the first salvo, folks. Get you umbrellas.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
"One rule to ring them all!" No, wait...
:D
"One Bell to web them all!" Hmm...
"And in the darkness Bell them" No, something's not right...
"Ma' Bell to sue them all!"
THERE!
Finally, it seems, there is a corporation willing to stand up to all of the bullshit that is so prevalent in today's business-Internet melange. It always seems techies are on one side, and business people are on another.
There is a company whose business people are with the nerds.
Google, we salute you!
AccountKiller
BellSouth and Verizon have been trying to force big Web sites to pay extortion-type fees if the sites want adequate bandwidth, with Google a prime target. But Google has news for them: It won't pay.
I don't know the inner workings of the Pipeline system, but are they going to throttle down certain websites? or Boost (read cache) certain websites? It wouldn't really matter in google's case. They are one of the few websites that load quickly over dialup anyway. As for google video, this could be a major hurdle if the company would throttle them down.
Otherwise WTFC?
I also think it is interesting that someone might think google would take a differant position. They pretty much have to take that stance. Google believes in providing quick access to the user, in a fast, free, and USABLE manner. The business' whose bandwidth is at stake here are smaller, content rich sites which would have to cut back content in order too meet their bandwidth budget. Or worse yet, Charge for it.
On that note, is it time to start paying for websites? Subscriptions galore? what kind of effect would that have on the advertising model?
I have used google exclusively since they surpassed metacrawler back in the day... (circa 98?)
thoughts?
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
'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'
And then Google buys a 10% stake in Bell South. That will shut the bastards up.
Or it might just be the other way around...
It's always good when someone big, quickly stands up to this nonsense.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
If you havnt heard, Chuck Norris is now working for Google and will simply roundhouse kick BellSouth in the face, thereby refuting their demands.
But Microsoft and a slew of other large corps that have web services. This may be one of those times where you guys can get off your high horse and realize that without corps you have no say or power over other large corps. We the little guy(the mice) are screwed. It's best to let the lions fight and we get the scraps.
On the other hand, you may look attractive and provide lots of users. When it becomes more complicated, is when single part starts providing lots of cheap bulk traffic (video) just in order to tell 'hey, look, I've got lots of content in terms of bytes per second' and they demand connectivity or even ask others to pay for connectivity.
The other case is when there're ISPs that start selling cheap bandwidth to their clients and later demand peerings because they've got "majority of clients, that need services".
It is always the game of power and who blinks first. On the world scale it happens as well, but on regional/national scales it is every day. Every day new bulk content appears, every day people go into endless negotiations or simply deny each other. Oops, internet.
Funny,
All the US Telecoms have benefitted over the years from thier status as "Common Carriers". From reduced regulation to reduced tax burdens. Now they want to play both sides of the fence? I'm a big capitalist, but that's just not right. Frankly, I think the FCC should simply revoke the common carrier status of ANY ISP that tries to pull this BS. It should be done retroactively to the date of ISP's incorporation or founding, whichever is earlier. The retroactive tax bill can then be calculated, and the ISP should be forced to pay the entire thing in one LUMP SUM.
Just the threat of instant bankruptcy should be enough to knock some sense into these twits.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Keep it simple stupid, who wants deal with their bill changing due to accessing different networks? Also, it gets me kind of annoyed when these ISPs think that the product they offer includes the stuff people put on the internet, my webpage and my posts were not made for their benefit.
One Google to index them all...
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
About time someone in the content business stood up and flatly, publicly opossed the idea of charging content providers for sending their data.
I even run a small ISP, and I agreee that charging content providers for traffic is a horrible idea. The only way to fairly do this would be to have huge burdensome regulations (like the phone companies who receive money through a regulatory scheme for each call they receive from another carrier).
I hate intrusive regulation more than I hate bandwidth hogs. Besides, Bell South could just charge by bandwidth instead of by link capacity if they really wanted to cover the costs of some traffic consuming more resources than others. They won't do this of course because the consumer is hooked on unlimited traffic--much like what is happening more and more with unlimited phone calls.
Ah, so this might explain the problems Google is having with their new video download service.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
They know their future with VOIP and more people dropping landlines.
They need to strike out at anything like a cornered animal.
Remind you of SCO ?
This is good to hear that a huge company such as Google is fighting the telcos. Unfortunately, we still need some more big players to stand up to the telcos as well. At that point, the only thing the telcos will have on their side is the law. This is why you need to contact your local representative about this issue. I already have, and received responses from 2 out of 3. Of course they were somewhat generic responses, but still you can only hope that the message gets across. Be sure to write a polite, clear, and concise message to ensure that you get your views heard by your representative.
Hi -
I am old enough to remember when most online access (dialup, of course) was based on some kind of per minute / per hour type of fee. Various responses evolved, including off line email readers to suck down email as fast as possible and then hang up, to CompuServe encouraging various software companies to do their official online support there and then get a kickback of the per minute charges they got their customers to pay for at CompuServe.
Anyway, it was Sky Dayton and Earthlink that pioneered the flat rate "all you can eat" dialup pricing which is still pretty standard in the U.S.
So today is it really fair for many people to pay say $30 a month for broadband when some of them only surf and check email for maybe an hour a day while others are online downloading music or video 24/7 ? So changing pricing at the user / consumer level does make sense.
