

EU to Telecoms companies: Try charging Google and we’ll take action - ukdm
http://www.geek.com/articles/news/eu-to-telecoms-companies-try-charging-google-and-well-take-action-20100414/

======
Zak
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?

~~~
aphistic
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
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
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
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?)

~~~
gojomo
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
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
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.

------
richcollins
The need for gov't intervention is symptomatic of a lack of competition. This
is the issue that should be addressed.

In a competitive market, an ISP wouldn't be able to pull this off because its
customers would revolt if services that they cared about weren't there.

------
billybob
The ISP position is brain-dead. They say that services like Youtube are
unfairly saturating their pipes and not compensating them.

Nevermind that access to things like Youtube is exactly what CREATES demand
for internet service. You think people are paying for broadband so they can
send emails faster??

What they're saying to Google is "if you don't stop creating so much demand
for our connections, we're going to go out of business!" Which can be
simplified to, "we don't charge enough to cover our costs!"

Which is either false (likely) or indicates that they're incompetent. But it's
nobody else's fault, least of all the fault of services that ISP customers are
paying to access.

------
eelco
Aah, Neelie Kroes, the person who gave Bill Gates both a honorary doctorate
and a €500 million fine. (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neelie_Kroes>)

~~~
axod
FWIW, the fine was to Microsoft, not Bill Gates.

~~~
eelco
Yes, but it's close enough to the truth and a better story.

------
kez
Somewhat confused arguments here, given that Google has started an initiative
to make the web faster (through reducing file sizes and HTML cruft):

<http://code.google.com/speed/articles/>

------
snippyhollow
AFAIK, in France, dailymotion already pays providers to have the right to
exist on the networks (Orange, Free ...). Youtube doesn't... :)

------
ggordan
It seems that since last year, a lot of companies are trying to cash in on
Googles success. I'm always curious, why is it only Google that they want to
charge? Sure, Google has the biggest presence online. But I'm sure other
companies are not far behind. Facebook being one of them, especially in terms
of bandwidth usage.

~~~
Calamitous
They may be waiting to see if Google can be rolled. If that happens, the
floodgates will open.

------
ErrantX
I can actually see how it would be in Google's interest to consider investing
in areas where the network is, say, "sub par".

Legal action doesn't seem like a conducive way to encourage that idea....

------
acg
Operators remain worried that they will offer no more value than an ISP.

------
bond
So they overcharge the users and that's not enough, so now they want a piece
of Google? Right...

------
lolamo
Companies want to play being a broker all the fuckin time.

