Comments Page 2
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
Links: New Topic
Forums »
page: 1 · 2
Sammer @ 4th Dec 03:13PM:
Re: Broken System
said by jmn1207 :
If Google were to fork over 2 billion dollars, only .0001% of the wealthiest employers would see any benefits. I'm offended that it was even mentioned that the regular consumer could save money on our internet service if only Google paid their "fair share". That is complete BS.
You got that right, AT&T will charge consumers whatever the market will bear no matter what Google pays for internet service. AT&T would even like Congress to legislate that consumers have to pay more than they would ordinarily be willing to bear. This is simply an argument about whether AT&T should be able to to legally steal some of Google's profits and has nothing to do with consumers.
reply
raye @ 4th Dec 03:53PM:
Google would be happy to use AT&T's network
If they could actually find it. Even AT&T armed with a flashlight and a map could not find portions of their network.
Google buys bandwidth from just about every Tier One backbone provider including AT&T see »www.fixedorbit.com/AS/15/AS15169.htm
What is AT&T boo-hooing about? Sprint and Level3 have better backbones anyway dump AT&T.
reply
anon @ 4th Dec 03:57PM:
Do no evil (or hide it well)
Google is great, Google is good, let us thank Karl for this Google food. Yum, yum, I love cool-aid.
Google has been driving down ISP costs with their massive size for years. This has a rippling industry impact. May sound good in principal, but traffic growth costs still exist and guess where they are going... quietly and completely to you and me.
Peering you say??? Well most smart ISPs know that peering with content is not really a good thing in the long run. May sounds good day 1 to save on today's transit costs, but it allows content growth to double, triple, 10x output without worry and at the expense of the ISP. Growth is something to watch. Shift in "who pays" is something consumer sites should consider.
reply
raye @ 4th Dec 04:15PM:
Internet connections could be more affordable for everyone?
consumer connections average between 30-60/month that seems pretty cheap to me. would like to see greater download speeds for consumer and cheaper buiness lines.
AT&T charges about $200 per T1 line local loop charge more for T3 and higher what will chaqrging Google more do to reduce that ripoff?
reply
funchords @ 4th Dec 04:22PM:
The Neat Thing about Cleland's Article --
-- is that it's self-destructive.
It's been a bad week for the bad guys.
First, Richard Bennett running around claiming that VOIP and gaming were going to end because BitTorrent was switching to UDP (ignoring the fact that it has an even MORE conservative congestion method than TCP does).
Now, Scott Cleland with this "research" that says Google not only should pay its bills but ours too -- plus an extra 80% or so on top of that to account for "illegal" traffic that Google doesn't participate in.*
He picks on Google for actually answering web-page requests from its voluntary users and for spidering the WWW, which search engines have done since long before Google. Perhaps Google ought to reduce its site count by one -- and just wait until Cleland gives them "permission" to spider it -- I'd bet Cleland would gladly continue to foot the bandwidth bill.
Then he goes on to make this ridiculous comparison to the trucking industry.
said by Cleland :
Any analysis of public highway funding will show that businesses/trucks, which put the most cost burden on the highways, pay substantially more than consumers/cars – the exact opposite of Google's recommended broadband model, where consumers shoulder most all of Google's distribution costs.
Now, "hands up" if you've ever bought something at the store or ordered anything that comes in a truck. Was shipping free? Nope -- you either pay shipping charges or price markups? Truckers, although nice people, don't carry the freight for free. Yes, road taxes are collected in the various taxes, fees, mileage and fuel surcharges heavily imposed on truckers but the consumer pays those -- in advance -- often as a separate "shipping" line-item on the receipt or the retailer pays them and passes the cost on to the consumer in pricing!
Keep talkin' guys. The consumers think you're doing a great job!
*in the report, Cleland dismisses 40% or so of the total bandwidth crossing the Internet as "Illegal" so he can subtract it from the denominator, which inflates Google's share of bandwidth by a factor of nearly two! This guy ought to work in the Treasury bailing out corporations!!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
reply
anon @ 4th Dec 04:25PM:
This is ridiculous!
So by their mentalitity:
I buy a car (my computer), I pay taxes to build the roads (my ISP), I go to the grocery store (google) who also BTW pays taxes to pay for the roads and other infrastructure (their ISP/transit providers); so that we can reach each other. Now what they are saying is that they want to add an additional tax to actually put the car on said road??? Who do they think they are, the government!
reply
funchords @ 4th Dec 04:32PM:
Re: This is ridiculous!
Actually, it's very "Phone Company."
These are the guys that charge you $0.20 to receive a text message, and sell you packages to get all the text you want.
Then, once they get people used to that model, they want to charge the senders money, too. »Verizon Charges Companies 3 Cents To SMS Their Customers
These are the brainiacs that charged you extra for "Touch Tone," or to keep your number from being printed in the directory -- even though touch tone and unlisted phone numbers both save them money.
If they were Hoteliers, they'd charge you for the room and charge you for looking in the mirror.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
reply
brandon @ 4th Dec 04:34PM:
So much slant.
Once again, I wish I could hear the other side of the argument so I could make an informed decision. Instead I get Karl's anti-corporate slant and that's it.
