Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Networking Businesses Google The Internet

Net Neutrality Opponent Calls Google a "Bandwidth Hog" 320

Posted by Soulskill
from the oh-yeah-well-stop-hogging-all-the-ugly dept.
Adrian Lopez writes "According to PC World, an analyst with ties to the telecom industry — in a baseless attack on the concept of Net Neutrality — has accused Google Inc. of being a bandwidth hog. Quoting: '"Internet connections could be more affordable for everyone, if Google paid its fair share of the Internet's cost," wrote Cleland in the report. "It is ironic that Google, the largest user of Internet capacity pays the least relatively to fund the Internet's cost; it is even more ironic that the company poised to profit more than any other from more broadband deployment, expects the American taxpayer to pick up its skyrocketing bandwidth tab."' Google responded on their public policy blog, citing 'significant methodological and factual errors that undermine his report's conclusions.' Ars Technica highlighted some of Cleland's faulty reasoning as well."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Net Neutrality Opponent Calls Google a "Bandwidth Hog"

Comments Filter:
  • Probably true (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ShieldW0lf (601553)
    If my server logs are any indication, then this is probably true. They spent 6 months hitting my server every 2 seconds at one point.
    • Re:Probably true (Score:5, Insightful)

      by OrangeTide (124937) on Sunday December 07, 2008 @12:47PM (#26021241) Homepage Journal

      If you're an ISP then you will note that almost all of your customers are hitting google, and google is sending data back to them. It's not the search engine crawler that people are complaining about, it's the traffic in both directions. The traffic that is a fundamental part of google's business.

      Of course if both ends just paid a fair price for traffic (which is currently the case), then there does not need to be any complicated scheme of prioritizing packets at each hop based on what you paid to that provider.

      • Re:Probably true (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Forbman (794277) on Sunday December 07, 2008 @02:06PM (#26021995)

        Yep, but you're assuming that the "man in the middle", the ISP, doesn't have any business interest in things other than shuffling bits back and forth and solely getting paid to do that at a decent profit. Some of the ISPs (cable companies and the ILEC telcos themselves providing some of these big fat dedicated pipes to the Googles), also have internal business units that they want to push forth at the expense of the rest of the world they allege to serve. They want users on THEIR networks to use THEIR search engines, THEIR media delivery services, etc., not Google/YouTube, FaceBook, etc. Why? Well, they're not symbiotic partners, they're parasites. They don't want to be merely infrastructure that facilitates the rest of the system. They want to BE the system, and think that they are. The world of "The Matrix" is a colossal wet dream for them.

        • by StandardCell (589682) on Sunday December 07, 2008 @02:48PM (#26022461)
          That man in the middle would still be selling dial-up if it weren't for the Google offerings that consumers want, specifically Youtube. There are others too such as Hulu and Veoh and even the major TV networks' sites that stream episodes on demand, plus all the Shoutcast streaming radio stations.

          What this is really about is whether the ISPs still have common carrier status, and how that conflicts with their vertical service integration for services like TV and phone. These ISPs are charging for what is either free or for less money elsewhere.

          The solution is very simple. The FCC grants the ability for these anti-net-neutrality ISPs to charge whatever they like for whatever content they choose to carry over their networks, in exchange for the return of every government subsidy and grant given over the last five decades, with interest, in addition to the rescission of their common carrier status. The government can then take that money and give it to companies that will act like common carriers and build net-neutral data infrastructure.
        • Re:Probably true (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Sunday December 07, 2008 @06:25PM (#26024585) Journal

          you're assuming that the "man in the middle", the ISP, doesn't have any business interest in things other than shuffling bits back and forth and solely getting paid to do that at a decent profit.

