[Jeysie]

Playing_games:

I think you kinda missed this part:

Originally Posted by Stoofa

If sites like Google and Yahoo didn't exist, a lot of people wouldn't pay their telephone companies to access the internet.

If content providers didn't exist, nobody would have a reason to use the Internet. Therefore, complaining that content providers "use the pipes for free" is like a store complaining they have to spend money to provide shelf space for the merchandise they sell.

(Of course, speaking as someone who is a "content provider" of sorts, I seem to have missed the part where you can get decent webspace and pipelines that are free to use, but, whatever.)

Peace & Luv, Liz

[playing_games]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

If content providers didn't exist, nobody would have a reason to use the Internet. Therefore, complaining that content providers "use the pipes for free" is like a store complaining they have to spend money to provide shelf space for the merchandise they sell.

Peace & Luv, Liz

Not really, that analogy doesn't work. In retail, the stores get to take a share of the final price of the goods provided to the consumer even though they do not participate at all in creating the goods themselves. In the Internet terms, backbone providers do not.

Tele/data communications industry in the States has been in shambles for the last decade or so. Many big backbone providers over-inveted in deploying their network and ran into financial problems. Everyone knows the trouble companies like Global Crossing. WorldCom, and Qwest have been in. Even the industry stalwart, AT&T, was sold to SBC at a price that is just a fraction of what it was worth just several years ago.

The infrastructure of the Internet commerce has been profitable for many companies that didn't have to invest a lot of money to deploy the physical network. It really doesn't surprise me that the companies that provided the physical network are seeking to take a larger share of the pie.

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by playing_games

Not really, that analogy doesn't work. In retail, the stores get to take a share of the final price of the goods provided to the consumer even though they do not participate at all in creating the goods themselves. In the Internet terms, backbone providers do not.

All right, I'm venturing into ground I'm not sure of, but...

For one, if you want a website, you need server space, obviously. Either you lease it yourself, you host it yourself, or you use a free service where advertisers pay to have their ads shown. Either way, *somebody's* paying for the server space. That much I know.

Now the fuzzy guessing part. In order to provide server space, you need to have a connection to the Internet, do you not? Which, AFAIK, means either paying for internet access (i.e. paying an ISP, i.e. AFAIK, paying a Telco either directly or indirectly) or leasing a pipeline (again, AFAIK, paying the Telco either directly or indirectly).

So if this scheme was passed, it seems to me that anyone providing content would essentially have to pay *twice*: once to get their info onto the Internet (via leasing either server space or a connection), which they're already paying (thus making the "using our pipes for free" bit utter BS) and *again* to actually send out the info.

Is that a viable logic deduction, or did I cross up my facts somewhere?

Let's try another analogy... this feels like a goods producer having to pay for shelf space in a store *and* pay *again* when that good is actually sold. Does it really work that way?

In any case, IMHO the reason that the Telcos are in trouble is that instead of riding the genie they're trying desperately to stuff him back into the bottle. If they succeed in doing so it may keep the genie from causing them problems in the short term, but in the long term they're going to get zapped by those folks smart enough to find a way to make the genie work for them.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Jolaes]

Hey, Jeysie is jubilating as a comp geek; 256th post.
I salute your typing skill, Liz and wish a happy anniversary.
Hope you'll still be around at the 1024th, too

[Jeysie]

Well, ah, thankee, Jolaes... by pure happenstance it's also my "6th month anniversary", I noticed. 6 months of me, my, aren't you lucky folk. ;P

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Stoofa]

Originally Posted by playing_games

Not really, that analogy doesn't work.

Try this one then: If Disney World didn't have lots of fun rides and whatnot, no one would pay the entrance fee to get in.

OR

If Disney World did have lots of fun rides, but you had to pay to get in AND pay for each ride, very few people would visit Disney World.

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by Jolaes

Jacob,

special interest point in Moonfleet: part of the story takes place in the Netherlands... In fact, all the crucial turning points...

In that case, I'm definately going to read it Thanks!