It's not your blog, Karl. Report the news, or call everything an editorial.
reply
TKJunkMail @ 4th Dec 04:35PM:
Key analogy has merit
»www.netcompetition.org/study_of_···sts2.pdfSince Google often compares the Internet to the public highway system, the study also examined how the U.S. highway system apportions costs among business users and consumers. The analysis of public highway funding shows that businesses/trucks, which put the most cost burden on the highways, pay substantially more than consumers/cars – the exact opposite of Google’s recommended broadband model, where consumers shoulder most all of Google’s costs for using and profiting off the Internet more than any other entity. The study highlights the inconsistency in Google’s position supporting government ownership/regulation of the Internet like the U.S. highway system, but not adopt the economic model and fairness of the highway system -- where the heaviest users that cause the most costs -- shoulder most of the costs.
Google, as usual, wants to have things their way - make lots of money off the infrastructure paid for by others without carrying the real costs incurred(because of the huge discounts they get).
In the end, however, the consumer in the home ends up paying the bill one way or another - to ISPs, or to Google thru higher costs of goods that pays all that advertising money going to Google, or to the gov't if some get their way of having the Feds pay for infrastructure improvements to the internet.
All the sturm & drang between content providers(like Google); ISPs; and the government is really just a fight over who gets to keep the biggest pieces of the internet pie. When all the fighting is done, the cost is the cost and will be paid by end users one way or another. All anyone is doing here is picking sides to determine which CEOs and/or pols are going to make out the best.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?
reply
DarkLogix @ 4th Dec 04:38PM:
What google should do
Just simply Block At&t
de-peer and block all trafic from At&t
then At&t will learn that they should have fired Ed 3 years ago
show them the benefit of peering with them by removing them
the At&t stock price will drop and the Chairman might fire Ed
reply
jsz0 @ 4th Dec 04:43PM:
Re: This is ridiculous!
That's an interesting analogy because it kinda works both ways.
If a company wants to build a big mall off a narrow exit that leads to a small narrow street the city/town would deny the building permit. The city might pay to increase the capacity & quality of the road in hopes of generating more tax revenue by making it a good location for other businesses to move to.
Quite often the company will agree to pay for some, or all, of the construction to improve capacity & quality of roads. In CT one of the local casinos has paid for extensive road work -- including adding an extra lane to a stretch of highway.
And of course, if taxes alone cannot pay for the upkeep of roads many states have tolls to generate more revenue.
reply
EPS @ 4th Dec 04:44PM:
This Google talk...
This reminds me of the people claiming the oil companies needed a "windfall profits tax"- they're making a lot of money, they need to give us some!
reply
anon @ 4th Dec 04:45PM:
Re: Do no evil (or hide it well)
Wrong, let us not forget the whole reason people even turn those computers on and pay ISPs in the first place, TO ACCESS THE FUCKING CONTENT! What do you think that a bunch of people turn their computers on just so they can say they are connected to ATT? They do it to access Google, YouTube etc.. Instead of complaining about what Google is doing offer a better product so the user doesn't want to access Google, instead use the ATT better search engine (ugh, left a bad taste in my mouth when I said that).
All this has to do with is the fact that the ISPs don't have the talent to build a better product to keep traffic on their network instead they are losing $$$ to other better content providers and it is pissing them off.
ISPs shouldn't bite the hand that ends up feeding them, and in the end it ISN'T the customer it is the content provider who attracts the consumer in the first place and makes them want to get online. Just like with football do you really think a bunch of people would buy tickets to go to a stadium just to watch the grass grow?? No, they go their to see the game!
Lets face it the business model these providers want to go to is that of a casino. "Give me your money have a free 8 ounce watered down beer and shut up!"
reply
Austinloop @ 4th Dec 04:46PM:
Re: What google should do
It may very difficult to fire Ed, he retired around 2 years ago. And it is all Cinton's fault.
reply
footballdude @ 4th Dec 04:47PM:
Re: What google should do
said by DarkLogix :
then At&t will learn that they should have fired Ed 3 years ago
Ed Whitacre retired in 2007. You'd think somebody at this site would have noticed that by now.
--
It's a trick. Get an axe. - Ash
reply
DarkLogix @ 4th Dec 04:49PM:
Re: Internet connections could be more affordable for everyone?
ya in general businesses pay more per meg than consumers
1x T1 = 1.5Mbit/sec and atleast $200/month
1x Comcast HSI = 16down 2up and about $60/month
and it only makes since that if you provide a routers and other network gear (like google does) that add to the global internet backbone that you'll start getting some bulk savings
and its not as though At&t don't benefit from peering they do as they save on what they would otherwise pay to some other teir 2 ISP
reply
Austinloop @ 4th Dec 04:55PM:
Re: This Google talk...
I never cease to be amazed by those calling for a wind fall profits tax. The people calling for the tax fail to realize that the company will pass on the tax to the customer. That is just the way it works. Tax their profits and you will pay the tax on the profit.
reply
DarkLogix @ 4th Dec 04:57PM:
Re: What google should do
wow why is ed at all relevant if he's gone?
in that case maybe At&t should sue Ed for (well let the lawyers work that part out)
as Ed will clearly hurt At&t if this keeps up
reply
impala @ 4th Dec 04:58PM:
how them pipes work
Would this be a viable simplification of IP traffic and costs?
