4 ms·

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

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 16y 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 16y 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 16y 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 16y 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.
    - gojomo 16y ago
      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 your assertion is so self-evident no one could contest it. Perhaps that's not what you meant; but the second possible reading is that you're not taking any stand at all, just repeating (5 levels deep) one contested opinion, "maybe". Either way, it's not adding info or novelty... which can draw downvotes.
      - ugh 16y ago
        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 with Google. Sometimes a question is just a question and not some veiled attempt at taking a stand :)
        nkassis 16y ago
        That's not what's happening here at all. While Google might or might not have peering agreements in Europe like they do here in the US. Google isn't free loading anywhere. It either pays someone to carry it's traffic from it's data center to the next ISP or it already has that infrastructure and trades bandwidth on its network for traffic on the other ISP network. Since google bought a large chunk of dark fiber, they have lots of capacity and are making a sweet deal, it seems, to other ISP which allows them to pay nothing almost nothing for bandwidth except for the infrastructure. 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.
- tome 16y ago
  That sounds massively anti-competitive and probably very illegal.
dean 16y ago
I would love to see it play out like this. But it would only work in a competitive landscape, and ISPs are typically local monopolies. Which is probably why the ISPs can even consider such ideas in the first place.
- kiiski 16y ago
  "...ISPs are typically local monopolies." Not here in Finland, and I don't think that applies to many other places in EU either.
lmkg 16y ago
They don't have to block access to Google. They just have to make Google a tenth of a second slower. The user won't notice that much, but Google knows how many millions of dollars it loses when its pages load slower.
- loikujhygthj 16y ago
  Or they can just remove all google's ads and replace them with their own. This is what BT (the UK's effectively monopoly phone co) did. The introduce a system (phorn) that monitored all your browsing and replaced the ads with ones by it's customers more targeted to your 'interests'. It got found out when it removed all charity's ads following an earthquake and also replaced all the ads on a sesame street type kids site with ones based on the father's browsing the night before! This was illegal but somehow the government never got round to prosecuting them - in spite of the EU telling them to.

josefresco 16y 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 16y 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 16y 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 16y 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.
  - gojomo 16y ago
    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 your assertion is so self-evident no one could contest it. Perhaps that's not what you meant; but the second possible reading is that you're not taking any stand at all, just repeating (5 levels deep) one contested opinion, "maybe". Either way, it's not adding info or novelty... which can draw downvotes.
    - ugh 16y ago
      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 with Google. Sometimes a question is just a question and not some veiled attempt at taking a stand :)
      - nkassis 16y ago
        That's not what's happening here at all. While Google might or might not have peering agreements in Europe like they do here in the US. Google isn't free loading anywhere. It either pays someone to carry it's traffic from it's data center to the next ISP or it already has that infrastructure and trades bandwidth on its network for traffic on the other ISP network. Since google bought a large chunk of dark fiber, they have lots of capacity and are making a sweet deal, it seems, to other ISP which allows them to pay nothing almost nothing for bandwidth except for the infrastructure. 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.
tome 16y ago
That sounds massively anti-competitive and probably very illegal.

dean 16y ago

I would love to see it play out like this. But it would only work in a competitive landscape, and ISPs are typically local monopolies. Which is probably why the ISPs can even consider such ideas in the first place.

kiiski 16y ago
"...ISPs are typically local monopolies." Not here in Finland, and I don't think that applies to many other places in EU either.

lmkg 16y ago

They don't have to block access to Google. They just have to make Google a tenth of a second slower. The user won't notice that much, but Google knows how many millions of dollars it loses when its pages load slower.

loikujhygthj 16y ago
Or they can just remove all google's ads and replace them with their own. This is what BT (the UK's effectively monopoly phone co) did. The introduce a system (phorn) that monitored all your browsing and replaced the ads with ones by it's customers more targeted to your 'interests'. It got found out when it removed all charity's ads following an earthquake and also replaced all the ads on a sesame street type kids site with ones based on the father's browsing the night before! This was illegal but somehow the government never got round to prosecuting them - in spite of the EU telling them to.