          And that is what they should be. They are a utility -- they have no more business trying to guide you to their search engines than your power company has trying to sell you their own brand of hair dryer.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by lysergic.acid (845423)

            which is why it pissed me off when Verizon used to redirect my browser to their crappy branded search-engine rather than just relaying the DNS error--which i have a Firefox plug-in specifically for handling (by adding convenient google cache and way-back-machine links to the DNS error page).

            i know a lot of libertarians see the Free Market as a cure-all for all the world's problems, but critical societal infrastructure like public utilities are too important to just leave to private corporations to commercia

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by urlgrey (798089) *
            They are indeed a utility, and what gets my goat about this so-called "debate" is this: I pay for an Internet connection at home; I also pay for the Internet connection at our colocation facility. Google pays their own bills, too, just as their employees do at their respective homes.

            Put another way: I'm paying as a customer to access the world of the Internet, and as a business for the world of the Internet to access my sites. How in the *world* does Google need to contribute to payment in this anywhere?
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by kimvette (919543)

          I can't speak for anyone else on /. but as far as what I get Internet connectivity for, it's for access to the backbone so I can access services on other providers. Services such as google, youtube, hulu, tvland, amazon, and so forth. I couldn't give a flying leap about Comcast's internet service offerings; in fact, they are inferior to other portals such as yahoo, igoogle, and even msn. I don't want to use Comcast's internet services. I buy internet access to get access to the INTERNET, not Comcast's extra

      • Re:Probably true (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Fastolfe (1470) on Sunday December 07, 2008 @02:41PM (#26022389)

        Of course if both ends just paid a fair price for traffic (which is currently the case), then there does not need to be any complicated scheme of prioritizing packets at each hop based on what you paid to that provider.

        Prioritization based on "price paid" is moronic, and not seriously suggested, IMO. OTOH, prioritization is a perfectly legitimate tool for congestion management, which is at the core of the problem here. ISPs have historically oversubscribed based on the prevailing assumptions about customer utilization. Those assumptions no longer hold true, because sites like YouTube and applications like BitTorrent. ISPs can do one or both of increase infrastructure to match these new assumptions (at enormous cost), and/or implement some form of QoS to drop or delay one application's packet instead of another's, when congestion occurs (where a packet has to be dropped or delayed either way). You can still have a "fair price" being paid in either direction, and have a need for QoS (prioritization) to effectively manage congestion. This runs afoul of some definitions of "net neutrality", unfortunately, and is impractical to do anyway on an untrusted network (like the public Internet).

        So ISPs are actually stuck between a rock and a hard place. You have to oversubscribe to be cost-effective (this is why business-grade 1Mbit data connections cost 10x more than consumer-grade; the former is not oversubscribed while the latter is). But since that ratio has to go down to match today's expectations (through no "fault" of the ISPs), ISPs have discovered that they have to invest in significant new infrastructure, and they're looking for creative ways to pay for that. Unfortunately, most telco ISPs aren't exactly creative, so this is what we get.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by hardburn (141468)

          10x more? Not anymore. I pay less than double the normal price on my business-class DSL line. I could never afford 10x more, but at this rate, I'm happy to pay the extra so I don't have to deal with any of this ISP traffic control nonsense.

        • You have to oversubscribe to be cost-effective (this is why business-grade 1Mbit data connections cost 10x more than consumer-grade; the former is not oversubscribed while the latter is).

          Then why don't the ISPs publicize this and offer consumer home connections that are not oversubscribed and charge a higher price for it, while continuing to offer hit or miss oversubscribed connections at the current rates? Those who are happy with sometimes slow traffic can stick with it, and the rest of us can move up to

        • Re:Probably true (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Arker (91948) on Monday December 08, 2008 @12:09AM (#26027769) Homepage

          Through no fault of their own?

          To the contrary. The big telecoms in the USA (and many other places the situation is similar) have already been paid out of tax money to build new networks with the required capacities. More than once. They take the money, they put it in their pockets instead of rolling out fibre and adding more trunks with it, then they come back to DC next year looking to get paid yet again for the job they still havent done.

          Screw em.