A packet generated by the consumer travels across his ISP network to the nearest POP. At the POP, the packet is transferred to the backbone network serving the destination website's ISP. The packet then arrives on the website's ISP network and is delivered to the website.
The website generates a packet that travels across it's ISP network to the nearest POP. At the POP, the packet is transferred to the backbone network serving the consumer's ISP. The packet then arrives on the consumer's ISP network and is delivered to the consumer.
The website pays for it's bandwidth with it's ISP, inbound and outbound.
The consumer pays for his bandwidth with his ISP, inbound and outbound.
The website pays, through the ISP, for the inbound packets from the consumer traveling across the backbone.
The consumer pays, through his ISP, for the inbound packets from the website traveling across the backbone.
Consumers tend to consume larger and more packets than they send to the servers. So the consumer is paying for more backbone bandwidth than the website. Think youtube.com
packets travelling left to right only
consumer = isp1 = pop = quest = pop = isp2 = website
website = isp2 = pop = att = pop = isp1 = consumer
consumer pays for bold part, website pays for italic part.
Of course, huge sites like youtube don't need an ISP, they are the POP.
reply
axus @ 4th Dec 04:59PM:
He got the conclusion in reverse
Obviously residential users should be paying 21 times less than they are now. Then Google would be paying their fair share.
It's stupid, Google pays less partly because the physical cost of their provider is lower. Data centers don't need a last mile, they are right on the "highway". Having a terabit of bandwidth is more efficient per byte in real costs than a megabit.
Average people pay more so AT&T can pad Whitacre's annual bonus, and provide contracts for people like Cleland.
People with corporate welfare mentality are so hypocritical about the free market. The music industry thinking they are guaranteed revenue, and trying to get ISPs to pay them in perpetuity, is analogous to this. Do something that people want to pay you for, and do it efficiently, and you'll make money. Don't whine about economies of scale or someone getting a better deal than you.
reply
R0CKY @ 4th Dec 05:05PM:
Seems Google had something to say about Cleland...
»googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/···gle.html
reply
Mr Matt @ 4th Dec 05:05PM:
Deja vu all over again.
:) As I reminded readers of this newsletter in 1997 the Local Exchange Carriers attempted to change all incoming lines serving Dial Up ISP's Modem Pools to measured rate. They complained that they would have to upgrade their switches and trunk groups to handle the traffic caused by subscribers calling into ISP's Modem Pools. The Local Exchange Carriers wanted the ISP's to bear the cost of upgrading the Local Exchange Carriers networks. The Federal Government said no. The Fed. could do so because voice telecommunication service is regulated. Unfortunately broadband service is not regulated and the service providers can charge whatever they want. As an internet insider I forgot the most fundamental fact about the internet. The internet consists of for profit internet businesses connected to for profit internet businesses. Each business wants to squeeze the maximum profit out of their portion of the network. If our highway system operated the same way, all roads would be privately owned toll roads and depending how the driver enters the highway system their transit cost would vary. I do not know of any portion of the internet network that is owned by the government except those segments serving the government's own networks.
reply
TKJunkMail @ 4th Dec 05:08PM:
Re: how them pipes work
said by impala :
packets travelling left to right only
consumer = isp1 = pop = quest = pop = isp2 = website
website = isp2 = pop = att = pop = isp1 = consumer
consumer pays for bold part, website pays for italic part.
The consumer, ultimately, pays for ALL the parts. Websites get money from advertisers for the most part. Advertisers pass cost on to makers of products and services. Consumers buy products and services and part of that pays advertisers and the websites. The only thing going on is fighting over who is getting the biggest pieces of the pie - the websites, the advertisers, and makers of products & services.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?
reply
Pv8man @ 4th Dec 05:09PM:
Re: LOL@ed
It's not that AT&T is dumb, it's just that they expect everyone else is dumb.
reply
anon @ 4th Dec 05:17PM:
Re: This is ridiculous!
You are exactly correct and that is what Google is and has done. They have paid for larger pipes and paid for additional hardware as well as setup direct private peering to 'widen that exit and increase the capacity for their section of road' you speak of.
But in this case what the 'government (i.e. ATT and others) are asking is that they not only widen that exit and increase that section of highway but increase all lanes everywhere else in the world as well because someone 100 to 1000 miles away may visit that mall too???? That doesn't work for me.
:-)
reply
anon @ 4th Dec 05:41PM:
Re: Do no evil (or hide it well)
And now that I have thought even more about it ATT needs to be careful because Google could easily argue that since they are the 'content' provider they should be paid.
For example the producers of a TV show are paid by the broadcast company for the rights to show their TV show. Not the other way around, which seems to be the way ATT wants it. So maybe ATT and all the other ISPs should be flipping the bills for ALL content providers for the right to even access their content..
Hmmm interesting ain't it!
