Google accused of YouTube ‘free ride’
ft.com
ft.com
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.
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
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.
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 ;)
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.
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.
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".
In the UK you have a choice from a few hundred ISPs, so there is no real monopoly here.
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?
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.
Google has had to take a lot shit lately from non free speech and non free market ideologies.
The problem is now that the term is completely meaningless. We found an Unlimited mobile data plan a few months back that had a 250mb a month 'fair usage' allowance. Total rubbish.
The next thing to watch for is "fibre optic broadband". The ASA don't see any problem with Virgin Media (a cable company) advertising their service as "fibre optic", despite the fact that the last leg is actually coax.
I've already had a couple of non-technical friends wonder what all the fuss is about "fibre optic", since they think they already have it.
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".
For the larger providers reaching Google through transit routes, such transit would jeopardise other peering relationships which rely on traffic being balanced.
Here are some quotes that have been changed to reflect the same logic applied the other way:
“These guys [telecoms] are using the content and they don’t pay anybody.”
"Let’s see the development of digital society in terms of the winners and the victims. And today, there is a winner who are the telecoms. There are victims that are content providers, and to a certain extent, YouTube. We cannot accept this."
*Bolded items have been changed.
Honestly, that's the same logic being used in the opposite direction. I could do this with almost every quote in that story.
Forget for a moment any notion of fairness or the traditional arrangement of customer > ISP > Internet as a whole. Take a look at the arrangement in terms of value transfer (give) and extraction (take).
The consumer-oriented ISPs give network connectivity (and maybe some other ancillary services such as an email account, anti-virus, NNTP, etc.) and take money from customers.
Google gives content (search may be more important to users, but content such as video is the focus in this case) and takes eyeballs on ads.
There is no formal connection between Google and the ISPs. There are two important informal connections: 1. Without Google (or other similar entities), the product of the consumer oriented ISP would be much less valuable to the customer. 2. Without the ISPs, Google has no way of giving its content or taking its eyeballs on ads.
At present, the ISPs perceive an asymmetry in revenue between [them and the consumer] and [Google and the consumer]. They are interested in connecting the dots from Google to the ISP in a more formal way. The only question is who has more to lose by pursuing their point.
Google can't take value from the customer without the ISPs. The ISPs' will offer less value to the customer without Google. Will an ISP without Google provide enough value to the customer to justify operating that way?
The relationship between each entity is not totally unfettered. The regulatory environment must also be considered. If the ISPs annoy the customers too much, there may be regulatory change (such as Network Neutrality, etc.). This in of itself may be good or bad for the ISPs and their complaints and threats regarding Google may be a diversion for the purpose of increasing their government supported monopoly power.
This is what strikes me as disturbing. Peering has been one of the success stories of an unregulated internet infrastructure in contrast to the hugely complicated PSTN system with all manner of complicated charging schemes. In this instance getting regulators involved would almost certainly complicate things. Bureaucrats won't understand the myriad of informal relationships that underpin the peering that runs the internet.