6 ms·

These people operate on some sort of bizarre moon logic. Youtube doesn't "eat up your ISP's bandwidth", your customers eat up your ISP's bandwidth by using You

These people operate on some sort of bizarre moon logic. Youtube doesn't "eat up your ISP's bandwidth", your customers eat up your ISP's bandwidth by using Youtube. If electricity usage followed the same argument as they give, power plants would be at fault for their electricity being used. Of course, your customers can't always easily be extorted for hundreds of millions of dollars, while (they think) Google can.

axod 17y ago
Problem is that ISPs hate it when you actually use bandwidth. I got an email from my ISP - BT, to say that I'd used 80GB of transfer for March, and that if I went to 100GB, I'd have my speed capped for the next 30 days. This is on their (and I quote) "UNLIMITED" plan. bleurgg
- DarkShikari 17y ago
  Of course. But normally ISPs take it out on their customers, as opposed to taking it out on the services their customers use. Most likely the problem is that they now can no longer blame the problem on "bandwidth hogs"--with everyone using Youtube, everyone uses the bandwidth that you advertised to them.
  - axod 17y ago
    They certainly took/take it out on filesharing/p2p also though. I think they generally take it out on anything that eats bandwidth for them. It's sort of ironic, since they have specifically sold the benefits of broadband ADSL as being able to watch movies, etc and now they complain people are actually doing that ;)
    - swombat 17y ago
      I think it's doubly ironic. If the Telcos feel they can charge Google for carrying its bits, then perhaps they should pay all the newspapers, blogs, etc that are providing all their content to those telcos for free. Over the last 20 years, Telcos have made humongous profits selling internet access to content that they didn't have any hand in producing. Meanwhile, the newspapers are going bust. People keep talking about saving newspapers by introducing paywalls and such. There's already a paywall: it's the internet access monthly fee. Take the money out of there.
      - axod 17y ago
        I was with you up to the last crazy socialist sentence. If the newspapers can't survive, (I for one still like reading my daily non-electronic paper), let them die. ISPs should simply be a pipe. Nothing more, nothing less.
        swombat 17y ago
        Oh, I agree - I don't think that should happen. I just think that it's an uneasy "let's keep our eyes closed" arrangement to begin with. If the Telcos want to open their eyes instead, they might find they have a lot more to lose than to gain. Ditching Net Neutrality will cost them a whole lot more than it will gain them, as soon as content providers realise that actually, the providers should be paying them, not the other way around. I mean, if Telefonica wants to block access to youtube, why should Google stop them? Fine. Block it. And lose 80% of your customers overnight. If Google wanted to play this game, they should be asking Telefonica to pay them money. It's not a long step from this to having bloggers, newspapers, etc, organise in collectives that can charge telcos for "access to every newspaper on the web" or "every blog on the web".
        thefahim 17y ago
        ISPs (Comcast, ugh!) have monopolies in a ton of areas in the states. Block YouTube and it'll lose 80% of it's traffic overnight, not the other way around.
        axod 17y ago
        The article was about Europe AFAIK, which is certainly far more diverse in ISP offerings. In the UK you have a choice from a few hundred ISPs, so there is no real monopoly here.
- dsplittgerber 17y ago
  Years ago, I saw lots of "unlimited" cell phone plan commercials in London, every single one being subject to "fair use". How come it's that common in the UK? I think there are close to none "fair use" plans in e.g. Germany. Why the local differences?
  - axod 17y ago
    I think "unlimited" is just a word that gets people to buy something. It's not economical to actually offer something with unlimited anything. Even if you buy a dedicated server with "unlimited" transfer, it'll be limited by the connection speed - eg 10mbps uplink "unlimited bandwidth" works out at less than 5TB total transfer per month. Same with the magic word "free". You'll often see that used such as "free mobile phone (small print: when you sign up to a contract at £19/month)" etc. Are there true unlimited plans in Germany that aren't subject to any limits then?
    - dsplittgerber 17y ago
      For internet at home, I think so. Just checked the legalese for the #1 provider (Deutsche Telekom) here, found no wording relating to "fair use". Internet at home is extremely competitive here, though. Lots of different delivery methods (tv cable, telephone cable etc), unlimited internet + landline calls for ~30 EUR/month or less. For mobile internet, it's a whole different story, obviously. There are all kinds of caps. I think 'unlimited' should mean unlimited. But I agree, introducing caps sadly makes business sense for some companies.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    - seles 17y ago
      This is what at&t/apple does with their 'unlimited' iphone subscription. It might be unlimited but they try their best to stop you from using any actual bandwidth (tethering etc.) Google has had to take a lot shit lately from non free speech and non free market ideologies.
  - sadiq 17y ago
some1else 17y ago
This just shows that telco's won't solve a thing by capping bit-torrent traffic. What they need to do is stop charging too little for the bandwidth and improve their infrastructure to support the market they expanded to.
- Retric 17y ago
  Bandwidth is not a major cost for most large scale ISP's. The real problem is there is only so many way's for ISP's to cut costs and pissing off the customers that most use the service is unlikely to cause them to quit because they don't have any choice.
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    This may drive up the prices to a point an ISP can profit from moving bits from A to B.
    - Retric 17y ago
      ISP's already profit from moving bit's from A to B. They want to make as much profit as possible. ISP's have the same basic problem as the airlines. They are selling a commodity service that requires high capital costs and have little to differentiate themselves with. The only way to increase profits is to drive down costs because they can't offer much outside of "fat pipes".
      - rbanffy 17y ago
        Most ISPs earn much more from value-added products like anti-viruses and other security programs.
PostOnce 17y ago
This is completely irrelevant but I quite enjoy the phrase "bizarre moon logic". Kudos for coining it.
lsb 17y ago
The ISP's logic of people paying for getting bits as well as people paying for receiving bits gets you (in America) text messages that are $0.20 to send, and $0.20 to receive.