:-)
reply
morbo @ 4th Dec 06:04PM:
Re: So, in a nutshell (a Telco analogy)
said by woody7 :
hmmm......isn't that what the cell phone companies do?you pay for incoming and out going........
that's why telco isn't freaking at the loss of landline customers. instead of a service costing $15/month plus 10-15 in taxes, cell phones cost most people $40/month plus 5 in taxes. cell service is their new cash cow.
reply
wmcbrine @ 4th Dec 06:21PM:
Re: So much slant.
a) There really is no legitimate "other side".
b) Opposing AT&T's outrageous position isn't the same as being "anti-corporate". Google is a corporation, too (and a big one now).
--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
reply
anon @ 4th Dec 06:24PM:
Re: This is ridiculous!
You could even say google's private peering is like them building their own private underground highways directly to the shoppers block, completely bypassing the city streets.
reply
anon @ 4th Dec 06:58PM:
Re: Do no evil (or hide it well)
said by goliath28 :
And now that I have thought even more about it ATT needs to be careful because Google could easily argue that since they are the 'content' provider they should be paid.
For example the producers of a TV show are paid by the broadcast company for the rights to show their TV show. Not the other way around, which seems to be the way ATT wants it.
There's one essential difference there, though. In the world of TV, the production company which creates the TV shows doesn't sell any ads directly to advertisers [ok, well, they do sell product placements, so that can kind of qualify as ads]. Instead, ABC, NBC, et. al. get to sell the ads. ABC, NBC, et. al. then give a portion of the revenue back to the show's producers.
With Google, when you use a Google property, Google is the one selling the ads, not AT&T.
However, there is one good point to your posts, about the ISP's needing Google in order to sell Internet connections to consumers. I think that if AT&T starts to play hardball on this issue, Google should stop serving any of their regular content to AT&T customers for a day or two. Instead, they should get a minimal/low-bandwidth page from Google explaining the situation, that the customer has paid for an Internet connection, but because of the policies of AT&T's executives and lobbyists, Google may no longer be able to provide them service in the future, and that they can consider this a taste of the Internet without Google, GMail, Youtube, etc. Then, prominently in the page, provide an email address for AT&T customer service so that customers can communicate their position on the issue to AT&T.
I bet that would shut AT&T up fast.
reply
anon @ 4th Dec 07:04PM:
Re: Thank you, Karl
We do.
reply
KrK @ 4th Dec 06:34PM:
Take an agenda, throw in some mega-bias....
Add in some heaping spoonfuls of wild-ass guesses and stir in some pure speculation, then bake in a political broiler and you'll come out with a study like that.
Not even worth the paper it's written on.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
reply
KrK @ 4th Dec 06:37PM:
Re: Key analogy has merit
Sorry TK, I don't buy it. Google has to pay for every bit of bandwidth they use, whether it be from their webcrawling or from users coming to Google sites.
This argument that somehow Google gets a free ride or a mega-subsidized ride makes no sense at all. What you have is connection providers who also want to be content providers and see Google as direct competition--- and hate their successes and want them gone, by hook or by crook.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
reply
ross @ 4th Dec 06:39PM:
Re: So much slant.
said by brandon :
Once again, I wish I could hear the other side of the argument so I could make an informed decision. Instead I get Karl's anti-corporate slant and that's it.
It's not your blog, Karl. Report the news, or call everything an editorial.
I guess your computer has no keyboard/mouse, or your ISP limits you to just this site on the internet, and precludes you from visiting thousands of other sites on the internet that are more "corporate friendly", and less pro-consumer biased. I feel so sorry for you being unable to get enough anti-consumer propaganda roughage to clear your colon. You must be awfully "backed-up". While entitled to your opinion, I suggest you stop wishing and go somewhere else to get your "news".
Facts are facts, and no amount of pseudo-science can do more than obfuscate them. All Karl is doing is pointing out the blatant errors in the reasoning espoused by Ed Whitacre, Scott Cleland and the rest of the Telco astro-turfers. BTW, it's called journalism. Or, do you believe DSLR should simply republish Telco bullshit without comment, or payment?
reply
Jerm @ 4th Dec 06:41PM:
Re: "You gotta pay the troll toll...
That has WIN sauce all over it!
Greenman FTW!
reply
ross @ 4th Dec 06:46PM:
Re: What google should do
said by Austinloop :
It may very difficult to fire Ed, he retired around 2 years ago. And it is all Cinton's fault.
Ed retired from AT&T, but his ridiculous views are still stinking up the place...who the hell is Cinton?
reply
RayW @ 4th Dec 06:51PM:
Re: how them pipes work
Sorry ma'am, but that is not correct, I pay for total usage, UP + DOWN = TOTAL in my base price. I see that when I check my stats, in my contract, and on the website.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time.
reply
yock @ 4th Dec 06:52PM:
Re: Key analogy has merit
Analogies don't make arguments, precedents do. Communication infrastructure isn't funded in the same way public roads are funded. We all pay for our own connections out into the wild digital yonder. The data I request from Google comes to me off my dime, evidenced by the fact that people on metered billing have that traffic count against their total. Having Google pay for that transmission AND metering that transmission against the customer is double dipping.