    • by iYk6 (1425255) on Sunday December 07, 2008 @01:13PM (#26021457)

      It is ironic that Google, the largest user of Internet capacity pays the least relatively to fund the Internet's cost

      Economy of scale is not ironic. It is a appropriate, and makes sense to anyone who understands basic economics.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by RobertM1968 (951074)

      Google hits my server regularly - but doesnt use much bandwidth in doing so. But then again, I run Google ads on my sites, so they monitor the content to show more relevant ads. Considering most sites are 80% graphical, 20% html/css/javascript; these requests are no big deal.

      When it comes to them indexing the site for their search engine, a simple directive in the robots.txt file to tell them how frequently you wish them to stop by is all that is needed - and is spelled out numerous places on the Internet

    • Re:Probably true (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Z00L00K (682162) on Sunday December 07, 2008 @02:41PM (#26022393) Homepage

      The value provided by Google is far greater than the value provided by spammers. Take out the spam first.

      Even though Google may drive traffic that's something that we can live with.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07, 2008 @12:39PM (#26021171)

    Phone companies are one of the single greatest causes of people talking. More people talking means more oxygen consumption. And the externalities of all that poisonous CO2 exhalation.

    Phone companies are literally living off our dimes. And the Amazon and Sting and Al Gore don't even get a cut.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I love the smell of straw in the morning...

  • Hey, I just conducted a study and found out that my interconnect connection would be more affordable if Scott Cleland payed for my bandwidth costs.

    There oughta be a law!

    And just to be clear, is Scott Cleland proposing that well-run companies should be transferring their profits to all poorly-run companies, or just the poorly-run telecoms?

  • Fair Share (Score:5, Insightful)

    by andy1307 (656570) on Sunday December 07, 2008 @12:57PM (#26021307)
    Your customers who use google are already paying their fair share. Any bandwidth used by google for it's indexing is purchased from its ISP. The telcos just want to double dip.
    • Re:Fair Share (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 07, 2008 @01:53PM (#26021843)

      It's extortion, nothing else. Pay us, or the people on our network might have "difficulty" reaching your site. Not much different from the people who threaten to knock out gambling sites just before the superbowl.

      Can you imagine other industries trying this crap? Cable and satellite companies extorting the networks, demanding payment from the most popular TV shows, because that's what most TV users are watching, clogging up their tubes?

      Net Neutrality opponents want to get away with committing extortion. Always keep that in mind when these arguments brew up.

      • Re:Fair Share (Score:5, Informative)

        by adolf (21054) <flodadolf@gmail.com> on Sunday December 07, 2008 @03:48PM (#26023071) Journal

        Cable TV already does this -- they want paid for access to their tubes. We, as Time Warner Cable customers, recently lost our ability to watch the local Fox affiliate for a few weeks.

        Why?

        Cable company wanted paid to carry Fox, while Fox wanted paid to be carried on Cable. This went on and on, with various hateful ads about Time Warner appearing on Fox prior to the blackout. And then, one day, it was dark.

        Eventually, they figured it out. Not sure who is paying who, or if they just went back to the ages-old arrangement wherein no money changes hands. But it's back, for now.

        It doesn't really matter to me, in this instance. All I watch on Fox is House, and it's easy enough to snag episodes from TPB.

        But if I sed s/Cable/AT&T/ and also sed s/Fox/Google/, it'd be a very sorry state of affairs.

      • Re:Fair Share (Score:5, Insightful)

        by chihowa (366380) on Sunday December 07, 2008 @03:56PM (#26023157)
        The funny thing is that the ISPs are on the wrong side of the power gradient here. The end users likely don't give a shit if they're connecting to the internet through AT&T or Comcast or whoever. They will care if they can't reach Google (or any other 'content' provider), though. If Google doesn't pay up and AT&T throttles traffic to Google, what are AT&T expecting to happen?
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Arker (91948)

          The funny thing is that the ISPs are on the wrong side of the power gradient here. The end users likely don't give a shit if they're connecting to the internet through AT&T or Comcast or whoever. They will care if they can't reach Google (or any other 'content' provider), though. If Google doesn't pay up and AT&T throttles traffic to Google, what are AT&T expecting to happen?

