1) Google pays AT&T for perfered access to THEIR customers. google would have to pay off every ISP nation wide if that were the approach. Although I have no information on Google's specific use of services, I would suspect that Google (like many content providers) already does pay AT&T for "preferred" access to THEIR customers. It's called private peering, and it's used quite often to reduce delivery costs.
Private peering is essentially a contract between one content provider (e.g. Google) and one distributor (e.g. AT&T), whereby AT&T accepts to deliver the content for a lower price only to its own customers. It's different from regular transit, in that AT&T isn't just passing the content along to another provider (say Comcast) for delivery. Signing private-peering contracts with the major providers used by your customers is a way to drastically reduce costs of delivery, and also ensures a better QOS, as Service Level Agreements are easier to establish (you're not handing the content to someone who then hands it to someone else at which point you lose track of it; instead, you are handing it to someone who pledges to deliver it directly, and if it isn't delivered you know who to blame). In the sense that you get better reliability, you could call that "preferred" access.
Does it violate network neutrality? In the end, probably not considerably, even though - because you're more likely to be held accountable if you fail to deliver - it probably does increase reliability. However, content providers don't pay more by doing that, as on the contrary they do it to cut costs.
Network neutrality would be violated if AT&T were charging considerably different prices for different companies. I'm not sure how this is regulated, but given that private-peering is a contract between two entities, the prices probably do vary. But when it comes to regular transit delivery, I believe most network providers will charge the same rate to everyone.
Network neutrality generally implies that a customer has equal access to all websites for the same price, and that content distributors have equal access to all end-users (price may vary here, as transit costs differ depending on the customer's location).
Insert Dawkins quote here:
"There's an infinite number of things that we can't disprove. You might say that because science can explain just about everything but not quite, it's wrong to say therefore we don't need God. It is also, I suppose, wrong to say we don't need the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, Thor, Wotan, Jupiter, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. There's an infinite number of things that some people at one time or another have believed in, and an infinite number of things that nobody has believed in. If there's not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it." (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html)
So to make things clear, before others keep posting about how stupid this thing is: Jajah is basically similar to Skype, except that instead of using your laptop to talk, you use your phone. The end result is the same, that is you are connecting over IP to the other person. So, you go ahead and schedule a call, your phone rings, you pick up, and you're connected to your friend. In Europe, you don't pay for incoming calls, so this makes phone calls free. Now you're thinking, so what's the point of using this in the U.S.? Suppose I want to call my family in Sweden, but I'm in New Hampshire. I don't want to pay a fortune for that call. I could use Skype, but I want to take a walk without dragging my laptop around (and I don't have a PocketPC). With Jajah, I pay to receive a local call, they connect me over IP (for free, or else a very low charge, like 2 cents/minute). I've used this a few times, and though it's not completely reliable, and doesn't work every time, on average it works very well. And I expect it to get better.
Slashdot Mirror
Although I have no information on Google's specific use of services, I would suspect that Google (like many content providers) already does pay AT&T for "preferred" access to THEIR customers. It's called private peering, and it's used quite often to reduce delivery costs.
Private peering is essentially a contract between one content provider (e.g. Google) and one distributor (e.g. AT&T), whereby AT&T accepts to deliver the content for a lower price only to its own customers. It's different from regular transit, in that AT&T isn't just passing the content along to another provider (say Comcast) for delivery. Signing private-peering contracts with the major providers used by your customers is a way to drastically reduce costs of delivery, and also ensures a better QOS, as Service Level Agreements are easier to establish (you're not handing the content to someone who then hands it to someone else at which point you lose track of it; instead, you are handing it to someone who pledges to deliver it directly, and if it isn't delivered you know who to blame). In the sense that you get better reliability, you could call that "preferred" access.
Does it violate network neutrality? In the end, probably not considerably, even though - because you're more likely to be held accountable if you fail to deliver - it probably does increase reliability. However, content providers don't pay more by doing that, as on the contrary they do it to cut costs.
Network neutrality would be violated if AT&T were charging considerably different prices for different companies. I'm not sure how this is regulated, but given that private-peering is a contract between two entities, the prices probably do vary. But when it comes to regular transit delivery, I believe most network providers will charge the same rate to everyone.
Network neutrality generally implies that a customer has equal access to all websites for the same price, and that content distributors have equal access to all end-users (price may vary here, as transit costs differ depending on the customer's location).
Insert Dawkins quote here: "There's an infinite number of things that we can't disprove. You might say that because science can explain just about everything but not quite, it's wrong to say therefore we don't need God. It is also, I suppose, wrong to say we don't need the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, Thor, Wotan, Jupiter, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. There's an infinite number of things that some people at one time or another have believed in, and an infinite number of things that nobody has believed in. If there's not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it." (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html)
To my knowledge, the word "knowladge" isn't a word... And I couldn't find it in the dictionary!
So to make things clear, before others keep posting about how stupid this thing is:
Jajah is basically similar to Skype, except that instead of using your laptop to talk, you use your phone. The end result is the same, that is you are connecting over IP to the other person.
So, you go ahead and schedule a call, your phone rings, you pick up, and you're connected to your friend. In Europe, you don't pay for incoming calls, so this makes phone calls free.
Now you're thinking, so what's the point of using this in the U.S.?
Suppose I want to call my family in Sweden, but I'm in New Hampshire. I don't want to pay a fortune for that call. I could use Skype, but I want to take a walk without dragging my laptop around (and I don't have a PocketPC). With Jajah, I pay to receive a local call, they connect me over IP (for free, or else a very low charge, like 2 cents/minute). I've used this a few times, and though it's not completely reliable, and doesn't work every time, on average it works very well. And I expect it to get better.