If Google has to start paying for the transmission all the way into my PC, I want free Internet.
reply
qworster @ 4th Dec 07:15PM:
So let me get this straight....
The big Internet companies want to charge me TWICE, once for having Internet service and a second time for actually using it?
This completely sounds like a 100% measured 'message unit' telco model-where they used to charge you a fee just for having a phone-and then charge you for any calls you made on it.
That model is long dead-replaced by flat rate calling and wireless phones.
Now they want to trot it out again for Internet???
What are they smoking?
reply
KrK @ 4th Dec 07:29PM:
Re: So much slant.
said by brandon :
Once again, I wish I could hear the other side of the argument so I could make an informed decision. Instead I get Karl's anti-corporate slant and that's it.
Duh. That's about the densest thing I've read in a long time. Karl's post is bashing the report---- HE LINKS TO IT. If you want to see the OTHER side of the story, read the report!
... and then maybe you'd realize Karl is right. Oh, and BTW: Google is a large corporation.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
reply
Austinloop @ 4th Dec 08:00PM:
Re: What google should do
BJ Bill Clinton
reply
HEDP @ 4th Dec 09:04PM:
Re: Key analogy has merit
If Google was using 21x more of their current internet usage, then why is the provider selling it at such a rate? Why does google need to pay a special rate or are we basing price now on success? That's the case in my eye's and if that where true then the little guy who has barely any success will be paying the cheapest price.
Sorry this idea does not fly, you sell a product or service for the amount you will get a return on it. If all the sudden you are not happy with the amount of return you are getting for your investment, then that's your fault for not setting the price correctly from the start. This is a very simple case of dirty business and anything a telecommunications company has to say about it can simply disconnect themselves from Google altogether.
There are thousands of other peering points that Google can use, if they want to be stingy anyone with a AT&T IP simply won't have access to Google services. It's clear that the consumer is more interested in content, rather than speed and the moment they can't access services they use online every day they will quickly switch to a provider who does.
Imagine how many people will call in to cancel their internet service because myspace is no longer accessible on AT&T's network, yet other networks who do have access start receiving new customers or customers of a specific bank cannot do online banking because there is no peering point connecting those networks.
It will lead to nothing more than a broken internet, so if I sign up for AT&T I get myspace and youtube, but I will need to sign up for comcast to do my online banking. Great business plan, thanks for taking the internet back to square one.
reply
CMoore2004 @ 4th Dec 09:38PM:
Re: The Neat Thing about Cleland's Article --
Actually, in your quote there, it doesn't even need torn apart. The customers are the ones paying to access the Google content. Google charges the customer by advertising and collecting browsing habits. The ISP charges the customer for the connection (and if you have 20% of your traffic going down a free pipe, I'd think you'd be pretty happy).
I happen to drive truck and you wouldn't believe how many taxes are placed on the trucks. The Indiana Toll Road (or maybe it was Ohio) is debating raising tolls--for trucks. Why? Because not as many people are using the road. If less people use the road, isn't there less wear and tear? But don't worry about that, these costs are all passed on to you and everyone else who buys... anything. Then that money goes to the overseas company that has the 99-year lease on the toll road. :)
reply
compton @ 4th Dec 11:32PM:
Re: So, in a nutshell (a Telco analogy)
said by Matt :said by woody7 :
hmmm......isn't that what the cell phone companies do?you pay for incoming and out going........
I believe you're onto something there ....
In your example only one customer is paying my carrier....me. ATT wants to go a step further and charge me and my counter party. It's like making a call or receiving a call from your friend's cell phone and getting a bill from your friend's cell phone carrier for the minutes you spend on the phone taking to them.
reply
mrchris @ 4th Dec 11:38PM:
Words for Scott
Dear Scott Cleland,
Stop being a greedy c@#$.
Sincerely,
A pro consumer user
reply
lordofwhee @ 4th Dec 11:53PM:
Re: Internet connections could be more affordable for everyone?
The average US customer pays about 2x what the average European customer does for about 1/5th the speeds, not to mention the consumption caps almost every major ISP has now.
reply
fatmanskinny @ 5th Dec 01:25AM:
Re: So, in a nutshell (a Telco analogy)
said by morbo :said by woody7 :
hmmm......isn't that what the cell phone companies do?you pay for incoming and out going........
that's why telco isn't freaking at the loss of landline customers. instead of a service costing $15/month plus 10-15 in taxes, cell phones cost most people $40/month plus 5 in taxes. cell service is their new cash cow.
Just wait until the cable companies find their way into the cell business and deliver it better than the telcos.
--
God saved me from myself! Thank you, Lord, in the Name of Jesus!
reply
fatmanskinny @ 5th Dec 01:26AM:
Re: Broken System
said by jmn1207 :
This story underlines the basic faults with most major corporations. The focus on providing a quality service or product is completely lost. Instead, making money becomes the business. Whatever they are selling is just a means to an end and it is all about the profits with little or no regard to what is being sold or what initially made them successful.
I'm sick of these mega-companies with their skeleton crews and piss-poor customer service making enormous profits while spreading this wealth in such a lopsided, anti-consumer distribution ratio.
Amen! Amen! Amen!