TWR
The tollgate strategy endorsed by BellSouth (and SBC too) is a misguided and uncreative attempt to recoup the loss of local telephone revenue as consumers leave for cablecos and VoIP service providers such as Vonage. If the carriers were smart, they'd realize the "pipe" to consumers has plenty of room to be leveraged financially. It's okay if carriers don't get a piece of every single piece of action because the more consumers rely on broadband service, the more open they will be paying for higher speeds and quality of service. As well, carriers can sell their own services and work with partners on a revenue-share basis. It makes the tollgate strategy seem extremely short-sighted.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
We have given your proposal the attention that it deserves, and offer the following counterproposal:
We will allow you to continue to offer our service to your customers, at no additional charge to you, and you will save the immense amount of money that it would cost you to explain to all of your customers whey they can no longer get through to Google, and why they shouldn't switch to another internet provider that does offer Google access.
I'll be switching ISP's immediately. This is absurd. I've had great service from Bellsouth DSL but consumers and businesses need to send a clear message that this is not the way that the internet needs to be accessed - based on who pays the most.
*** For a better tommorow, change your life today ***
I pay Speakeasy to connect my computer as a webserver to the Internet. Who does Google pay for the same thing? They are connected, I imagine they pay someone. And that someone is probably paying something to BellSouth if BS owns some of the lines. So why does BS think it needs to go straight to Google?
The "greedy corporate money-grubbing schemer" side of me is asking: Why doesn't Google start charging Bell South an access fee? After all, thousands of Bell South customers use Google's services for free every month.
This is the shareholders via the management that (technically) works for them trying to get a better return on investment on all of that money they spent.
If Google did pay for the networks, presumably Bell South could either pass on the savings to the end users (free internet to all) or give their own execs huge bonuses -- but most likely a little of both
Seems this is Google sticking up for Google at the expense (literally) of the end users.
Hasn't Google been buying access to dark fibre? If the old phone companies make it too troublesome to use their services Google might well tell them to fsck off and start building it's own infrastructure.
Google just needs Me Bell to delay a bit so they can unvail there gNet. I mean, I assume there's a reason for them buying up tons of dark fiber. If I do have to pay for priority access to certain IP address, can't I just pay one... for a proxy server IP? If I didn't have to pay extra to access Google.com at high speed, Google could (and would) make there own proxies or something of the like to relay our DNS requests at Google-Fiber-speed. Something like web accelerator.
You'll get the $50-60 for the craptacular service and $100-120 for the all-inclusive deal if you give them the idea.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
I canceled my phone service with bellsouth 11 years ago. I have never looked back. Their predatory billing practices, and customer abuse are inexcusable. High speed cable connections are the way to go. Free phone calls all over the world. I can talk to my Mom in Amsterdam from Baton Rouge as long as I want. I don't understand why anyone is still paying Bellsouth for anything.
Yes, in theory. But supply and demand apply. The supply is still controlled by almost-monopolies. Most parts of the US don't have more than one or two choices for broadband. No competition means no price drops.
Developers: We can use your help.
I liked my headline better:
Google to BellSouth: Cram It 2006.01.18 14:43 Rejected
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Do No Evil or no, give BellSouth that blatant smack in the face they've needed for years! Disclaimer: I am a BellSouth customer in Tennessee.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
If Bell South has the people who want to get to *Google* and not the other way around, couldn't Google throttle them if they make trouble?
"We're sorry, but your internet provider is an asshole and wants us to pay them to let you use Google. Please upgrade your internet service."
Po-ta-tOWNED
http://zerovektor.com/images/potatowned.gif
The domain name "wesaidno.com" is not taken.
Why not set up a website so that people can register their complaints? I'd suggest that we should have a registering service where SBC/Bell South customers could register their BellSouth address and must be confirmed by clicking on a link in a confirmation email we'd send.
I will provide hosting, and PHP scripting to do the above, if somebody here can produce some HTML that doesn't look like a dog's back end.
ANY TAKERS?
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Scr?w that, who needs Chuck Norris when you've got a zillion penguin-powered pigeons working for you?
That's like ... ehm, brains, balls, numbers and air support on your side. Enough to strike fear in the mightiest of enemies, I'd say!
Wing span 9 inches / 65 pecks per second - how many seeds per forthnight is that?Some people tend to look at better sites than others, who do you think is going to pay for this? huh? tell me!. You cant can you.
Its the little guy thats who, the poor little Bell.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
I think google should charge BellSouth for the content. Bellsouth is getting a lot of money from customers for connections. Without web sites and content to deliver over that connection, customers wouldn't buy it - why get a connection if there's no internet to connect with? So Bellsouth is just getting all that for free. They're selling the content that WE provide as web authors, but not paying us a penny for getting all that content!
How does cable TV work? Isn't that the same thing? We pay the cable provider, and they pay the stations. No one says the stations should have to pay the cable providers for using their cable bandwidth. I say the internet should be the same thing. So if you have a web site, send BellSouth a bill.
Evan Reynolds evanthx@hotmail.com
Two peanuts crossed the street. One was assaulted.
I believe that this is not necessarily a bad thing if a content provider wanted to provide "special" content to their customers that are on an ISP's network. They could pay the ISP for providing their shared customer with either more bandwidth or higher QoS. Kinda of the reverse Cable Model..
Or a better model if content provider has a shared customer of the ISP the ISP will increase the bandwidth of that customer.