Originally Posted by Jazhara7

am of the opinion that there is nothing you can't solve by use of the Mail-Order Assassin. Or by the use of fire (you can even use it to clean!). I think I might be able to get a good deal from him, because I did so much to promote his services. Seriously, he owes me. And I can still bait him with some salve for the rash from the 'Tainted' Ink (see Ragnar's blog for details).


-

Reminds me of The Name of the Rose I agree though, no problem can not be solved by use of assasins. I'd be willing to sell my car to pitch in, that should pay for atleast a couple of hits. Also, perhaps you can tell him to use fire for this mission, but make sure he does this by sabotaging eletrical wiring and/or gas pipes. That way it will all just be "accidents", yes, mmmmh, accidents...

*laughs in a diabolical manner for three whole minutes

Originally Posted by RLacey

Now, here's a question. If Jaz is, according to her signature, the "Inventor of the Mail order-Assassin" [emphasis mine], then can't she just produce another one for this spacific task? Or simply point out that he wouldn't even exist without her?

OK, that was two questions. And two uninteresting ones at that. But you get my point. Possibly.

Yes, but you see, there can only be one Mail Order Assasin™ at any given time, should he fail in his mission and get himself killed however, I'm sure Jaz would have no difficulty in conjuring another.

Originally Posted by Jeysie

Anyhoo. Maybe I just have too much faith in the intelligence of Americans, but if this sort of thing passes, I see one or more of several things happening: [...]

Intelligence is sometimes no match for lobbying/bribing by powerful economic forces. They already "corrupted" the FCC and laid the first foundations to pave the way for their diabolical scheme, and while that may sound unintentionally "funny", I'm afraid it isn't - read the article.

Originally Posted by Karmillo

All british people seem to be rich though, hell even our beggars have mobile phones

I'm sure you're just mistaking your beggars for your "Artful Dodgers"

Originally Posted by stuboy

Their evil plan is seriously flawed. Unless they are operating a cartel (which is illegal), one of the companies will continue to sell "proper" net acccess, and will become vastly more popular than their restricted competitors. Market forces.

You don't seem to fully understand the evilness of their scheme; as playing_games pointed out, these companies own, maintain and finance the backbone of the internet in the US, and in turn get paid by ISPs for use of the backbones. It's not up to the ISPs to assign priority to internet traffic. And if you insist on calling them a cartel (like OPEC is), please do, you wouldn't be far off from the truth.

Originally Posted by Jeysie

So if this scheme was passed, it seems to me that anyone providing content would essentially have to pay *twice*: once to get their info onto the Internet (via leasing either server space or a connection), which they're already paying (thus making the "using our pipes for free" bit utter BS) and *again* to actually send out the info.

Is that a viable logic deduction, or did I cross up my facts somewhere?

You wouldn't be paying twice, unless you want your content to be labeled as high-priority traffic. The ISPs have no say in this matter, neither does the consumer. Deep packet inspection, from what I can gather, runs at the level of the backbone (the Telcos), so it'll become theirs to label and assign priorities over internet traffic. Corporations that pay big money to advertise, would have the traffic their ads utilize prioritized over "independent" websites (like AG.com) or p2p communication. Atleast that's what I can gather from the article.

Originally Posted by Stoofa

Try this one then: If Disney World didn't have lots of fun rides and whatnot, no one would pay the entrance fee to get in.

Except in this case, the rides themselves are separate entities, making their own money.

Originally Posted by Stoofa

If Disney World did have lots of fun rides, but you had to pay to get in AND pay for each ride, very few people would visit Disney World.

You're making one tiny error in logic here, Stoofs, because it would be the rides that would have to pay Disneyland in order to use their park's space

[Stoofa]

Originally Posted by jjacob

You're making one tiny error in logic here, Stoofs, because it would be the rides that would have to pay Disneyland in order to use their park's space

Ah! Right! But then how would the rides make any money to pay for the space?

Hee. Stoofs.

[jjacob]

Well, it's not a good analogy, but here goes; the rides would have to try and make money off the customers (by taking those "snapshots" mid-ride, or selling stuffed animals and stuff) in order to pay for the space. The main problem with the analogy is that customers pay an admission fee to get into Disneyland (Telcos, backbone), but that's not the case with the net, instead we pay ISPs to get on the net, and they, in turn, pay the Telcos for use of the backbone (let's just say there aren't enough separate entities in the analogy).