--
God saved me from myself! Thank you, Lord, in the Name of Jesus!
reply
patcat88 @ 5th Dec 01:48AM:
Re: Thank you, Karl
said by long time member :
We do.
Oh ****.
Either this is a proxy on a botnet-ed computer, or must be a minimum wage administrative assistent or clerk or intern.
reply
patcat88 @ 5th Dec 03:28AM:
Re: Broken System
said by Sammer :
This is simply an argument about whether AT&T should be able to to legally steal some of Google's profits and has nothing to do with consumers.
Why doesn't ATT then buy Google stock?
reply
patcat88 @ 5th Dec 03:56AM:
Re: Internet connections could be more affordable for everyone?
said by raye :
AT&T charges about $200 per T1 line local loop charge more for T3 and higher what will chaqrging Google more do to reduce that ripoff?
First Google is not getting a T1 or a T3 from ATT. You must be kidding. Google/ATT pays for a 1/10/40 gigabit ethernet, or more pointlessly SONET connection for a couple hundred a month in a peering building to the owner of the peering building. You either have your datacenter in the peering building, or you rent dark fiber or a lamba of a DWDM fiber from a metro-ethernet/fiber provider, or you own it yourself leasing duct space (most likely for google).
Also Google/ATTs connection is totally unlike a normal internet connection, ATT will only accept packets for ATT IPs (IPs inside the ATT ASN), nothing else. Nobody else can be reached on that connection. Also the deal isn't between ATT landline, heck ATT might not even be the ILEC in the area, its between AT&T Internet Services (SBC ILEC DSL backbone »fixedorbit.com/AS/7/AS7132.htm ) or AT&T WorldNet/Business Internet (old AT&T CLEC backbone, older and bigger than SBC ILEC backbone »fixedorbit.com/AS/7/AS7018.htm ) or ex-BellSouth backbone ( »fixedorbit.com/AS/6/AS6389.htm ) or I think ATT CLEC's international network/business ventures around the world (»fixedorbit.com/AS/2/AS2685.htm »fixedorbit.com/AS/2/AS2686.htm »fixedorbit.com/AS/2/AS2687.htm »fixedorbit.com/AS/2/AS2688.htm )
read more at »www.corp.att.com/peering/
At one point the baby bells of ATT had their own ASNs (»fixedorbit.com/AS/3/AS3751.htm), but ATT did merge them out (which is amazing how many old machines and old websites, and portals of the baby bells still exist around).
reply
patcat88 @ 5th Dec 04:02AM:
Re: This is ridiculous!
said by goliath28 :
So by their mentalitity:
I buy a car (my computer), I pay taxes to build the roads (my ISP), I go to the grocery store (google) who also BTW pays taxes to pay for the roads and other infrastructure (their ISP/transit providers); so that we can reach each other. Now what they are saying is that they want to add an additional tax to actually put the car on said road??? Who do they think they are, the government!
The government (ATT) wants the grocery store to pay for more of the road as a hidden tax to pass onto you (all taxes paid for by businesses are ultimatly paid by you), then pat itself on the back for not raising taxes on you as much as it was planing to do before, and then win relection with all the positive PR (not increasing your bill $20 a month each year, year after year).
reply
patcat88 @ 5th Dec 04:04AM:
Re: So much slant.
said by brandon :
Once again, I wish I could hear the other side of the argument so I could make an informed decision. Instead I get Karl's anti-corporate slant and that's it.
It's not your blog, Karl. Report the news, or call everything an editorial.
I have your future home page then, »www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4···ear=2008
reply
patcat88 @ 5th Dec 04:09AM:
Re: Key analogy has merit
said by TKJunkMail :
Google, as usual, wants to have things their way - make lots of money off the infrastructure paid for by others without carrying the real costs incurred(because of the huge discounts they get).
In the end, however, the consumer in the home ends up paying the bill one way or another - to ISPs, or to Google thru higher costs of goods that pays all that advertising money going to Google, or to the gov't if some get their way of having the Feds pay for infrastructure improvements to the internet.
All the sturm & drang between content providers(like Google); ISPs; and the government is really just a fight over who gets to keep the biggest pieces of the internet pie. When all the fighting is done, the cost is the cost and will be paid by end users one way or another. All anyone is doing here is picking sides to determine which CEOs and/or pols are going to make out the best.
If an ISP doesn't like how much incoming traffic there is to their network, why don't they do something about it? like lowering everyones speed by 75%, or discontinue all peering links, and have only a 1 gigabit connection to the outside world/internet?
reply
patcat88 @ 5th Dec 04:11AM:
Re: Key analogy has merit
said by HEDP :
It will lead to nothing more than a broken internet, so if I sign up for AT&T I get myspace and youtube, but I will need to sign up for comcast to do my online banking. Great business plan, thanks for taking the internet back to square one.
But its like mobile to mobile minutes, your employer is Sprint, your drinking buddies are ATT, your relatives are Verizon, and you are T-mobile :-)
reply
patcat88 @ 5th Dec 04:12AM:
Re: This Google talk...
said by Austinloop :
I never cease to be amazed by those calling for a wind fall profits tax. The people calling for the tax fail to realize that the company will pass on the tax to the customer. That is just the way it works. Tax their profits and you will pay the tax on the profit.
