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 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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
In the words of the Wolf, "Let's not start sucking each other's [word removed by Google safe search] just yet."
It would be rather easy for Bell South to let massively popular sites like Google get away with not paying while throttling out less popular sites for not paying. It would also be somewhat easy for Bell South to not throttle bandwidth on what Google is typically used for (searches) while throttling Google's other features that Bell South might want to compete with.
Do remember you're talking about the same FCC who's probably gonna side with all these big ISPs against municipal wirless access... Don't you know all our politicians swing in the direction of the highest dollar these days?
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
Yes, thanks Google for standing up for us all. All Google had to do was refuse to give their money to someone else. Let's think this situation through before applauding Google's altruistic nature.
Right, so you'd prefer to see the internet transformed into TV 2.0 where the ISP's are the ones who decides what you should be able to watch and listen instead of f.ex. the record companies.
The internet is beautiful because every little joe can create his personal website, publish his obscure music, sell his special goods and most importantly speak without being censored.
There's a second economic aspect to this other than the one you mentioned. They're getting free publicity because they're doing "right" by the consumer (it also just kinda happens to save them money)
Personally, I want companies to start thinking about the free publicity of doing what's good for the consumer. I want companies to start thinking about the value of all the publicity they can get from altruistic acts. I want the leadership of companies to see altruistic acts as having positive economic affects.
Sure google isn't handing thier money out to SBC, but they're also a company that recognizes that being altruistic has it's own value. Hence the way they made this statement.
And like the poster you replied to, I'll applaud them too. I want them to get as much value from being altruistic as I can. Maybe they'll do it again someday if we do.
Let's not forget the other Google story today, that while all the *other* major search engines rolled over and gave the government their log files to protect us from porn, Google alone refused. To suggest this was just about the money is shortsigted. How would you like the web if every site required a subscription so the broadband monopolies could get their cut? This strikes at the very heart of how the model of how the internet works.
I mean, I'm with Comcast myself...but I'm sure they'll be following in the same steps as Bellsouth pretty soon too
Actually, if they are smart, they'll do the opposite. This is a huge opportunity for the cable companies, who don't have a vested interest to hold the voip down.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
All Google had to do was refuse to give their money to someone else. Let's think this situation through before applauding Google's altruistic nature.
And hope that MSN Search doesn't pay to have google's traffic dropped at the routers.
All Google had to do was refuse to give their money to someone else. Let's think this situation through before applauding Google's altruistic nature.
Shrug. If Google wanted to screw everyone else they could -- by paying the extortion money.
After all, it's likely to be a fairly trivial amount of money to Google, and in return they'd be guaranteed that their VoIP and video data packets get highly prioritized.
And, more to the point, they'd ensure that anyone who wants to compete against them has to do the exact same thing. It's called creating a barrier to competition, and it's generally worth every penny in the long run because you end up with less competition, particularly from pesky startups who have nifty ideas but little or no capital. I'm sure Yahoo!, Alta Vista, etc. would've vastly preferred such a barrier, since it would mean that Google never would've managed to completely usurp all of them.
what would you do in this situation?
The first thing I would do is Google ingenuity and innovation.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I don't have time to find the relevant links, but I don't think ISPs actually have Common Carrier Status in the US. I appreciate your sentiment, but unfortunately you can't hold them hostage over a status they don't have. Someone feel free to prove me right or wrong.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
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.
No, they just do not want to pay, and they feel they will get away with it (as they should). Fighting a company which is perceived as evil is just a side effect here, IMO.
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.
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.
Here is when everyone will say, but isn't such and such company donating to such and such charity? -Yes, but only because they did a cost/marketing analysis and determined that it will generate good publicity to do just that. How come a lot charitable giving from companies is to museums, operas, local TV stations and not as much to soup kitchens for the homeless or rehabilitation of drug addicts and such? - Because that would not generate as much good publicity!
The same with Google. Everyone thinks - "Oh Google, the defender of the consumers, we love you!" - but Google needs that attitude too, that is in part why they are so profitable. It is (or it should) be every company's dream to be perceived like a noble, charitable, honest and good entity - existing solely to help and benefit everyone else, but in reality there is not such thing - there is just $$$. Microsoft can afford to be bully and be mean -- because it already secured most of the software market, I think they will loose out in the end but that's not because they are just a "mean bad bully" but because their strategy/marketing team did bad forecasting .
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!
Rather than huddling up, what happens if Google just decides not to pay, and BS just decides to slow down the connection to Google.
Would the average user even notice if Google returned searchs slower than Yahoo? Would the average user notice that Amazon was running slower?
I don't think they would care. The average user would only be concerned if his brand new VOIP phone started not working well, or if he couldn't play xbox live.
But you know what, I really don't think that they would complain to BS, they would complain to xbox live or to their VOIP provider.
This is indeed a win for BS, and a win for content providers who don't care if they load quickly, but a loss for customers, and for any other emerging technology that requires bandwith.
Nah, that would be the "post hummus-ly" option.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
We've already established in the last article about Bell South that ISPs generally don't have common carrier status.
Then when I buy a car from a dealer, and they sell me a lemon, I can easily sue them. But if I were to sue my ISP for letting me get a virus (when they could block incoming NetBIOS ports or examine the packets), I'd get laughed at. Or how about if I sue the ISP of a spammer for letting them send out the emails? The lawsuits aren't being filed because, though they may not have the true legal standing of a common carrier, they act and are treated as such by the courts.
They are a "common carrier" in all the ways that matter to the consumer, even if they aren't a Common Carrier (tm, all rights reserved, defined by the FCC/Federal Government).
Learn to love Alaska
Would the average user even notice if Google returned searchs slower than Yahoo? Would the average user notice that Amazon was running slower?
Er.. yes. What do you think, a user only uses the net at his house?
What do you think this user is going to think when he goes over to his buddys house who has Comcast/Speakeasy/Whoever and sees that his GMail and Google searches are 10x faster than his at home, for the same price? He's going to complain or switch carriers, that's what.
Go ahead BS, shoot yourself in the foot, see if I care. If you think BS > Google when it comes to brand loyalty, you've got another think coming.
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.
Chargign the subscriber for enhanced service (QOS) is not bad, actually, I believe that is the 'right' way to do this.
It becomes bad when service for those who don't pay the extra fee gets degraded on purpose.
That was however not what the article is about, this is about charging content providers for prefered handling. I can see why this is attractive at first glance to both telcos and cable companies (for different reasons somewhat), but is it attractive for subscribers?
Both telcos and cable companies should realize that the biggest asset they have is their subscribers, not their infrastructure. 15 years from now, happy subscribers will very likely still be around, your infrastructure will as likely be outdated. Content providers? WHo knows which one is 'hot' a year from now, let alone 15 years from now, so a strategy based on their payment is at least not a good way for achieving longterm viability of either telcos or cable companies, rather, its the well known strategy of favoring their own services and using their local monopolies for forcing others into their model. Instead of one big mama bell theres a couple of them aroud now, but nothing else changed really.