          What they expect is that their customer are ignorant sheep who will shrug, blame the problem on Google, and proceed to use

  • by RootWind (993172) on Sunday December 07, 2008 @12:58PM (#26021319)
    Google is a content provider after all, maybe they should start charging AT&T. People pay to connect to the internet for the content, not to say they can connect to the AT&T network.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      True. At least one person I know got Internet access after a demo showing that you can find anything you want with Google. I'm sure there are more.

      Imagine if my gardening hardware store was *so good* that people started buying pickup trucks to haul gardening material from my store to their homes. But the pickup truck companies, instead of being grateful for the extra business, are complaining?

    • by langelgjm (860756) on Sunday December 07, 2008 @01:29PM (#26021601) Journal

      Seriously. If telcos want start to throttle Google, all Google has to do throw up a web page for the affected users with something like the following:

      "Dear Google/YouTube user: Your ISP, ISP_NAME, doesn't believe that you should be able to access the web sites and services that you want to, such as Google or YouTube. If you don't feel that this is fair, please contact ISP_NAME at ISP_PHONE_NUMBER and let them know how you feel. You may also want to consider switching to another ISP, such as one of the following in your area: (insert auto-generated list of ISPs that don't throttle Google)"

      • by genner (694963)

        Seriously. If telcos want start to throttle Google, all Google has to do throw up a web page for the affected users with something like the following:

        "Dear Google/YouTube user: Your ISP, ISP_NAME, doesn't believe that you should be able to access the web sites and services that you want to, such as Google or YouTube. If you don't feel that this is fair, please contact ISP_NAME at ISP_PHONE_NUMBER and let them know how you feel. You may also want to consider switching to another ISP, such as one of the following in your area: (insert auto-generated list of ISPs that don't throttle Google)"

        This....I can't believe their trying to start this little war by going after google first. To many people google is the internet. If they started throwing up a pages like this the offending ISP will have its call center completely hosed with complaints.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by NormalVisual (565491)
          If they started throwing up a pages like this the offending ISP will have its call center completely hosed with complaints.

          The ISPs won't care, just so long as they continue getting their monthly tithe from the complainers.
  • Bad economics? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bmorton (170477)

    I'm not sure technical arguments are really necessary to demonstrate this as bunk. Google's services add a lot of value to a consumer's bandwidth. I would wager that their contributions exceed their consumption.

  • by Vexorian (959249) on Sunday December 07, 2008 @01:06PM (#26021385)
    I use google, I use it because I want to or rather because the other search engines aren't that good. Here's the thing : I pay my freaking internet bills! Just for the concept of being able to use any web site I'd like. So the ISPs are already getting my money for google hits. Not only that, but google also pays for its bandwidth to an ISP already. This sounds like lame excuses 2.0 with a demagogic twist. How about you fuck off?
    • Agreed, plus... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lenski (96498) on Sunday December 07, 2008 @02:22PM (#26022169)

      The Telcos are lying to us (a lie of omission): They carefully avoid estimating the reduction in total bandwidth consumed due to the optimization that search engines provide. Search engines serve as a repository of index information used to optimize our access to internet services and products. The net effect is reduced resource utilization.

      Earth to telcos: Google is an example of a service that increases the value of the internet, which drives our willingness to pay for it. I have been an internet user since modem dialup days. My use of the service has increased during the last 18 years because it provides value. Google improves that value. It's a big win for the telcos and service providers, and they are trying to prevent us from recognizing that fact.

      Free bandwidth indeed! Google pays for every bit of their bandwidth just like everyone else, probably with a bulk discount just like every other customer of a service with a predictable and large utilization.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by cgenman (325138)

        I think they're complainting that Youtube (owned by Google) is very popular with their users. Which, when you think about it, is a strange thing to complain about.