Then tax their dividends :-) Thats pure profit.
reply
anon @ 5th Dec 04:15AM:
This could save GM!
This theory just goes to show what morons they are in the auto industry. Those poor shlubs are only selling vehicles when they could also bill the new vehicle owner every time he transports something in his new vehicle whether it be people or cargo.
This theory could revolutionise the world!
:-)
reply
patcat88 @ 5th Dec 04:23AM:
Re: Deja vu all over again.
said by Mr Matt :
I do not know of any portion of the internet network that is owned by the government except those segments serving the government's own networks.
Correct. Nobody is doing any charity on the internet. Nobody pays more than what they want or what their business models want. If you don't like the traffic, don't get any links to anyone else.
reply
raye @ 5th Dec 05:52AM:
Re: Internet connections could be more affordable for everyone?
Did not say Google purchased T1. I purchase a 6xT1 from 3rd party and I pay approx $1700/month for it. Half the cost goes for local loop.
Cleland makes argument that if Google paid thier fair share costs would be reduced. Is AT&T going to reduce its local loop charge just because Google thorws more money at them? Doubt it
reply
moonpuppy @ 5th Dec 07:56AM:
Re: Key analogy has merit
said by TKJunkMail :
All the sturm & drang between content providers(like Google); ISPs; and the government is really just a fight over who gets to keep the biggest pieces of the internet pie. When all the fighting is done, the cost is the cost and will be paid by end users one way or another. All anyone is doing here is picking sides to determine which CEOs and/or pols are going to make out the best.
So TK, when do you plan on sending checks to ATT every single time someone looks at your webpages because they say you are using their pipes for your content for free.
reply
Kearnstd @ 5th Dec 07:59AM:
Re: Key analogy has merit
last i checked google had to pay for their links to the web. now maybe they do get a huge deal compaired to others, but that is likely due to their providers wanting to keep google happy as they know google isnt going to disappear tommorrow night. more profit in a lower cost contract that will go on for a long time.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
reply
TomS_ @ 5th Dec 08:34AM:
Re: This is ridiculous!
Telecoms around the world is funny.
Here in Australia on my current mobile phone plan it costs me ~25c to SMS someone, but they pay nothing to receive it.
I pay whatever rate to make a phone call, and even if I call another mobile they pay nothing to receive it.
Even between different carriers it is only the originator that pays, the receiver pays nothing.
Mobile companies in the US must be loving it. Whether or not you make or receive a call, you're paying for it either way.
reply
Austinloop @ 5th Dec 09:30AM:
Re: This Google talk...
Last time I checked, i.e. when I did my last year's income tax, dividends are taxed.
reply
quatrix @ 5th Dec 09:47AM:
Re: Thank you, Karl
said by redhatnation :
Well written summary.
Yeah, what a great, objective, unbiased summary.
reply
patcat88 @ 5th Dec 09:59AM:
Re: This Google talk...
said by Austinloop :
Last time I checked, i.e. when I did my last year's income tax, dividends are taxed.
Then tax share trades, lets do $100 of tax per trade per share.
reply
Austinloop @ 5th Dec 10:11AM:
Re: This Google talk...
Are you planning on applying this only to energy stocks or every stock transaction.
Do you not understand that this is coming out of the individual's money, not the company's?
reply
wistlo @ 5th Dec 10:11AM:
Re: AT&T is using old Telco model
Perhaps that is why their proprietary VOIP product is being moved from general availability (CallVantage) to an accessory product available only with U-Verse.
reply
patcat88 @ 5th Dec 10:14AM:
Re: This Google talk...
said by Austinloop :
Are you planning on applying this only to energy stocks or every stock transaction.
Do you not understand that this is coming out of the individual's money, not the company's?
I think you ment investment banker's money. Individuals don't trade on a daily basis.
reply
Austinloop @ 5th Dec 10:26AM:
Re: This Google talk...
Oh, really, where do you get that idea? Well, guess what, when I buy shares I am going to get taxed also. You really don't understand that everything gets passed down to end consumer.
I am at a loss as to why taxing shares of a company would cause anything positive with respect to company profits. But what would I know, I only have an MBA. You are aware that most stock transactions are between stock owners and not the buyer and the company, except in the case of IPO's, aren't you? So you want to penalize investors for some redistribute the wealth scheme that didn't work the last time?
reply
jimbo2150 @ 5th Dec 12:11PM:
Re: Thank you, Karl
said by DarkLogix :
so add these up
"Objective" lobbists
a non-tech savvy Congress
a congress with no interist in the people anymore
a (soon to be)president that won't veto "his" congress
a president that is just as dumb as congress
Wow... seems like so long ago...
We had:
•Just Lobbyists
•a non-tech savvy Congress
•a president willing to sign any legislation from "his" congress
•a president dumber than congress
Then we had:
•Lobbyists... and the congress-men (and women) willing to get in bed with them (figuratively AND literally)
•a non-tech savvy Congress willing to prove it
•a president willing to veto any legislation not conforming to "his" views, even if it was good and bipartisan
•a president dumber than congress
I don't see how our incoming president could make it any worse...
