The Google Tax

#1

Post by nathanpc » Sun, Jan 20, 2013, 3:43 PM UTC

Re: The Google Tax

#2

Post by fredgrott » Sun, Jan 20, 2013, 5:16 PM UTC

a question ..maybe it is obvious.. in the past Mobile OEMS at times have paid a bandwidth fee to telecomms to balance end users having to update an OS on the device..

Are we sure that the event of Google paying Orange referenced in the article is not simply Google paying a small fee due to the bandwidth consumed by the end user when the Android OS is updated on the Orange networks? side note, usually that download is nto counted towards user limits as usually its also sometimes a security update.

Re: The Google Tax

#3

Post by nathanpc » Sun, Jan 20, 2013, 5:22 PM UTC

fredgrott wrote: post #2

a question ..maybe it is obvious.. in the past Mobile OEMS at times have paid a bandwidth fee to telecomms to balance end users having to update an OS on the device.. Are we sure that the event of Google paying Orange referenced in the article is not simply Google paying a small fee due to the bandwidth consumed by the end user when the Android OS is updated on the Orange networks? side note, usually that download is…

I don't think so since Google isn't responsible for updating Android phones (except for the Nexus models). That's a job for the OEMs.

Re: The Google Tax

#4

Post by evv » Sun, Jan 20, 2013, 5:36 PM UTC

Does anybody know why Google didn't refuse these charges? This sets a really awful precedent.

Re: The Google Tax

#5

Post by nathanpc » Sun, Jan 20, 2013, 5:43 PM UTC

evv wrote: post #4

Does anybody know why Google didn't refuse these charges? This sets a really awful precedent.

I've been searching for that because it's really a strange decision.

Re: The Google Tax

#6

Post by temac » Sun, Jan 20, 2013, 5:44 PM UTC

> Clearly Orange has no idea how the internet works and what’s their involvement in it. The ISP is just a dumb pipe to connect the user to a server, nothing more.

Clearly Nathan Campos has no idea how the internet works. Negotiations about charging for traffic is normal business, and has always been.

> The user fees should be equivalent to their connection speed, not their usage, which apparently is something that ISPs can’t understand too.

This is practiced for some land networks (in France, most of them) because the traffic is still good enough and most people are not generating so much traffic, but this can not happen on mobile network because of the much limited capacity. Limiting the rate is the way to guarantee that the mean traffic does not explode, saturating the whole thing.

> French President Francois Hollande warned Google on Wednesday that his government would legislate a so-called Google tax if the company doesn’t reach a deal with French media companies.

Orange is not a media company, and the rest of the post recognize that and talks about ISP.

Re: The Google Tax

#7

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jan 20, 2013, 5:50 PM UTC

nathanpc wrote: post #5

evv wrote: post #4

Does anybody know why Google didn't refuse these charges? This sets a really awful precedent.

I've been searching for that because it's really a strange decision.

[deleted]

Re: The Google Tax

#8

Post by drucken » Sun, Jan 20, 2013, 5:51 PM UTC

evv wrote: post #4

Does anybody know why Google didn't refuse these charges? This sets a really awful precedent.

I really do not understand why Google accepted this. Orange needs them far more than Google needs Orange.

They could have let Orange stew or force the French government's hands by proposing legislation that would have created a huge popular and technical uproar.

It seems to serve no purpose, other than some unknown short term motivation - which has never been a characteristic of Google - to accede.

There is no way French media companies or French government will back down now they have forced Google to draw first blood on itself. It also sets a global precedent against them and other Internet companies.

Re: The Google Tax

#9

Post by krallin » Sun, Jan 20, 2013, 5:52 PM UTC

evv wrote: post #4

Does anybody know why Google didn't refuse these charges? This sets a really awful precedent.

Orange has a very strong presence in Africa. It leveraged this presence to have Google pay for their Internet trafic in France and Europe: Orange is pivotal to Google's success in Africa.

According to Orange's CEO, Google just can't do without Orange in Africa - and that's likely to be true.

Sources (in French, sorry!):

http://frenchweb.fr/trafic-france-telecom-se-fait-remunerer-...

http://pro.clubic.com/entreprises/orange-france-telecom/actu...

Re: The Google Tax

#10

Post by brudgers » Sun, Jan 20, 2013, 5:58 PM UTC

A plausible case can be made for charging Google based on the amount of traffic generated by their products which is initialized outside of the subscriber's control.

The ISP is delivering advertising from which Google benefits and which its users are not explicitly requesting. Charging Google is analogous to a cable provider charging an advertising agency when that agency wants to place ads on behalf of their clients.

Other Google services such as Analytics, tracking cookies, and JavaScript libraries also use capacity without considering the effect on the provider's bandwidth.

Again, this is a plausible position. It is plausible because Google is generating revenue regardless of the ISP's customers' interest and the source of the data is outside the ISP's network.

Charging Google is a reasonable alternative to charging their customers for something which may be of little value to them.