  • by cerelib (903469) on Sunday December 07, 2008 @01:09PM (#26021415)

    "It is ironic that Google, the largest user of Internet capacity pays the least relatively to fund the Internet's cost

    So how much does Google pay for it's usage of the Internet?

    • A lot less than you or I would pay, per GB of transfer. That is one of the advantages of buying in huge bulk.
    • by Fastolfe (1470) on Sunday December 07, 2008 @01:46PM (#26021773)

      The report [precursorblog.com] makes a wild-ass-guess that Google pays $344M for its bandwidth, and that since (allegedly) 16.5% of a user's broadband bandwidth is for Google content, and consumers pay $44 billion for broadband in the US, Google is cheating "taxpayers" (WTF?) out of $6.9 billion.

      Of course, the numbers are dubious to start with, comparing mixed fruit to oranges, and suggesting that a major Internet content provider (and consumer) should have to pay the same rates as residential broadband customers is flat out laughable (though perhaps a nice goal). If anything, all this report shows is that consumers are paying 21x more than Google is, suggesting those same ISPs are robbing them blind and (in this guy's case) stupid.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jonaskoelker (922170)

        The report [precursorblog.com] makes a wild-ass-guess that Google pays $344M for its bandwidth, and that since (allegedly) 16.5% of a user's broadband bandwidth is for Google content, and consumers pay $44 billion for broadband in the US, Google is cheating "taxpayers" (WTF?) out of $6.9 billion.

        So if I get really popular and pay $344M for my telephony services, "taxpayers" pay $44 billion for theirs and they call me 16.5% of their time, am I cheating them out of something that was theirs?

        Point being: someone has an idea about how the Internet pricing structure should be that doesn't match reality. They're entitled to their opinion. I'm entitled to say it's wrong ;)

        And teh horrors! American tax payers are subsidizing Europeans, Asians, Africans and other nice people visiting Google. We're total

    • by popo (107611) on Sunday December 07, 2008 @01:58PM (#26021883) Homepage

      The telco's and backbone providers would love you to look at it that way.

      It's important to note that there is a war on for how the Internet is perceived. The telco's would love to create the legal perception that a "broadcast model" is at work. ie: Google "broadcasts" over the tubes, and pays the tube-owners nothing. The reality -- which they are trying so desperately to avoid -- is that http is a 'request'.

      The revenue stream comes from the users who pay for the right to make these requests and receive the response data.

      When they say "it is ironic that Google, the largest user of Internet capacity", they're clouding the issue: Google is the "most requested service" on the Internet.

      The telcos are attempting to 'share the wealth' by taxing popularity.

      It is the users that are the bandwidth hogs. After all, without the users Google doesn't use much bandwidth at all.

    • by mrchaotica (681592) * on Sunday December 07, 2008 @03:15PM (#26022701)

      Google pays exactly the amount that Google's ISP was willing to accept. If that's too low, then Google's ISP shouldn't have accepted it!

      The ISPs on the other end of the connection -- the ones complaining -- have peering agreements (directly or indirectly) with Google's ISP. If they want more money, they need to negotiate more favorable terms for their peering agreement, causing Google's ISP to raise its rates. All this noise about charging Google again for what it already paid for is greedy, offensive, and ridiculous!

  • by Ceriel Nosforit (682174) on Sunday December 07, 2008 @01:10PM (#26021427)

    There's a local company offering a 1.5TB external drive when you order a 2mbit or faster internet connection. Since few people are likely to fill the drive up with holiday photos, the use for this combo is obvious.

    ISPs and digital storage manufacturers benefit from online piracy. I'd wager the profits are greater than the loss the content producers face, and are of net benefit to the global economy.

    But, my perspective on the issue is skewed. I've been a pirate since I was 7. :p

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Bieeanda (961632)
      An external drive? Sounds like they're asking people to set up sneakernets.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jonaskoelker (922170)

      I'd wager the profits are greater than the loss the content producers face, and are of net benefit to the global economy.

      The problem is that if everybody pirate, the musician gets no money, starves to death, and stops playing. ... Or just stops playing because it can't be their day job ;)

  • Bandwidth hog? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by macemoneta (154740) on Sunday December 07, 2008 @01:10PM (#26021431) Homepage

    I was under the impression that Google purchased business/carrier Internet facilities (OC3/OC12/OC48/OC192 and Gig-E interconnects) just like any other major business.

    Unlike shared residential services such as cable/DSL/FIOS, these are dedicated facilities. They are paying for all their bandwidth, whether they use it or not.

    How can they be "hogging" what they are paying for?

    • by jonbryce (703250)

      I think the ISPs are complaining that their customers are using the internet connection they paid for to watch youtube videos.

      But then, if it wasn't for things like youtube, most people would be happy to stay on dial-up.

      • Re:Bandwidth hog? (Score:5, Informative)

        by macemoneta (154740) on Sunday December 07, 2008 @01:35PM (#26021653) Homepage

        That's exactly right. The customers paid for a shared connection. Google (Youtube) paid for a commercial connection. The ISPs are already being paid twice for transporting the same bits.

        Since the customer's connection is shared, there is no service guarantee. If contention is too high, bits get dropped. If too many bits get dropped, and the customer has a choice, they can go to another ISP.

        To summarize, ISPs are currently double-dipping, and they don't like competition. To solve this "problem", they propose triple-billing for transport so they don't have to re-invest as much in infrastructure. The "net neutrality" spin is just an obfuscation of what would otherwise be an obvious abuse of their position.

    • the dipshit who propagated and placed this article in news outlets represent corporate asswipes who want to control the internet through charging whomever they want, whatever they want, so they can make internet to another cable tv network.
  • fairness is crap (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fermion (181285) on Sunday December 07, 2008 @01:14PM (#26021459) Homepage Journal
    This fairness thing is crap. Anytime I hear someone talk about it, and over the pst 15 years it has been mostly conservatives, at least with respect to monetary issues, I want to ask them, like, what are you, 10?

    The consumers use bandwidth, and it is the consumers who should shoulder a significant cost of the bandwidth. Google, et al, need to pay for the redundant lines that connect their facility. It is true that due to different usage patterns, some consumer will pay out of proportion. It is also true that some taxpayers will pay for something they do not use. But such is life.

    Let's say that I am in the city. I drive like 20 or 20 miles a day, and the roads I do use are well traveled and largely cheap surface roads. Then why am I paying taxes and high gas taxes to subsidize the suburbanites excessive travel and wear and tear on the roads? Well, for one thing I do not want them in the city. Second, i need them in the city to serve me. I am likely paying out of proportion of my direct use, but not me total use.

    It is the same thing with taxes. Suppose I am in the top 25% of the income. I likely am part of the group that pays a huge percentage of the nations taxes, maybe even in excess of the proportion of money that I earn. This is caused by the fact that the bottom third of the wage earners pay almost no taxes. A family earning 30K, after deductions, maybe a token couple thousand. That is, of course, because we all get a deduction basic living expenses, just like business only pays on profit, actual humans pay taxes only on their excess income, and the more money you make, the more actual excess income you have. It is an observable that 50% of the population have almost no excess income, while, when on reaches the 10 20% of the wage earners, excess income becomes the majority.

    On one hand this is bad, as it means I pay higher taxes. OTOH, this allows us to keep wages low, as it is possible to pay barely enough to keep a family together. If everyone had to pay, say, 10%, then many family might double their tax bill, which might force them to ask for raises, which they would need to have to survive. This might mean that a couple who had been earning $9 an hour each, might now need to ask for $10, which might be more than a business could afford without increasing costs.And since business do not increase cost proportionately, such an increase could end up costing more overall. Or at least this is the conservative arguments.

    So, fairness is not really crap, but fairness is dangerous, as people will inevitable skew the facts to make themselves the victims.

