41–47 of 47 posts
Nevermind that access to things like Youtube is exactly what CREATES demand for internet service. You think people are paying for broadband so they can send emails faster??
What they're saying to Google is "if you don't stop creating so much demand for our connections, we're going to go out of business!" Which can be simplified to, "we don't charge enough to cover our costs!"
Which is either false (likely) or indicates that they're incompetent. But it's nobody else's fault, least of all the fault of services that ISP customers are paying to access.
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…
This is what happens when accountants try to understand how BGP works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The comment to which you are replying offers a bit of reasoning as to why a cartel against Google would fail even without regulation: any defectors would have a big advantage in the marketplace. Against that, you offered an assertion without reasoning -- "some sort of regulation is necessary". Your assertion is wrapped in vaguely dismissive filler words -- "honestly sounds like" and "maybe?" -- that suggest you think…
A market where one market participant can, well, force other market participants to carry their content free of charge sounds to me like a failed market. That’s why I asked whether regulation might be something to counter that. I don’t know whether it is. I don’t even know if my assumptions are correct. Maybe this is no failed market at all and it’s just normal and good that ISPs have no-charge peering agreements wit…
What these ISP want is: when one of their customers wants to access a google site, google pays them for the traffic that goes over their network.
What doesn't make sense with that is that the traffic is already paid for twice, once with the customers subscription and another time before the data reaches this particulars ISP's network. (If google peers directly with them, they have some sort of deal currently, if the google doesn't then the ISPs inbetween already have a deal with this ISP for the traffic). In effect they are trying to find a way to charge another time for something that already paid for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not quite true - all they buy from BT is the "last mile" between the telephone exchange and the customer end point. Everything else is on the ISP's own (or rented) infrastructure.
True, all they rely on BT for is the bit that's completely impossible for them to get anywhere else or duplicate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the EU (At least in the UK), you have vast competition amongst ISPs with everyone undercutting everyone else. There's probably around 100 ISPs I could choose from to get my ADSL line from. I think the toll booth would fit in more with some US areas where there's only 1 ISP available (AFAIK).
But they all buy the ADSL access from BT and are basically just billing operations - if BT chooses to implement a pay per content they will have to pass that on. If you have a cable connection then it's probably owned by Sky (murdoch) already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not quite true - all they buy from BT is the "last mile" between the telephone exchange and the customer end point. Everything else is on the ISP's own (or rented) infrastructure.
True, all they rely on BT for is the bit that's completely impossible for them to get anywhere else or duplicate.