8 ms·

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 t

by Zak 17y ago

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?

etherael 17y ago
"We hear you have money, we'd like it."
- barredo 17y ago
  Why charge once for the service when you can charge twice?
ugh 17y ago
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!”). Now you pay only for bits, whether it’s a bit from aunt Annie or YouTube doesn’t really matter. Let’s hope it stays that way.
- pierrefar 17y ago
  Dumb unexciting business models can still be very profitable. For example: toll booths on highways.
  - axod 17y ago
    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).
    - loikujhygthj 17y ago
      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.
      - DrJokepu 17y ago
        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.
        loikujhygthj 17y ago
        True, all they rely on BT for is the bit that's completely impossible for them to get anywhere else or duplicate.
        loikujhygthj 17y ago
        True, all they rely on BT for is the bit that's completely impossible for them to get anywhere else or duplicate.
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
        electromagnetic 17y ago
        Actually they're completely free to create their own last-mile connections, most simply choose not to and try to irk out their living being the middle man.
      - axod 17y ago
        Incorrect. Many of them, do buy the ADSL access from BT. But many of the only use BT for them exchange->house portion, and install their own equipment in exchanges. (Local loop unbundling).
  - run4yourlives 17y ago
    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.
- rbritton 17y ago
  The cable and satellite TV companies are the closest comparison I can think of for an existing example of their dream model. And guess what? The experience is miserable for everyone except those raking in the money.
kierank 17y ago
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 amongst themselves all the time except Google is different since it's main business isn't being a telecom carrier. In this instance Google is well known and making money out of the web and old incumbents think it's their money. None of the old incumbent telcos want to reach the stage of Cogent (think Ryanair for internet transit) where they are just dumb pipes.
- ugh 17y ago
  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?
  - kierank 17y ago
    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.
- illumin8 17y ago
  I always find it extremely humorous when some bean-counter working at a telco looks at a peering agreement like this and says "Holy crap! We're delivering their packets for free! We should be charging them money!" The reality is that having a peering agreement with Google saves that telco a ton of money. If they didn't have the direct peer with Google, one of their other Tier 1 peers would have to provide it to them, which would surely change the terms of their peering agreement (cost them $$$). What's more, if you can get traffic from a peer for free that is destined for an endpoint on your network, you ALWAYS want to take it. After all, you'll have to deliver the traffic anyway; better to get it for free than to pay someone else to transit it for you. This is what happens when accountants try to understand how BGP works.
aphistic 17y ago
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's either: a) filtered in general or b) filtered from Google traffic?
- josefresco 17y ago
  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)
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    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...
    - ugh 17y ago
      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?)
      - Zak 17y ago
        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.

by Zak 17y ago

etherael 17y ago

"We hear you have money, we'd like it."

barredo 17y ago
Why charge once for the service when you can charge twice?

ugh 17y ago

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!”). Now you pay only for bits, whether it’s a bit from aunt Annie or YouTube doesn’t really matter. Let’s hope it stays that way.

pierrefar 17y ago
Dumb unexciting business models can still be very profitable. For example: toll booths on highways.
- axod 17y ago
  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).
  - loikujhygthj 17y ago
    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.
    - DrJokepu 17y ago
      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.
      - loikujhygthj 17y ago
        True, all they rely on BT for is the bit that's completely impossible for them to get anywhere else or duplicate.
      - loikujhygthj 17y ago
        True, all they rely on BT for is the bit that's completely impossible for them to get anywhere else or duplicate.
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
        electromagnetic 17y ago
        Actually they're completely free to create their own last-mile connections, most simply choose not to and try to irk out their living being the middle man.
    - axod 17y ago
      Incorrect. Many of them, do buy the ADSL access from BT. But many of the only use BT for them exchange->house portion, and install their own equipment in exchanges. (Local loop unbundling).
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  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.
rbritton 17y ago
The cable and satellite TV companies are the closest comparison I can think of for an existing example of their dream model. And guess what? The experience is miserable for everyone except those raking in the money.

kierank 17y ago

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 amongst themselves all the time except Google is different since it's main business isn't being a telecom carrier. In this instance Google is well known and making money out of the web and old incumbents think it's their money. None of the old incumbent telcos want to reach the stage of Cogent (think Ryanair for internet transit) where they are just dumb pipes.

ugh 17y ago
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?
- kierank 17y ago
  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.
illumin8 17y ago
I always find it extremely humorous when some bean-counter working at a telco looks at a peering agreement like this and says "Holy crap! We're delivering their packets for free! We should be charging them money!" The reality is that having a peering agreement with Google saves that telco a ton of money. If they didn't have the direct peer with Google, one of their other Tier 1 peers would have to provide it to them, which would surely change the terms of their peering agreement (cost them $$$). What's more, if you can get traffic from a peer for free that is destined for an endpoint on your network, you ALWAYS want to take it. After all, you'll have to deliver the traffic anyway; better to get it for free than to pay someone else to transit it for you. This is what happens when accountants try to understand how BGP works.

aphistic 17y ago

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's either: a) filtered in general or b) filtered from Google traffic?

josefresco 17y ago
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)
- ErrantX 17y ago
  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...
  - ugh 17y ago
    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?)
    - Zak 17y ago
      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.