--
- "Techie" Jim
reply
CylonRed @ 5th Dec 12:29PM:
Re: Thank you, Karl
That would have been all of my points as well. :)
reply
kamm @ 5th Dec 02:42PM:
Cleland is the most pathetic, worthless telecom shill EVER:
ArsTechnica sums up very well, why he's such a laughable PoS clown....
An excerpt:
quote:
If, in fact, I were to make such an argument, you would rapidly conclude that there are really only two possibilities: (1) I am a moron, or (2) I must think that you are if I expect you to find this persuasive.
I will let you decide which applies to the author of a "research study" of Google's bandwidth use being pushed by the anti–net neutrality site NetCompetition.org. Using some rather dubious proxy measures—which would be worth further scrutiny as well, if the fundamental premise weren't so manifestly bogus as to render such quibbling moot—telecom shill Scott Cleland estimates that Google and its subsidiaries "used" 16.5% of consumer broadband traffic in 2008, but only paid 0.8% of consumer broadband costs. This, the author brazenly claims, amounts to an implicit subsidy of some $6.9 billion to Google, and proves that Google "uses" 21 times as much bandwidth as it pays for.
This is stupid on so many levels I'm almost too stunned to know where to begin. Why would you ever imagine that the per-byte cost of getting upstream traffic out on a few enormous pipes would be the same as the per-byte cost on the downstream side, where the same traffic is dispersed to a bazillion consumers, each with their own broadband connection? (Nestle pays a lot less per pound than you do for sugar; I await a "research study.") What would possess anyone to posit that there's some inherently "fair" division of the cost of connecting end users to popular (mostly free) services anyway? Google adds value to the product ISPs sell, presumably helping them to attract customers; should Eric Schmidt be demanding compensation for the "implicit subsidy"?
Read the whole article, it's really worth that 2 minutes. :)
PS: did I mention Cleland is the stupides and thus the most worthless PoS paid mouthpiece ever? :D
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE]
reply
EPS @ 5th Dec 04:24PM:
Re: This Google talk...
Most oil company shares aren't even worth $100...
reply
Guspaz @ 6th Dec 08:32PM:
Peering
It's called peering, people. Of course they're using more than they pay for, most of their bandwidth comes from peering.
Newsflash: Cogent pays $0 for bandwidth!
EDIT: As a note, I'm in Montreal. My ISP is in Toronto. My YouTube traffic goes through TorIX (the Toronto Internet Exchange).
In other words, neither my ISP nor Google pay anything for me to use YouTube. Because my ISP peers with Google.
reply
raye @ 7th Dec 11:21AM:
Re: Internet connections could be more affordable for everyone?
americans also make more money per capita than european nations in many cases >2x.
reply
anon @ 7th Dec 02:59PM:
Skewed and Obtuse
There is a fundamental disconnect on how the internet works and how it should be supplied. In your argument, people are looking for a handout that shouldn't be.
In the real world, the Internet, as it is built now; is scalable almost on the fly and every corporation that has a presence pays for their side. If they neglect infrastructure, they suffer. If an ISP fails to provide the bandwidth they need for their customers or charges too much, or limits access to areas people want to access. . . they too suffer. This is what competition and neutrality buys us. . . a steady supply of connectivity with options for when things go wrong. ISPs have to serve the people, upgrade their networks and make their profits as the market bears out. No one is forcing them to provide access to the internet, if it's not profitable, they may leave the game.
But unlike the Phone System of the old days, we're not accepting sub-par service and their leisurely installations because of regional monopolies.
Every user benefits by being able to have broadband connections at a reasonable price, (normally around $20 a month); and they can pay for more if they require.
Nobody is getting a free ride here. To think that we should remove the competitive access and give the ISPs Carte Blanche to charge whatever they want and limit usage to other networks as it pleases them is a hideous miscarriage of justice. You, sir, are flirting with a monopolistic idea far exceeding the reach of your intellect to control.
reply
imakeholsinu @ 7th Dec 06:27PM:
Re: Thank you, Karl
said by moonpuppy :
You are assuming Congress is actually smart enough to see through the BS spewed by these so called "objective" lobbyists.
That's an oxymoron. Emphasis on the moron.
reply
anon @ 7th Dec 07:51PM:
who fuckin cares
who fuckin cares
internet is internet
reply
anon @ 8th Dec 09:30AM:
baloney
Old boys wanting their bills paid for...
Bunch of baloney...
»the-anti-google-baloney.blogspot.com/
reply
impala @ 9th Dec 06:04PM:
Re: how them pipes work
I said that. Consumer pays for traffic from consumer to ISP, and from ISP to consumer. It just gets murky when you reach the backbone, aka quest and att in my example.
reply
jdmarti1 @ 18th Feb 06:00PM:
Google and Peering
The peering model only works if your content equals the number of eyeballs you provide. That way your input equals your output. That is why the large ISP's work on a balance of the two. Google should not be peering anywhere - they provide all content, and not one bit of eyeball presence (not including corporate use). Unfortunately somebody has to pay for that usage - and it will be the consumer.
reply
Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC