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.
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.
...to the corporations...???????????????...
No, it just doesn't feel right, at all, ever.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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 think everyone is missing the point. The current ISP pricing models are based on a fixed amount of anticipated bandwidth usage per-customer. If content providers start streaming movies and a lot of other large-bandwidth content, the available bandwidth will be used up quickly and the Service Providers will need to spend $$$ increasing their infrastructure.
What Bellsouth is saying is that they want to try and recover this money from the content provider who are making the money (via advertising, subscriptions etc...), not directly from the consumer.
The important thing here is that Service Providers aren't going to improve their infrastructure with their own money. The more bandwidth they determine you will use, the more you're going to have to pay for using it.
Bellsouth already has several broadband pricing options for different connection rates.
Up to 256 Kbps/128 Kbps - $24.95/mo
Up to 1.5 Mbps/256 Kbps - $32.95/mo
Up to 3 Mbps/384 Kbps - $37.95/mo
Up to 6 Mbps/512 Kbps - $46.95/mo
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'
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.
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!
There is nothing to stop the bells from offering VoIP
Do you know why VoIP is cheap? because the companies that provide it use someone else's infrastructure. VoIP companies don't own any telephone wires and don't have to pay unionized service techs who manage millions of miles of copper.
If anything, it is MORE expensive for phone companies to do VoIP over their existing copper because it adds yet another layer of complexity, more hardware to service, and more administration.
VoIP isn't some sort of magic; It's a service that relies on existing infrastructure, not a substitute for the infrastructure itself.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
I am probably not the first or last person to say this but isn't it funny how bellsouth's initials is BS.
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.
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
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.
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.