The problem for content providers would be that when they start paying the Telcos for the traffic they generate, they would have to find another way to pass those costs down to consumers, otherwise they would just go bankrupt within months. The whole thing is absolutely absurd, and it's a shame the FCC decided against "net-neutrality" (meaning non-discriminatory operation by the Telcos, in other words, all internet traffic is equal).

I'm afraid AT&T and Bell and such are going to win this one, and I'm afraid others will follow suit.

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by jjacob

The problem for content providers would be that when they start paying the Telcos for the traffic they generate, they would have to find another way to pass those costs down to consumers, otherwise they would just go bankrupt within months.

Yeah, that's my biggest fear. I mean, the only "big professional" site I visit regularly is Google... all the rest are hobbyist or non-profit sites. One of the great things about the net is that anyone can write a website if they have a few bucks a year to spend (or none at all if they snag free space somewhere). If suddenly it gets harder to visit those sorts of sites over commercial ones, well...

On the bright side, it'll be good for the rest of the planet, since there'll be hardly any American websites any more...

That is something I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around, though. I mean, what if you hardly ever go to a commercial site? What would happen if you tend to just surf to lots of hobby sites that wouldn't pay the extra for "priority"? What *are* the actual ramifications of this?

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Stoofa]

USA Today has a great article about this issue. Clickity Click.

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by Stoofa

USA Today has a great article about this issue. Clickity Click.

Thanks! Took the liberty of quoting it here:

n the history of great ideas, the Internet will surely rank near the top. In a relatively short time, it has made vast amounts of information searchable, sortable and readily available with a few key strokes.
Much of the Internet's appeal is that no one controls it in the way that, say, a grocery store decides which brands to stock. Within its virtual walls, a start-up such as MySpace or Craigslist can surge to prominence entirely on the power of an idea.
Now, some very old-school companies want to change all that. Using market dominance achieved through the relative scarcity of lines into people's homes, phone companies such as BellSouth, Verizon and AT&T are eyeing a system that would demand that operators of search engines, e-commerce sites and other Web applications pay them fees or be relegated to the slow lane.
Here's how AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre put it while discussing Vonage, Google and Yahoo with BusinessWeek magazine: "What they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it."
Let us count the ways why this vision by the telecommunications companies is misguided:
• It shows a complete lack of comprehension of why the Internet is so attractive. It is not, like television, a pipeline for delivering content and advertising to consumers. It's an interactive medium that empowers individuals to communicate, join virtual communities, shop, search, prioritize information and engage in an evolving list of other activities.
• Google, Yahoo and other companies are not freeloading off of anyone. Their data flow over the lines of companies such as AT&T only if AT&T's customers pay for it.
• Search engines, e-commerce sites and other major destinations have invested billions of their own dollars on servers, routers and software to make the Internet work. The only difference is that these companies do not have a potential chokehold over the Internet's on-ramps.
• Phone companies achieved dominant positions through their origins as part of the Ma Bell monopoly. It would have been unthinkable for them to demand royalties from catalogue sales over toll-free numbers when they were treated as "common carriers." But now they feel empowered to shake down companies such as Amazon or Travelocity.
Competition might keep the phone companies from putting the squeeze on website operators. That would be the best outcome. But consumers in many parts of the country have little choice in broadband, so Congress is appropriately exploring legislation that would lay out a principle of "Net neutrality" that would require all websites to receive equal access.
Telecommunications companies say they are not altering the Internet, merely offering a new ultra-high-speed tier of service on top of it. Don't be fooled. Once they begin choosing search engines, auction sites and other applications for their premium service, they alter the entire competitive landscape.
In this new world, companies would have to spend more time kowtowing to the likes of AT&T and less time innovating. That doesn't sound like such a great idea.

