11–20 of 47 posts
In a competitive market, an ISP wouldn't be able to pull this off because its customers would revolt if services that they cared about weren't there.
I don't understand the argument the telecoms are trying to make here. On the ISP side, the end user has already paid for the bandwidth. Google, or anyone else they're engaging in data transfer with has also paid some network operator for bandwidth. Said network operators have some sort of peering agreement. Under what theory could it possibly be fair to charge Google at both ends?
Google, or anyone else they're engaging in data transfer with has also paid some network operator for bandwidth. Google has no-charge peering agreements with the companies which are complaining. Google's traffic is so vast that a major carrier which doesn't peer with Google would endanger other high-volume peering agreements or (less likely) pay more in transit charges to reach Google. Tier 1 carriers play this game…
And why are they making this particular argument they are making now and don’t demand something which might sound more reasonable like regulating the market of peering agreements or something?
I don't understand the argument the telecoms are trying to make here. On the ISP side, the end user has already paid for the bandwidth. Google, or anyone else they're engaging in data transfer with has also paid some network operator for bandwidth. Said network operators have some sort of peering agreement. Under what theory could it possibly be fair to charge Google at both ends?
The other part I don't understand is how the telecoms think they're actually going to get Google to pay this in the first place. If they tell Google they won't carry the Google traffic over their connections if they don't pay (sounds a bit like blackmail?) I'm sure Google would just say "Ok, see you later!". The telecoms that do that would just end up losing customers because really, who would want a connection that'…
Legal action doesn't seem like a conducive way to encourage that idea....
I don't understand the argument the telecoms are trying to make here. On the ISP side, the end user has already paid for the bandwidth. Google, or anyone else they're engaging in data transfer with has also paid some network operator for bandwidth. Said network operators have some sort of peering agreement. Under what theory could it possibly be fair to charge Google at both ends?
That’s the strange logic of ISPs. They basically don’t want to be reduced to dumb pipes because that’s low margin and not really a very exciting business model. I guess in their dreams they would charge content providers (“You want to get your content to our customers? Pay!”) and they would also charge customers based on the content they want to see (“You want access to content from this one content provider? Pay!”).…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The other part I don't understand is how the telecoms think they're actually going to get Google to pay this in the first place. If they tell Google they won't carry the Google traffic over their connections if they don't pay (sounds a bit like blackmail?) I'm sure Google would just say "Ok, see you later!". The telecoms that do that would just end up losing customers because really, who would want a connection that'…
While I tend to agree, that tactic can backfire if the ISP's get together and present a unified front. If Google is only avail on 1/5 of the major ISP's, Yahoo or whoever pays up will see a crapload of new business. It's much easier for an end user to simply switch to using Yahoo! than to switch ISP's (for example I basically have no other choice for high speed other than Comcast)
XYZ ISP would have a killer selling point ("we have Google!") and would almost certainly make a killing...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The other part I don't understand is how the telecoms think they're actually going to get Google to pay this in the first place. If they tell Google they won't carry the Google traffic over their connections if they don't pay (sounds a bit like blackmail?) I'm sure Google would just say "Ok, see you later!". The telecoms that do that would just end up losing customers because really, who would want a connection that'…
While I tend to agree, that tactic can backfire if the ISP's get together and present a unified front. If Google is only avail on 1/5 of the major ISP's, Yahoo or whoever pays up will see a crapload of new business. It's much easier for an end user to simply switch to using Yahoo! than to switch ISP's (for example I basically have no other choice for high speed other than Comcast)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s the strange logic of ISPs. They basically don’t want to be reduced to dumb pipes because that’s low margin and not really a very exciting business model. I guess in their dreams they would charge content providers (“You want to get your content to our customers? Pay!”) and they would also charge customers based on the content they want to see (“You want access to content from this one content provider? Pay!”).…
Dumb unexciting business models can still be very profitable. For example: toll booths on highways.
I think the toll booth would fit in more with some US areas where there's only 1 ISP available (AFAIK).
I don't understand the argument the telecoms are trying to make here. On the ISP side, the end user has already paid for the bandwidth. Google, or anyone else they're engaging in data transfer with has also paid some network operator for bandwidth. Said network operators have some sort of peering agreement. Under what theory could it possibly be fair to charge Google at both ends?
That’s the strange logic of ISPs. They basically don’t want to be reduced to dumb pipes because that’s low margin and not really a very exciting business model. I guess in their dreams they would charge content providers (“You want to get your content to our customers? Pay!”) and they would also charge customers based on the content they want to see (“You want access to content from this one content provider? Pay!”).…