Google and BellSouth need each other. Without BellSouth, fewer customers come to Google's site, so Google displays fewer ads, and gets less revenue. There are plenty of alternatives to Google. By comparison, there are fewer alternatives to BellSouth's service, and it's a major pain for a customer to switch ISPs just for access to Google. So BellSouth figured it had the power.
Google figures BellSouth is bluffing, and I'm with them on this.
This sort of dickering goes on all the time among the Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 providers. Some carry each other's traffic on a peering agreement; others must pay. It's a major negotiation as to which is which. The bigger players peer with each other; the smaller players have to pay the bigger players.
At the the bottom level you pay (usually) a flat fee to access an ISP, who pays a higher tier, and so on. That happens on both sides, the web site provider side and the user side. You pay the next level up to deal with those agreements for you.
BellSouth must have decided that Google was big enough to count as a tier, and a tier below them at that.
BellSouth wants to open a huge can of worms, because the sheer number of potential ISP/backbone carrier/major web site agreements possible would be truly astonishingly large. The whole point of the Internet is that it's very level.
It's much better for BellSouth to take its licking, but you can see where they thought they could score some money.
I doubt that for very long those telcos will be able to compete in the political arena, when/if Google starts throwing their money around for political clout.
Considering how long it took the Telcos to get their current wealth, compared to how rapidly a small group of people (Google) became wealthy in a mere fraction of the time, I'll bet it won't be long before companies like Google team up with their insane amount of market and actual worth, and put a stop to this madness altogether.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I may be going really radical with this, but I personally believe internet access should be a regulated utility just like gas, power, and the like. Its a fact that most people now NEED access to the internet on a daily basis. I am required to get my homework assignments off the web for school, and e-mail is one of my primary forms of communication with work and friends.
The fact that ISP's will try to do something like this just to make an extra buck on top of their outrageous fees just screams government regulation.
I got nothin'
When QOS finally made its way to the suits at the Bells, they decided to try to implement it in the most retarded-ass way possible. First, by destroying the existing standards. Then, by replacing them with a ridiculous scheme based on how much the customer is willing to pay for access, not based on what traffic needs higher priorities.
To the PHBs in charge of a typical ISP, higher priority traffic == all traffic from customers willing to pay 30% more per month, which is just retarded on so many levels. It's like ISPs and phone companies have been pushing their ridiculous communistic business models for so long that they've collectively forgotten how to offer different services at different prices competitively.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Next, Bellsouth will approach Yahoo... "If you pay up, we'll throttle Google traffic and endorse Yahoo as the official search engine of BellSouth."
Yahoo, I'm afraid, will probably cave. They'll look at all the potential "revenue" they can earn through BellSouth customers, and feel that it will outweigh the costs of the bandwidth...
I mean we pay for our download/upload bandwidth on the user end. The companies pay for it on their end already.
:-)
So already the content user and the content provider have paid for their upload/download bandwidth agreements.
Now they stroll out and want to extort the content provider. Hey, you want your users to not run into trouble, you need to pay us some money to protect your interests, otherwise it could get messy for them. Sheesh!
Didn't google buy some dark fiber. Google ISP. Lightweight no frills, no throttling. Sign me up.
Why is europe not complaining about this??? I have heard that European internet is far superior to America in many places. Did they not deal with the same issues. We should learn from our more seasoned friends across the pond.
Religion and politics, without the flame. godgab.org
Presumably there were several legislative initiatives on their corporate mind, trying to charge users at both ends of the pipe was probably one of them.
If Bellsouth was giving me broadband this would be fine, but I'm PAYING for broadband. Why would I want Bellsouth picking and choosing which sites are going to load faster?
Greedy fucktards.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
fork off you forking pig forkers!
Isn't this what any monopolistic company want to do? We can call it double billing, they can call it "generating new revenue streams". The idea is that they can't get any more money from customers of their service, so that start claiming they have other services and charging people for them, even if nothing has changed. They're tring to get more money without any more work.
And since many Bell companies are monopolies in their regions, like the cable companies, they have no competition that would naturally regulate this sort of behavior.
Imagine the owner of a railroad requiring payment for not just the shipper, but the receiver, the stations, and the loaders of a container. If any don't pay they slow down the shipment or halt it all together.
Sig
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
> ^^^^ Can I lie and say I'm not a native english speaker????
/. experience. In fact, I'm really an automated python RSS script which really only knows 2 letters of my alphabet, a 0 and 1. However, my master insists I write back to you in English or he promises to rewrite me in perl 5.0. What would you do?
By all means! Please do. To lie is part of the whole
Obliterate boundries, take responsibility for "the rest of the world's" problems- and make it just "our world's problems".
The internet has already connected the upper echelons of the globe, why not incorporate the meek and destitute socially?
Have democracy with out dollars (ala star trek) and use our resources to expand our knowledge rather than our pocketbooks or armies.
The problem? Greed. Ultimately, we would have to become inhuman in order to evne consider having it work. Oh well.
FWIW, I am not a communist.
My definition of Tiered Service. 768kbit/128kbit DSL: 19.99/mo 1.5mbit/256kbit DSL: 29.99/mo 3mbit/384kbit DSL: 39.99/mo Their definition of tiered service: No matter what you pay us, if the other people you wanna see don't pay us, you get VERY SLOW access to their sites, but not to those that pay us! Aren't we nice for charging people twice?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Of course, VOIP will probably become such a dominant factor that in the end you will not be able to differentiate services on latency, but in the near term, it's a market.
Google: ...that's my way of [pause] 'sticking it to the man'.
Evil lackey: But, you ARE the man.
Google: right
Evil lackey: Soooo, you're sticking it to yourself.
Google: maybe
I read
Google can play the game. Let's say there there are two broadband internet providers in an area, and Google decides that it's only going to pay the fee to one of them. What is going to happen to the subscribers of the other? They will leave -- if I can't even get Google on my ISP, but I can on the competition, I'm going to switch.
The real problem isn't in current services -- it's in high-bandwidth (mainly video) applications. Not only will this will require rolling out new technology, but it will compete directly with services that the cable companies want to offer themselves. Why would you go to the cable company's pay-per-view service when you can get the same movie from the studio's internet video-on-demand service and pay less? From the ISP's point of view, increasing bandwidth is actually going to decrease revenue. And, that's why they want to charge content providers.
The other thing is that Quality-of-Service (QoS) becomes more important with video and that requires marking all packets at some point. If you don't have any way to distinguish between the traffic that gets better service and the traffic that doesn't, then you can't do QoS. To the ISPs, the best way to ration that is to charge those willing to pay for it.
Google should charge BellSouth a large amount of money for premium access to Google's networks. BellSouth's customers will benefit by high bandwidth/fast response times to one of the most popular destinations on the web.
BellSouth has the fees backwards. THEY should be the ones paying!
...google just needs to create a Google ISP.
Walk with Music;
I remember this happened a few months back, where one ISP decided that the other ISP needed them more than they needed it, and so they started billing them for the connection. When they didn't pay, they cut off the connection. This is how the Internet should work. If the connection between two ISPs is not mutually beneficial, then one of them can start charging the other one, and if they don't think it's worth the price, they can do without that particular connection. If there is an ISP generating a lot of bandwidth due to VOIP (or media content, or whatever) then if there isn't an equal exchange going on, the neighboring ISPs and/or backbone networks can start charging (or raise their rates) for the use of their networks. The ISPs can (and do) in turn pass this expense along to their customers who are generating the high-bandwidth traffic (i.e., the VOIP/media companies). In any case, a consumer-level ISP shouldn't care where this data is coming from, it should simply consider that the data has been requested by its paying customers and get it to them without extorting the sending parties. If they want the data volume to go down (or to collect more money), they should try to charge their customers more for bandwidth or try to reduce the rate they pay to their backbone ISP.
...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
Google will. That's the real thing here. It's obviously that Google doesn't want to pay anything, but more importantly, if customers had to pay on a "per-service" scenario, there would not be people rallying against Bell South.
They'd see that they want to see Google. Then they'd have to pay to do so. So who do they rail against? Google.
This is exactly why this scheme will fail, because with any serious amount of thought, the service companies will see this, and all of them will refuse to participate.
Honestly, I'm getting quite sick of old-school companies like telcos, radio and television, trying to nose their way into the emerging technology matters.
Radio wants more freedom, so they can compete with XM and Sirius.
Television wants to delay the all-digital switch, not to mention the strict regulation on digital service costs, because their costs go down, as service becomes increasingly easier to manage with new tech, and they don't want to lose potential profits.
And now, telcos want to regulate the internet's portals like stingy tollbooth collectors, for every mile or so of internet real estate. It's disgusting.
Adapt or die. But don't expect the revolution to change to your schedule.
I am probably not the first or last person to say this but isn't it funny how bellsouth's initials is BS.
Pay or we will shut down access to your site! Yeah, and how many of their users do they really think will stand for that. You get much better chances at russian roulette, even with 5 bullets loaded. But hey... if they want to close their business, be my guest. :)
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (A. Einstein)
It's always nice when the desire of companies to keep more money and the desire of the public to not get squashed are both served at the same time. Especially when the company in question provides such a high percentage of its services to the public in question at no charge.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
Let the people see my work, Trebek.
I dont know about you but the last time I negotiated a T1 contract, I MADE SURE it had a Service level agreement defining service availability (bw, uptime, etc). This just seems like a ploy to get more money out of you!
:D
Bell's Mission Statement - Charge alot for little in return and then charge em more.
thank god for google, maybe the dumbass's at bellsouth will listen to them.
I mentioned this a few times in my comments about Google. I mean, besides their portable datacenter, what's the point of having all of that dark fiber? They must have enough fiber for an easy 6-8 OC256's, and that's more than enough bandwidth to start your own super-speed ISP. And if Google did hold with the "Do No Evil" scheme, then they'd be charging way less than cable or phone companies. (10 mbit up/down full duplex for $40/mo anyone?)
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I'm currently looking at Speakeasy since they offer DSL without a voice line in the Atlanta area -- a feat which I had thought was impossible due to the fact that EarthLink can't offer it.
I'm currently paying $42/month for 1.5/256 DSL + $30 for local services (with all the bells & whistles since getting only caller ID would save me a whole whopping $2). Going with Speakeasy's lowest plan gives me 1.5/384 for $60 (after taxes), and I'm just going to take the remaining $10 and increase my cell phone plan to about 25 hours of time per month which is more than I'll ever use.