axod 17y ago

Problem is that ISPs hate it when you actually use bandwidth. I got an email from my ISP - BT, to say that I'd used 80GB of transfer for March, and that if I went to 100GB, I'd have my speed capped for the next 30 days. This is on their (and I quote) "UNLIMITED" plan. bleurgg

DarkShikari 17y ago
Of course. But normally ISPs take it out on their customers, as opposed to taking it out on the services their customers use. Most likely the problem is that they now can no longer blame the problem on "bandwidth hogs"--with everyone using Youtube, everyone uses the bandwidth that you advertised to them.
- axod 17y ago
  They certainly took/take it out on filesharing/p2p also though. I think they generally take it out on anything that eats bandwidth for them. It's sort of ironic, since they have specifically sold the benefits of broadband ADSL as being able to watch movies, etc and now they complain people are actually doing that ;)
  - swombat 17y ago
    I think it's doubly ironic. If the Telcos feel they can charge Google for carrying its bits, then perhaps they should pay all the newspapers, blogs, etc that are providing all their content to those telcos for free. Over the last 20 years, Telcos have made humongous profits selling internet access to content that they didn't have any hand in producing. Meanwhile, the newspapers are going bust. People keep talking about saving newspapers by introducing paywalls and such. There's already a paywall: it's the internet access monthly fee. Take the money out of there.
    - axod 17y ago
      I was with you up to the last crazy socialist sentence. If the newspapers can't survive, (I for one still like reading my daily non-electronic paper), let them die. ISPs should simply be a pipe. Nothing more, nothing less.
      - swombat 17y ago
        Oh, I agree - I don't think that should happen. I just think that it's an uneasy "let's keep our eyes closed" arrangement to begin with. If the Telcos want to open their eyes instead, they might find they have a lot more to lose than to gain. Ditching Net Neutrality will cost them a whole lot more than it will gain them, as soon as content providers realise that actually, the providers should be paying them, not the other way around. I mean, if Telefonica wants to block access to youtube, why should Google stop them? Fine. Block it. And lose 80% of your customers overnight. If Google wanted to play this game, they should be asking Telefonica to pay them money. It's not a long step from this to having bloggers, newspapers, etc, organise in collectives that can charge telcos for "access to every newspaper on the web" or "every blog on the web".
        thefahim 17y ago
        ISPs (Comcast, ugh!) have monopolies in a ton of areas in the states. Block YouTube and it'll lose 80% of it's traffic overnight, not the other way around.
        axod 17y ago
        The article was about Europe AFAIK, which is certainly far more diverse in ISP offerings. In the UK you have a choice from a few hundred ISPs, so there is no real monopoly here.
dsplittgerber 17y ago
Years ago, I saw lots of "unlimited" cell phone plan commercials in London, every single one being subject to "fair use". How come it's that common in the UK? I think there are close to none "fair use" plans in e.g. Germany. Why the local differences?
- axod 17y ago
  I think "unlimited" is just a word that gets people to buy something. It's not economical to actually offer something with unlimited anything. Even if you buy a dedicated server with "unlimited" transfer, it'll be limited by the connection speed - eg 10mbps uplink "unlimited bandwidth" works out at less than 5TB total transfer per month. Same with the magic word "free". You'll often see that used such as "free mobile phone (small print: when you sign up to a contract at £19/month)" etc. Are there true unlimited plans in Germany that aren't subject to any limits then?
  - dsplittgerber 17y ago
    For internet at home, I think so. Just checked the legalese for the #1 provider (Deutsche Telekom) here, found no wording relating to "fair use". Internet at home is extremely competitive here, though. Lots of different delivery methods (tv cable, telephone cable etc), unlimited internet + landline calls for ~30 EUR/month or less. For mobile internet, it's a whole different story, obviously. There are all kinds of caps. I think 'unlimited' should mean unlimited. But I agree, introducing caps sadly makes business sense for some companies.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - seles 17y ago
    This is what at&t/apple does with their 'unlimited' iphone subscription. It might be unlimited but they try their best to stop you from using any actual bandwidth (tethering etc.) Google has had to take a lot shit lately from non free speech and non free market ideologies.
- sadiq 17y ago

some1else 17y ago

This just shows that telco's won't solve a thing by capping bit-torrent traffic. What they need to do is stop charging too little for the bandwidth and improve their infrastructure to support the market they expanded to.

Retric 17y ago
Bandwidth is not a major cost for most large scale ISP's. The real problem is there is only so many way's for ISP's to cut costs and pissing off the customers that most use the service is unlikely to cause them to quit because they don't have any choice.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  This may drive up the prices to a point an ISP can profit from moving bits from A to B.
  - Retric 17y ago
    ISP's already profit from moving bit's from A to B. They want to make as much profit as possible. ISP's have the same basic problem as the airlines. They are selling a commodity service that requires high capital costs and have little to differentiate themselves with. The only way to increase profits is to drive down costs because they can't offer much outside of "fat pipes".
    - rbanffy 17y ago
      Most ISPs earn much more from value-added products like anti-viruses and other security programs.

PostOnce 17y ago

This is completely irrelevant but I quite enjoy the phrase "bizarre moon logic". Kudos for coining it.

lsb 17y ago

The ISP's logic of people paying for getting bits as well as people paying for receiving bits gets you (in America) text messages that are $0.20 to send, and $0.20 to receive.