Aah, Neelie Kroes, the person who gave Bill Gates both a honorary doctorate and a €500 million fine. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neelie_Kroes )
FWIW, the fine was to Microsoft, not Bill Gates.
EU to Telecoms companies: Try charging Google and we’ll take action
21–30 of 47 posts
Re: EU to Telecoms companies: Try charging Google and we’ll take action
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
Google is so ubiquitous to people's web use now it would only take one to not join the filtering for the idea to collapse. XYZ ISP would have a killer selling point ("we have Google!") and would almost certainly make a killing...
Honestly sounds like some sort of regulation is necessary, maybe?
(– edit: could you please explain why that seems wrong or like a trollish comment to you?)
Re: EU to Telecoms companies: Try charging Google and we’ll take action
#23Earlier 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.
Public companies are not interested in being profitable. Public companies are interested in being more profitable than they were last quarter.
Think about that the next time you adjust your 401k holdings.
Re: EU to Telecoms companies: Try charging Google and we’ll take action
#24I 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'…
I would love to see it play out like this. But it would only work in a competitive landscape, and ISPs are typically local monopolies. Which is probably why the ISPs can even consider such ideas in the first place.
Re: EU to Telecoms companies: Try charging Google and we’ll take action
#25Earlier 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'…
I would love to see it play out like this. But it would only work in a competitive landscape, and ISPs are typically local monopolies. Which is probably why the ISPs can even consider such ideas in the first place.
"...ISPs are typically local monopolies."
Not here in Finland, and I don't think that applies to many other places in EU either.
Re: EU to Telecoms companies: Try charging Google and we’ll take action
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google is so ubiquitous to people's web use now it would only take one to not join the filtering for the idea to collapse. XYZ ISP would have a killer selling point ("we have Google!") and would almost certainly make a killing...
Honestly sounds like some sort of regulation is necessary, maybe? (– edit: could you please explain why that seems wrong or like a trollish comment to you?)
I didn't downvote your comment, but I'll explain why I (and most likely others here) think it's wrong.
Blocking access to Google services would be suicide for an ISP. Customers would leave for other ISP's if they could, and sue for false advertising (you said it was internet access, not "Comcast's private network" access!) if they couldn't.
Google has already made it clear they won't pay ISPs to carry their traffic, so any attempt to collect fees would effectively result in a block. The market has solved this problem already; adding regulation would simply create more work for lawyers.
Re: EU to Telecoms companies: Try charging Google and we’ll take action
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
That’s interesting! Can’t they bring that up the next time they discuss their peering agreement with Google? Would they really stand no chance of negotiating a better deal – even if enough of them work together? 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?
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?
They are making this argument because Google is an easy target. Tier 1's have complained about low cost pricing from Cogent for a while now but complaining about a company few have heard of doesn't make headlines.
They don't demand peering regulation because I think they want to avoid the complex system of termination fees and special rules for smaller carriers etc. that regulation of the phone system brought. Peering works well; Google delivers traffic on a carrier-scale and other carriers will just have to accept it.
Re: EU to Telecoms companies: Try charging Google and we’ll take action
#28Aah, Neelie Kroes, the person who gave Bill Gates both a honorary doctorate and a €500 million fine. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neelie_Kroes )
I In the US most people only hear about her when she slaps a big fine on an American company, but she's been making a lot of waves in the EU for actually walking the walk instead of just talking the talk. The Economist has covered her extensively, with a sort of disbelieving awe.
Re: EU to Telecoms companies: Try charging Google and we’ll take action
#29I 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?
"We hear you have money, we'd like it."
Why charge once for the service when you can charge twice?
Re: EU to Telecoms companies: Try charging Google and we’ll take action
#30I 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'…
They don't have to block access to Google. They just have to make Google a tenth of a second slower. The user won't notice that much, but Google knows how many millions of dollars it loses when its pages load slower.