Speakeasy also offers VoIP (for about $27), but I think I'll save money with the cell phone plan. Their faster DSL services are significantly more expensive than BellSouth, but all I care about is reasonable upload capacities and the ability to max out that upload capacity 24/7. (I'm a heavy BitTorrent user and can't go to cable as a result.) I'm currently recommending to all of my friends to take a look at it.
Oh, and I'm making damn sure that BellSouth knows WHY I'm switching. I've told the tech I asked my current speeds from, I plan on telling the tech I will talk to when it's time to cancel my service, and I plan on writing a letter to the company to make sure they understand that I will not tolerate this sort of extortion and that I'm encouraging friends and family to pursue other options.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
>These are guys that go into Congressional offices armed with a dozen lawyers-- per visit-- every visit.
Where have you been? They don't go in there with no steenking lawyers. They go in there with bimbos, all expense paid trips all over the world, and big sacks of cash. The lawyers are for later to negotiate the plea bargain agreement for the unlucky or stupid few who get caught.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
These ISP's are trying to double dip by charging consumers and these large businesses, whom nodoubt probably pay hefty fee's for their connections as it is. Finally someone standing up for the right of us little people. This is why Google is going to change the world in so many ways.
I said he'll flip ya, flip ya for real...
Doesn't Bell South now sound like TicketMaster?
U get charged for the ticket, then you get charged a convenience charge for buying it online, then u pay another 2.50 for them to e-mail it to you. Splendid indeed.
In 5 years, when we are all surfing via G's free wireless network, no one will remember the Ma Bell's of the world.
10)...
9)...
8)...
7)...
6)...
5)...
4)...
3)...
2)...
1) (Anton, drum roll please):
Remembers when Altavista was THE search engine.
The only reason magazines and newspapers are inexpensive is because the costs are split between the consumers and the advertisers. Isn't this the same as what the phone companies wanted to do?
"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'"
I apperciate Google for taking this position. Because it is the truth.
If companies seeking to charge Google were as well run as Google, they would not need to seek additional revenues in this fashion.
No wonder so many get in a long line wanting a job at Google. They offer top pay, incentives, day care,stock,bonus, a pleasent work environment, security, great benefits,day care. Hell, you can even bring your dog to work with ya.
Google is a winner.
This has been another valuable and informative opinion from:
Catahoula!
i'm going to write a book
and then, with any luck, a publisher will pick up my manuscript
and then all i have to do is give $10,000 to the publisher for them to publish and distribute it!
huh?
hey bell south: that's not reality
you opened up a can of worms you shouldn't: at best, YOU should be paying google
you just had to be as greedy as humanly possibly, didn't you?
morons
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Except you can have my word that the costs of Bellsouth's internet will NOT go down a single cent even though they get extra cash from content providers. Do you really think that an ISP would do something like this to save their customers money? Bahahahah.
Hard work pays off tomorrow, but procrastination pays off NOW!
If Bell South are going broke with their current fee structure (which really I doubt - and if they are their *company* structure is broken and they need to lose some chiefs), then alter their rates - that's the problem, not the fact that we suddenly need some "content provider tax".
smash.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
A free service to consumers could indeed consider such a payment scheme. A service that is already charging the users a fee should not be thinking of making their clients pay to give them a half-service for most websites, and push down their throats some preferred "sponsored" sites. Customers should rightfully feel violated then. You charge the ones, or you charge the others. You're opening yourself to all kinds of lawsuits if you do both. Because I can't imagine PAYING customers sitting idlly by while their PAID service is throttled for some sites. They'd be stupid not to organize a class action (Hint to service providers considering that kind of double payment).
Again, offer free broadband and it's another story... although only a very few wide coverage providers could benefit from this. Content providers could not be expect to be coerced to pay for every other joe's ISP. In my uninformed opinion is has little viability.
I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
The word "googled" has just gotten a (couple of) whole new meaning.
Bell South has been googled, big time.
Google has sent a clear message: don't google with the customers.
Don't be evil, be google.
The Google be with you.
These activities have not been without consequences, however. People in Louisiana are figuring ways of fighting back. For instance, many people now have their phone service with AT and T, or Eatel (both of which are cheaper). Another good trick is that people in appartments are having a single BellSouth DSL subscription, that they then share with their neighbours, using a cheap wireless box from Wal-Mart. BellSouth don't seem to realise how their actions are influencing their revenues. Perhaps in the light of this latest silliness, people in other parts of the country should take similar steps against BellSouth, especially in cases where they are a monopoly, or duoploy broadband provider.
Extortion / double billing scam.
Google's not Standing up for us all. They are just big enough to take on the bully. It's just a scam to resell the bandwidth I am already is paying for and paying a premium for a faster connection. So why should I to pay for a faster connection if I can't use it unless someone else pays for that same paid for connection?
This is just a new twist on the mobs old protection racket. Pay us or we will wreck your business and break your legs. Bell South has just doing what amounts to nothing more than a Russian DDOS extortion scam pay us or we will slow your site to the point it is inaccessible and we will crash your servers.
I pay for my connection and they pay for the sites web hosting so why should we be double billed and have to pay for each other's connection if it is already been paid for.
Comcast oops I mean BellSouth just wants to get a cut of someone else's business.
i couldn't agree more. out to lunch is the perfect statment here :)
Censorship is obscene. Patriotism is bigotry. Faith is a vice. Slashdot 2.0 sucks.
10)...
9)...