It's mostly editiorial and not very informative/in depth, but still a good piece, though it's wrong about Congress supporting a bill of net neutrality, that's an initiave of a brave few, an very unlikely to stand up against the lobbying giants and the already altered FCC regulations. Still, there is some hope. *sigh*

[jjacob]

Well, as predicted, a top executive of Deutsche Telecom has joined the AT&T/Bell/etc. lobby to "end Google's free lunch";
http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/...eelunch_1.html

The chief executive of Deutsche Telekom became the latest head of a major telco to call for Web companies, such as Google and Yahoo, to help pay for the billions of dollars required to build and maintain high-speed Internet infrastructure.

"Customers should not be the only ones to pay for this new world," CEO Kai-Uwe Ricke said in an interview published Thursday in the German weekly business magazine WirtschaftsWoche. "Web companies that use this infrastructure for their business should also make a contribution."
He warned that "if customers aren't willing to pay and Google & Co. aren't willing to pay, there won't be any high-speed data highways."
The German CEO's remarks echo those made earlier this month by John Thorne, senior vice president and deputy general counsel at Verizon Communications.

Speaking at a conference marking the 10th anniversary of the U.S. Telecommunications Act of 1996, Thorne said telcos are spending "a fortune" to build and maintain high-speed data highways that Google and other Web companies intend "to ride on with nothing but cheap servers." The executive demanded an end to what he called a "free lunch."
To generate revenue for telcos, Ricke envisions a cost model based on charging for quality of service instead of imposing a general toll for infrastructure usage.

"We're still in a very early stage of debating how to finance new high-speed data networks moving ahead," Deutsche Telekom spokesman Mark Nierwetberg said Friday. "Nothing is going to be decided overnight but we need to come up with a way to share the costs of these huge investments."

One approach is to guarantee basic Internet access at today's DSL (Digital Subscriber Line) speeds but to charge a "quality-of-service fee" for higher speed services required for huge downloads, such as movies and HDTV (high definition television) streams, according to Nierwetberg.
Ricke's remarks also play into the debate now raging in Europe about whether or not new high-speed, fiber-optic networks should be free of regulation.

Commenting on Deutsche Telekom's specific demands to keep its planned new network unregulated, European Union Information Society Commissioner Viviane Reding said Monday that the future of the telecommunications market is not about "establishing new monopolies on the basis of old ones."

Deutsche Telekom is planning to build a €3 billion ($3.6 billion) fiber optic network that would link Germany's 10 biggest cities in time for the start of World cup matches in July.

To bridge the remaining meters from the fiber optic network to homes and businesses, the German operator plans to deploy VSDL (Very High Speed Digital Subscriber Line) technology over copper wires, offering download rates of up to 50Mbps -- around five to ten times higher than most broadband connections.

A further 40 cities are slated to be connected by 2007.
"We need clear legal commitments regarding the long-term regulatory situation if we are to roll out this project," Ricke said earlier this month.
Vinton Cerf, co-author of TCP/IP and a Google vice president, has warned in recent interviews that the Internet's freedom could be compromised and consumer choice and innovation limited if protections aren't put in place to keep the Internet free and neutral.

And who will pay the content providers' bills in the end? Right, the consumers

[Jazhara7]

Originally Posted by jjacob

Well, as predicted, a top executive of Deutsche Telecom has joined the AT&T/Bell/etc. lobby to "end Google's free lunch";
http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/02/24/75855_HNgooglefreelunch_1.html


And who will pay the content providers' bills in the end? Right, the consumers

I'm losing sight right now. Who are the (more or less) good guys: Deutsche Telekom or Google and Co.?


I need to know. I don't want to go Postal on the (more or less) good guys.




-

[RLacey]

Ah, hell, go Postal on everyone! But I think that, for once, Google and co. are the good guys.

[playing_games]

There are no good guys and bad guys in this. Everyone's out for his/her own interest and doesn't really care what happens to others. Consumers want to pay as little as possible (would love it if everything's free) and get as mush service as possible and both content providers (Google and the Co) and the networking companies (AT&T, DT etc) only want to maximize their profit.

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by RLacey

Ah, hell, go Postal on everyone! But I think that, for once, Google and co. are the good guys.

Or atleast the lesser of two evils, hell, I use Google every other minute when I'm surfing the net, then again, I use net infrastructure every second I'm online (which is more or less when I'm awake), so... to use Karmillo's popular terminology..


*pop*

Still, I don't think Google's at fault here, the phone giants are. If they truly need such an immediate return on investment on their infrastructure, they should've anticipated that when they were laying that infrastructure. Now they're just being major assholes for immediate short term gain (stock worth, anyone?), instead of waiting for it to pay off in the long term. Typical how European business is gradually adopting American style business practices.

[playing_games]

Originally Posted by jjacob

Still, I don't think Google's at fault here, the phone giants are. If they truly need such an immediate return on investment on their infrastructure, they should've anticipated that when they were laying that infrastructure. Now they're just being major assholes for immediate short term gain (stock worth, anyone?), instead of waiting for it to pay off in the long term. Typical how European business is gradually adopting American style business practices.

This is only partially true. The massive investment that the telcos poured into developing the network that's carrying the content provided by companies like Google is not providing enough returns to the telcos even though many including consumers and the content providers like Google have been enjoying the benefits of it. Obviously, the people at companies like Google made better business decisions than the people at the telcos and their companies have been enjoying a nice profit run. The problem is that unless telcos somehow are better compensated for their investment, they will lose interest in making further investments in enhancing/expanding the network. This might not create any problems in the short run but in the long run, for the sake of having a framework of physical data communications network that's capable of delivering contents we all desire, there needs to be a way to better compensate those who invest in deploying physical network.

I'm a manager at a telco that have been brought up in this thread, so I do tend to look at this from the perspective of telcos.

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by playing_games

This is only partially true. The massive investment that the telcos poured into developing the network that's carrying the content provided by companies like Google is not providing enough returns to the telcos even though many including consumers and the content providers like Google have been enjoying the benefits of it. Obviously, the people at companies like Google made better business decisions than the people at the telcos and their companies have been enjoying a nice profit run. The problem is that unless telcos somehow are better compensated for their investment, they will lose interest in making further investments in enhancing/expanding the network. This might not create any problems in the short run but in the long run, for the sake of having a framework of physical data communications network that's capable of delivering contents we all desire, there needs to be a way to better compensate those who invest in deploying physical network.

I'm a manager at a telco that have been brought up in this thread, so I do tend to look at this from the perspective of telcos.

Well, as you say, the content providers have obviously made better business decisions than the telcos, and that's the telcos' fault and their's alone. Don't get me wrong, they did the right thing in investing in the infrastructure, but they should've anticipated not getting much profit from it in the short term. That's why I'm a big supporter of cities installing their own infrastructure from the taxpayer's dollars/euros/whatever - Amsterdam's already installing a high-speed fibre-topic network that'll offer high speed broadband connections to at least 400.000 homes in the first year. Since it's the taxpayer's money, and the city is the telco in that case, they don't need a return on investment anytime soon.

The reason I'm so against content providers paying fees to telcos is that I'm reasonably sure the eventual cost will be for the consumers. If Google and Yahoo will need to pay astronomical fees to telcos for the bandwidth usage, they'll eventually pass those fees down to consumers - imagine having to pay a monthly fee to use Google's search engine, on top of your monthly bill from your internet service provider, isn't that a little over the top? Google may seem like a huuuuuge company, but they're really not anywhere near the size (in employees or in profits) of the telcos, they won't be able to pay those fees out of their own pockets for very long.

[playing_games]

You'd be surprised if you learned how valuable and profitable Google has been. In pure market cap. terms, Google is about 25 % bigger than AT&T ($115 billion vs $92 billion), one of the biggest telcos in the world now. Google only employs 5,600 employees while AT&T employs more than 150,000 employees. Just like all of the telcos, AT&T has been going through massive downsizing for years now and it is scheduled to lay off more than 10,000 employees again this year. See, I'm out for myself too. I want to keep my job and that means I need to have my company perform better.

Investing public money in physical Internet infrastructure will never happen in the US so that option is effectively closed here.

By the way, I'm not saying that the current scheme that they have cooked up is justifiable. I, as a frequent user of the Net, also think it is abad idea. I'm just trying to say that presenting telcos as an evil entity that's out to do only harm isn't accurate either.