Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Opponent Calls Google a "Bandwidth Hog"
Adrian Lopez writes "According to PC World, an analyst with ties to the telecom industry — in a baseless attack on the concept of Net Neutrality — has accused Google Inc. of being a bandwidth hog. Quoting: '"Internet connections could be more affordable for everyone, if Google paid its fair share of the Internet's cost," wrote Cleland in the report. "It is ironic that Google, the largest user of Internet capacity pays the least relatively to fund the Internet's cost; it is even more ironic that the company poised to profit more than any other from more broadband deployment, expects the American taxpayer to pick up its skyrocketing bandwidth tab."' Google responded on their public policy blog, citing 'significant methodological and factual errors that undermine his report's conclusions.' Ars Technica highlighted some of Cleland's faulty reasoning as well."
If my server logs are any indication, then this is probably true. They spent 6 months hitting my server every 2 seconds at one point.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
After all, rich people and companies don't pay their "proportional" share of the cost of government, even though they benefit from it.
"It is ironic that Google, the largest user of Internet capacity pays the least relatively to fund the Internet's cost
So how much does Google pay for it's usage of the Internet?
I was under the impression that Google purchased business/carrier Internet facilities (OC3/OC12/OC48/OC192 and Gig-E interconnects) just like any other major business.
Unlike shared residential services such as cable/DSL/FIOS, these are dedicated facilities. They are paying for all their bandwidth, whether they use it or not.
How can they be "hogging" what they are paying for?
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
for, if they had PAID their share of the bargain and INVESTED the HUGE profits they made from OVERSELLING bandwith for all those years, there would be NO issue about bandwidth anywhere. actually, there arent any issues about bandwidth at all. there is a SUPPOSED problem about 'internet breaking down due to bandwidth' in united states only for around 3 years now, and nothing happened.
considering all the pointers at hand, i have decided that the supposed 'an analyst with ties to the telecom industry' is either a non person that is invented to propagate a shitty corporate agenda, or a corporate shill to attempt justifying controlling internet, YET AGAIN.
you americans are WAY too much tolerant of this 'lobbying' thing. way too much.
Read radical news here
True. At least one person I know got Internet access after a demo showing that you can find anything you want with Google. I'm sure there are more.
Imagine if my gardening hardware store was *so good* that people started buying pickup trucks to haul gardening material from my store to their homes. But the pickup truck companies, instead of being grateful for the extra business, are complaining?
Seriously. If telcos want start to throttle Google, all Google has to do throw up a web page for the affected users with something like the following:
"Dear Google/YouTube user: Your ISP, ISP_NAME, doesn't believe that you should be able to access the web sites and services that you want to, such as Google or YouTube. If you don't feel that this is fair, please contact ISP_NAME at ISP_PHONE_NUMBER and let them know how you feel. You may also want to consider switching to another ISP, such as one of the following in your area: (insert auto-generated list of ISPs that don't throttle Google)"
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
If they started throwing up a pages like this the offending ISP will have its call center completely hosed with complaints.
The ISPs won't care, just so long as they continue getting their monthly tithe from the complainers.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
That man in the middle would still be selling dial-up if it weren't for the Google offerings that consumers want, specifically Youtube. There are others too such as Hulu and Veoh and even the major TV networks' sites that stream episodes on demand, plus all the Shoutcast streaming radio stations.
What this is really about is whether the ISPs still have common carrier status, and how that conflicts with their vertical service integration for services like TV and phone. These ISPs are charging for what is either free or for less money elsewhere.
The solution is very simple. The FCC grants the ability for these anti-net-neutrality ISPs to charge whatever they like for whatever content they choose to carry over their networks, in exchange for the return of every government subsidy and grant given over the last five decades, with interest, in addition to the rescission of their common carrier status. The government can then take that money and give it to companies that will act like common carriers and build net-neutral data infrastructure.
I'm not an expert on all things google, but it wouldn't surprise me if google actually owned as much bandwidth as they bought. If ATandT and Verizon's consumer ISP had to buy their bandwidth at the competitive rates other ISPs pay from their parent companies, it might be cheaper for them to plug into google at the IPX and cut their parent companies out of the equation.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
This conclusion seems bizarre to me. The ISPs "oversold their resources" (oversubscribed their data connections) based on sound, rational thinking at the time. They failed to anticipate the explosive growth of bandwidth-hungry services. Hindsight is 20/20. Like every other Big Business, they're going to try and point the finger elsewhere (such as the services "responsible" for that growth). This shouldn't be surprising at all. But I don't think the ISPs were irresponsible for getting us in this state. They just didn't do a good job of foreseeing the bandwidth used by future services. Or maybe they foresaw it, but saw that none of their competitors were doing anything about it either, so they chose to ignore it. (If they had been the only ones to make the investment, they wouldn't have been able to remain competitive with those ISPs that chose not to. They might have been vindicated in the end, but would they have survived to get there?)
Yes, but which of those two would be the first to throw a few dollars at Google for a front-page endorsement to their competitor's users?
The ______ Agenda
I work for Google, so I'm biased, but here's how I see it.
The Google search engine is supposed to be as useful as possible to users so that they will use it. Google adds some compromises to the usability of search (aka ads) so that the resources behind search are paid for along with a healthy profit.
That's the order of priorities as they have been repeatedly described to me.
Google search provides space where advertisers can pay for space that is simultaneously useful to users (something they're interested in investigating) and to advertisers (a selling opportunity). The first part (useful to users) is what Google is motivated to enforce, because then the ads also support the original statement: "The Google search engine is supposed to be as useful as possible to users so that they will use it."
I can't deny that Google uses usage data to improve the quality of search, but I'll assert that (1) everyone at Google is well aware of it's potential for "big brother" type scenarios and (2) everyone at Google is also aware that even a passing hint of misusing personal data would threaten the user trust on which Google's value is based. Google does better when people can trust Google, and I don't believe that an instance of data misuse would stay secret for more than a day. Far too many Googlers work there because they also trust Google's "don't be evil" policy. If Google was to breach user trust, employee trust would also be lost.
In conclusion: yes, Google system software is paying close attention to how you use Google. But no, it's not keeping a dossier on you. the goal of that software is most explicitly not to keep an eye on you, but to provide feedback so that the next time you use Google, it's even more useful to you.
Only in America would someone who drives 20 miles a day consider himself to be someone who doesn't use roads much.
Don't take this the wrong way, I'm just amazed at the differences in the way people see the world.
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results