8)...
7)...
6)...
5)...
4)...
3)...
2)...
1) (Anton, drum roll please):
You've never heard of Altavista.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
I hope the little weasel at Bell South who came up with the project gets slapped down instead of getting the advancement he hoped for.
'course Google isn't responding to Bell South's proposal. Google reads at +3; Bell South's proposal was modded at troll and flamebait so fast, Google never had a chance.
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
How about Google demanding money for the free service they provide to Bell South's customers?
It's just a pure nonsense. Either side (wire owners and content providers) would not survive without each other. Either side would not want customers not being able to use the service over those wires.
Just wait till hardware producers demand their cut ("hey, pay us or we won't pass any traffic from *.google.* through our modems. After all, we need to make them faster than if they didn't have to handle additional traffic").
Sorry for my grammar. And while you're reading this, please ask your ISP to pay me $0.01 for your access to this post (and another $0.01 to OSTG, off course).
Not sure how sarcastic to be about this, but google's main page is about 1.4KB and a typical results page is under 5KB.
I think the simple graphics would probably be in-cache most of the time, but even if not it's only 8.6KB on the main page and 10 kb on the results page.
Google is far from a front runner in serving up music or video clips. Google's text ads are pretty low bandwidth too.
Whatever Bell South is smoking, I want 1200 baud of it in a little plastic baggie.
6 years ago when I lived in a rural area, my monthly phone bill was about $15 (Wood County Telcom). I now live in a city serviced by Bell South and pay about $35 for the same service.
What I don't understand is why Bell South needs to charge more than $15 per month when the cost to maintain higher density networks should be the same or lower than rural networks.
We the geek elite (ok, maybe not in some cases, but I'm trying to make a point here =D), we gamers, programmers, techies and sysadmins are unfortunately a very vocal minority when it comes to the people that buy internet services.
I know this because I used to work for a north australian internet service provider who aggressively avoided anything that would make them attractive to people like us. ISP's much prefer the mom and pop internet users who buy 20 hours a month and use 5, not the geeks who use 99.99999% of the bandwidth they pay for.
Boycotting an ISP for this kind of behaviour isn't going to upset them, as the expense of your bandwidth useage vs. profit from your account fees is much less than the aformentioned mom and pop internet user.
My point is, rather than simply boycott a company like this - and talk about it in a geek heavy forum - educate the masses of the uninitiated so that they take responsibility for their choices (political or otherwise). Big brother and the corporate leeches exist more due to willful ignorance of the general public than anything else.
It is intereresting that two oligopolized industies, the local telecoms and the recording industry, are currently deploying the indentical propagandist tactict; Both are conflacting the issues of tiered prices with higher prices.
./; As strong is the opposition here on ./ to tiered pricing, that would instantly switch to approval of an equal magnitude if recording companies advocated for a tiered pricing scheme in which $0.99 was the maximum cost, with some tunes available at lower prices.
In their dispute with Apple over the price of an iTune, recording companies justify a proposal to BOTH tier prices AND to raise prices for some tunes above $0.99 by ONLY arguing the mertis of tiered pricing. The merits of tiered pricing aside, iff instead they correctly identified their proposal as a plan to BOTH tier AND raise prices, then they would not be arguing deceptively. If record company executives proposed keeping the weighted average cost per tune at $0.99, charging less than that amount for some tracks and more for others, then they could legitimatley advocate for that scheme on the merits of tiered pricing because that proposal would be only about tiered pricing. But the issue is in not really tiering at all, either among advocates in the record industry or opponents on
So now with the telecoms, we see copycat propaganda; proposing BOTH tiering prices AND raising prices, and defending that conjunction of acts on the merits of tiered pricing alone. What appears to be a merititious argument about tiered pricing is deviously conflated with a scheme to raise prices. Neither Google, nor all the slashdotters who have argued here against tiered pricing really oppose tiered pricing per se. Instead, they oppose the higher prices which telecoms seek to introduce in conjunction with tiered pricing. If Bellsouth had proposed paying Google money instead of chargeing them a fee, this would also have been tiering. Google, rationally, would be in favor of receiving payment from Bellsouth.
The convergent rhetorical tactics of separate industries owes to their shared oligoplostic nature. Normally the penalty to a seller for raising prices is reduced sales. This is, like, why I have been so unsuccessful at selling my AA battery for a $1,000,000.0. The quantity of AA batteries demanded at that price seems to be 0. If I want to make any money, I had better lower the price. But for oligopolies, this pattern of an inverse relation between the price and the quantity demanded does not apply; They can raise prices without reducing sales, or at least to a greater degree than they could in a more competitive market. But there is a downside for ologipolsits when they raise prices: That downside is not reduced profits, but public backlash and political and legal action against them. With propaganda, oligopolists compete against consumers in the political realm to raise prices. The shared propagandist tactic of conflating price tiering with price raising is no coincidence; all oligopolists have to hoodwink the public somehow and what works for one works for another. In fact, it does seem to be working: some of the public goes along because they approve of tiered pricing while most opponents have fallen for the trick and argue against tiered pricing instead of correctly identifying their opposition to price raising.
Of course, In competitive markets, it rarely is worthwile to propagandizie on behalf of higher pricing, because even if you successfully supress political opposition with propaganda, you ultimatly loose sales and profits with higher pricing. This is why, when you go to the grocery store and notice that the price of filet mignon has gone up $0.20, the increased price is not accompanied by a representative of the beef industry explaining the market efficiencies of tiered pricing.
As a consumer, both of internet service and music, more competition among suppliers would benefit me, so I advocate for that. With internet service, acheiving more competition i
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Just because accountants can't put a value on it until the company is sold doesn't mean it isn't the same thing! That's why its called goodwill!
How can we (the ISP) transfer money to content providers (such as on-line magazines and newspapers) so that they remain viable
Then buy a bulk subscription to a given web site that covers all your Members. This is the model of ESPN 360.
You don't really believe that do you? Or don't you know Bell South at all?
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
The Chairman should nationalize Bells assets. The Party will be victorious!
This is just the first shot. Verizon and other _VERY_
powerful telecoms want this to happen. They have a history
of being able to bully, lobby, and pay their way into getting
exactly what they want over and over. Right now Verizon has,
through the grace of the bandwidth and other breaks
given to them by the government, the ability to charge their customers
for every piece of data they put on to or take off of their mobile devices.
The reason I say this is "through the grace of...etc.." is because they
wouldn't exist if they were not granted the ability to operate by the FCC.
But they are seriously abusing their position. A position developed, at least
in part, by the tax dollars of the US population.
One of the more blatant examples of Verizon's abuse of power is the fact
that they are able to not only restrict the applications that run on
their devices, but they have also engaged in the less well known practice
of usurping popular applications for their own, less effective buggy ones.
IOW, a company goes through the hoops to conceptualize, develop, test, port,
certify, and roll out an application that users find useful enough to
generate 6 figures a month in income. Verizon sees this, develops their own
version, and 'sunsets' (removes from the online catalog) the competition's
application(which, again, their abusive position enables them to do).
Hello profit! Now you don't have to build a better mousetrap, just remove
the visibility of your competition!
If you think this doesn't relate to you because you use another mobile carrier,
understand that Verizon/Qualcomm/insert large telecom here/ would like nothing
better than to convert the entire internet to this type of arrangement. An arrangement
where FUD,DRM, and ridiculous Patents will be used as weapons in a war
against small businesses and individuals who might compete for some small share of
the money available for business to make from software, firmware, and hardware.
Good for Google for resisting, but don't expect it to make the problem go away...
Get ready for an OS that won't even run anything that is not a 'trusted application'.
Get ready for an internet that wont appear to a machine running an '
untrusted operating system'.
Hello new millennium!
Expletive!
here is the original news article: http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/136 57386.htm
r equests.html
some blog with more details, PDFs of legal docs, etc., below:
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/19/_doj_search_
you are welcome
Hopefully some other heavy-weights will join in. One hat in the ring, even though it is a big hat, may not be enough to forestall the greed of "the Dark Lord"!!
"Mentally confused and prone to wandering."
I don't know a lot about ISPs and the peering agreements between them, but I would think there's a good chance that if BellSouth tries to extract fees from individual companies for use of bandwidth, that would be a violation of those agreements. At least it's a violation in spirit, because the cost that Google pays to be served to BellSouth's customers is part of the cost they pay to their ISP, which agrees to exchange traffic with BellSouth.
I think that if the other giant ISPs wanted to stop this they could demand terms in peering agreements that these dealings could not happen.
But then again, I admit that my understanding of this situation is far from full.
If the customer pays for connectivity, and the content pays for conectivity, they are already making money off both ends, and this is just blatent extortion.
WRONG!
You're carrying the consumer's traffic.
# The web site pays their colo for hosting their site/servers;
# The consumers pay their ISP for their connectivity to the Internet.
The end. Done. Finished. End of story.
Somehow though greed is setting in and the ISPs are trying to charge the web sites for the same thing they're already being paid for once by their own customers. Phooey.
Three cheers for Google.
Running 'Nix is like owning a Lightsaber. It's "a more elegant weapon for a more civilized time."
Nothing about this company is good. NOT ONE THING. I've detailed how they cannot supply DSL to their customers and can't actually answer why. Look at this. http://www.johnbransford.net/wp/index.php/archives /category/broadband-providers/bellsouth/
And this
http://pontiff.wordpress.com/2006/01/20/bellsouth- has-a-plan-to-ruin-the-internet/
There really should be regulation for companies like this but not the kind they want. We need to have the US Justice Department seize their assets in the name of all that is decent and for the good of the people who must suffer under their reign. The assets -- such that they are -- can be auctioned off to real technology based companies not engaged in telco blackmail and lobbying for protetion schemes.
Agreed that it's pure nonsense.
It would be very interesting to see the search engine and content providers band together and declare that any ISP trying to extort money in this way would have their address space filtered to cut their customers off from the combined pool of services and content. That would pretty much make it suicide for any ISP to go down that road.
It's probably considered illegal as anticompetitive behaviour. Would anyone who's not a lawyer but plays one on the internet care to offer insight into the legality of that approach?
Every Bellsouth peer should cut all their traffic off at the border routers for 1 day. See how much Bellsouth talks about their little extortion plan after experiencing a taste of The Death Penalty.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
They want their Civil War slander back.
I'll call it a night now.
--
Trolling all trolls since 2001.
Unfortunately, given how Google operates, I'll side with Bellsouth on this one - and wonder what would happen if Bellsouth convinced anyone they could that was peering Google to drop them.