    • This fairness thing is crap. Anytime I hear someone talk about it, and over the pst 15 years it has been mostly conservatives, at least with respect to monetary issues, I want to ask them, like, what are you, 10?

      When I hear it, it's usually a liberal trying to rationalize punitive tax rates to fund social engineering projects like welfare.

  • by unity100 (970058) on Sunday December 07, 2008 @01:15PM (#26021475) Homepage Journal
    for, if they had PAID their share of the bargain and INVESTED the HUGE profits they made from OVERSELLING bandwith for all those years, there would be NO issue about bandwidth anywhere. actually, there arent any issues about bandwidth at all. there is a SUPPOSED problem about 'internet breaking down due to bandwidth' in united states only for around 3 years now, and nothing happened.

    considering all the pointers at hand, i have decided that the supposed 'an analyst with ties to the telecom industry' is either a non person that is invented to propagate a shitty corporate agenda, or a corporate shill to attempt justifying controlling internet, YET AGAIN.

    you americans are WAY too much tolerant of this 'lobbying' thing. way too much.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Fastolfe (1470)

      ...INVESTED the HUGE profits they made from OVERSELLING bandwith for all those years, there would be NO issue about bandwidth anywhere.

      I don't think I agree with that. People will always find ways to use up their bandwidth. Yesterday, it was MP3s. Today it's DVDs. Tomorrow it'll be Bluray. Next week maybe it'll be always-on über-resolution live video streams. Give everyone gigabit connections and people will find a way to use that bandwidth.

      The problem here isn't so much that the bandwidth is ov

  • by Gothmolly (148874) on Sunday December 07, 2008 @01:16PM (#26021485)

    The people who go to Google are the hogs. If your pricing model doesn't take into consideration your consumer's usage patterns, then FAIL.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mrchaotica (681592) *

      Neither Google nor the customers are the hogs -- they each paid for their half of the connection! The ISPs are the hogs, because they want Google to pay TWICE!

  • I don't think Google is a "push" provider. Google does not use any bandwidth. It is the individuals consuming Google's services that are using the bandwidth and they are paying for it.

  • This is the same company who had a monopoly on the US phone network, and only allowed AT&T phones to connect to it (for 'network stability' reasons), and only allowed AT&T answering machines.. make a buck on the line, and then make a buck selling the stuff that connects to it; Sounds like their still trying to play the same game :)

    There's an awesome response on the googleblog which makes a good read:
    http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/12/response-to-phone-companies-google.html [blogspot.com]

  • It isn't every day that the glossies "get it", or even pay attention.

    Next: the Wall Street Journal (;-))

    --dave

  • Bla bla its not fair, bla bla bla.

    This isn't worth even printing, let alone having a discussion over..

  • by OpenYourEyes (563714) on Sunday December 07, 2008 @01:59PM (#26021905)

    So ISPs are losing money because of Google? Fine. They should do what Sprint did and block all access to Google. Let their customers use the "Internet" of the ISPs email and the ISPs news. Let's see how long that lasts.

    ISPs need to wake up and realize that people don't want their email, don't want their home pages, don't want their internet "content", and almost universally don't want anything the ISP provides except a pipe to the outside world.

  • by HishamMuhammad (553916) on Sunday December 07, 2008 @10:16PM (#26026635) Homepage Journal

    A misuse of the term "ironic" and no one has mentioned Alanis Morissette yet? Where is this world heading to?

  • by Chrisq (894406) on Monday December 08, 2008 @04:14AM (#26029751)
    Electricity supplies could be more affordable for everyone, if TV Broadcasters paid their fair share of the Generator's cost," wrote Clitland in the report. "It is ironic that Fox, who'se viewers are the largest user of generating capacity pays the least relatively to fund the Power company's cost; it is even more ironic that the company poised to profit more than any other from more HDTV deployment, expects the American taxpayer to pick up its skyrocketing electricity tab."'

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. -- Cartoon caption

Working...