Y'know, Google is evil, regardless of what small things that are done, they still are the Stanford Nexus with all the same issues that keep them from being anything but evil.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
...And if they convince anyone peering Google to drop them?
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
They're still made up of people. People who make decisions. Good, bad, selfish, and altruistic.
If companies can make stupid mistakes, or outright exploit their stockholders & not vanish in a puff of shareholder rage, then they can just as easily be altruistic. They rarely are, but the force towards maximization of profit is not inexorable. It is possible to make money and to be altruistic as well. Personally, I think corporations are inherently amoral, and if they were actually living organisms, would be better described as sociopathic. In spite of this, to pretend they have no choice relieves the people in those companies from the responsibility of acting morally. Sorry, but your responsibility is to make a living and to be a person at the same time. It's not impossible, even if you're a CFO.
I used to say that the company I worked for would grind me up & sell the meat if they could get away with it and make more money at it. I don't believe that anymore. They aren't volunteering to send my kids to college, but they have treated me better than they might have.
The rules are the same everywhere. Behave well. Act like a person and expect others to do the same. They'll surprise you by doing so more often than you might expect. Don't accept or make excuses. This is all Golden Rule stuff ultimately, and it works.
On-topic momentarily, it's unfortunate that Google's offerings wouldn't be damaged much by being slowed down anyway. Because I'd like to see what happened to BS if they hosed Google. Perot's phrase "a great sucking sound" comes to mind.
Google delivers a relatively small number of packets with minimal QOS requirements. It's not like voice where latency is your unqualified enemy, and a certain amount of bandwidth is an absolute necessity. I'm glad they made their point, and I'm happy to say that I expected them to stand up to BS. Too bad that as fine a moral statement as it is, it won't punish BS for their BS.
Don't accept the lie that they have to maximize their profits. They don't. No corporation is held to that high a standard, or there would have been no need for Sarbanes-Oxley.
There is no Nobel prize for math. Maybe he was atoning for something, but he still hated math. Talking about altruism and human nature is much more interesting.
Assembly is the reverse of disassembly.
...now if only we can get the big-bosses at Google to say... "You know, you're paying too much for Broadband, let's give it to you for free with no graphic ads and no real latency issues and no lies about what we're really going to give you..."
God, I can't wait for that day.
Google, please enter the broadband market! Please!
"Love is like pi - natural, irrational, and very important." (Lisa Hoffman)
One mistake in an otherwise excellent explanation.
Goodwill is not depreciable for tax purposes. (Since I'm being pendantic, I'll also point out that the correct term is amortization, not depreciation. Whatever you call it, you can't do it on your tax return.) You can't amortize something unless it has a determinable life.
(This is tax accounting we're talking about. For financial reporting you can, and I think are required to, amortize goodwill.)
If I'm buying a business I want to value the tangible assets as highly as possible, because I can depreciate them, and the goodwill as low as possible. Of course, if I overdo it the IRS can argue with my numbers.
Who in their right mind would stop connecting to Google? I mean seriously. #1 Search Engine in the world gets dropped by a broadband provider? I can see many folks dropping that provider fairly quickly.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Really, this is such BS (pun intended). "Bill Smith, chief technology officer at BellSouth, justified content charging companies by saying they are using the telco's network without paying for it", oh really, Mr. Einstein?! I suppose the consumers are not paying for their network-connections? The companies providing the content are not paying for their fat pipes to the internet? Oh no, they just hook up to BellSouths network, and BS never gets any money. No sirree! Up until now BellSouth has been a charity, giving companies and consumers free network-connections. But that's about to change!
The corporate greed and detachment from reality is really reaching new heights when it comes to Mr. Smith and the BS he spouts from his big fat mouth! Really, that man is just a waste of space and resources.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
I have always felt that Cable television industry currently is also doing similar double charging.. we already pay these money for 'premium' channels.. and then overthat they show these @#$@#$ing ADs every 10 minutes. They are earning from both sides.. simply insane.. Dont get me started on the list of charges that they give when a cable guy enters your apt/house.
Ive heards rumours of Google ADs entering into TV n all. m just waiting that they kick all cable provider's ASS and give us free television..I dont mind seeing some 'unobtrusive' ads (whatever that means in televsion context)..
You know what I can get for 30Euros (less than $40) in Paris.
20Mbits (down) + 1 Mbit (up)
unlimited local calls
unlimited national calls
unlimited International to 29 countries (25 european countries + India + USA + Canada + China).
Can any other country top this. France is very near to having the Telecommunications utopia. Unlimited communication for a fixed cost.
Living in Paris, it is getting harder to miss India. It is easier to call anybody in India from here than from within India. It is easy to get any movies or tv programs using the internet. It is also possible to get Indian magazines over the internet. It is also possible to get any food items that we desire, although there are not as many Indian people here as you would expect. Life is good.
Can't help myself responding to ACs sometimes. I said 'someone feel free to prove me right or wrong', I did not in fact dictate that, it was a request for backup or rebuttal from someone who had the time or actual knowledge relating to my comments.
For the record, I was right and you're still an incorrect AC, way to uphold the stereotype. Here's the wikipedia article on Common Carriers. It states that ISPs - as in Information Service Providers - are considered (surprise surprise) information services and NOT common carriers and thus are handled under a different set of regulations (Title I instead of Title II) of the Communications Act.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --