Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Its seems Clear is not the only telco looking to double charge.

Reply
Thread Tools

Its seems Clear is not the only telco looking to double charge.

 
 
Nathan Mercer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2005
shannon wrote:
> Nathan Mercer wrote:
>
>> news.xtra.co.nz wrote:
>>
>>>>> http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/10/31...tid=215&tid=17
>>>>>
>>>>> In the US it looks like the broadband "owners" want to charge
>>>>> google etc for their customers coming to them....aka Trademe V Clear.
>>>>>
>>>>> hmmm I was kinda hoping that over time the cost of entry and
>>>>> freedom of broadband would improve, it seems many telcos are
>>>>> looking to make that the opposite.
>>>>>
>>>>> Makes it sound more and more like AOL and Compushare(?)...ie gettos
>>>>> within which ISP users are forced to live with the Telco/ISPs only
>>>>> allowing their content or content they have made yet another % on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe the commerce commision rather than worrying about opening up
>>>>> the broadband market should really be trying to make sure it is not
>>>>> closed down.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think Google will happily pay for the traffic
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> He he obviously you have not run a business before.

>>
>>
>> Run my own and been involved in a handful as well, but thats besides
>> the point....
>>
>> I'm not sure why you think Google won't pay for the traffic
>>
>> The carriers have something they want - users, more importantly mouse
>> clicks for AdWords
>>
>> Whether they pay outright for the traffic, or probably more likely -
>> start kicking back a share of advertising revenues to the carriers to
>> make it a win-win situation.
>>
>> Can you think of a reason why this isn't likely to happen?

>
>
> What makes you think that Google doesn't pay for their internet
> connection, just like Microsoft ?
> What makes you think that the Telcos deserve a percentage of Google or
> Microsofts revenue ?


Because it will be a win win situation between the operator/carrier and
Google. They will have to love each other.

In the new world of webservices/Software as a Service the carrier is the
one that has huge leverage since they are the sole broadband provider -
"the last mile" into the home - they are the gateway between the likes
of Google and the end user

> Data carrier transport is a commodity, like transportation containers.
> You pay for capacity, not the transaction value.


Companies will definitely start to leverage their ownership of the last
mile by blocking competitorís IP traffic. One such situation has already
happened

http://www.crn.com/sections/breaking...leId=159905955

Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
Vonage says it's been blocked; Company's terms of service "prohibits"
use of certain high-bandwidth applications.

Someday, customers of wireless broadband provider Clearwire Corp. may be
able to use Voice over IP services. But right now, Craig McCaw's newest
company is giving its customers the silent treatment by apparently
blocking outside VoIP providers from its network.

In what the company claims is an effort to preserve the performance of
its pre-standard WiMAX network, Clearwire says it reserves the right to
prohibit the use of a wide range of bandwidth-hungry applications, a
list that apparently includes VoIP as well as the uploading or
downloading of streaming video or audio, and high-traffic Web site
hosting. According to the company's terms of service, Clearwire reserves
the right to restrict access or terminate service to customers who don't
comply with its rules.

While a company executive claimed the restrictions were necessary to
ensure network performance reliability, Clearwire could not explain how
that issue would be resolved when it offers its own VoIP services in the
near future. Earlier this month, Clearwire signed an agreement with Bell
Canada under which Bell Canada will provide VoIP systems and services
for Clearwire, at a date and price yet to be announced.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Nathan Mercer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2005
news.xtra.co.nz wrote:
> "Nathan Mercer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>news.xtra.co.nz wrote:
>>
>>>>>http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/10/31...tid=215&tid=17
>>>>>
>>>>>In the US it looks like the broadband "owners" want to charge google etc
>>>>>for their customers coming to them....aka Trademe V Clear.
>>>>>
>>>>>hmmm I was kinda hoping that over time the cost of entry and freedom of
>>>>>broadband would improve, it seems many telcos are looking to make that
>>>>>the opposite.
>>>>>
>>>>>Makes it sound more and more like AOL and Compushare(?)...ie gettos
>>>>>within which ISP users are forced to live with the Telco/ISPs only
>>>>>allowing their content or content they have made yet another % on.
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe the commerce commision rather than worrying about opening up the
>>>>>broadband market should really be trying to make sure it is not closed
>>>>>down.
>>>>
>>>>I think Google will happily pay for the traffic
>>>
>>>
>>>He he obviously you have not run a business before.

>>
>>Run my own and been involved in a handful as well, but thats besides the
>>point....
>>
>>I'm not sure why you think Google won't pay for the traffic
>>
>>The carriers have something they want - users, more importantly mouse
>>clicks for AdWords
>>
>>Whether they pay outright for the traffic, or probably more likely - start
>>kicking back a share of advertising revenues to the carriers to make it a
>>win-win situation.
>>
>>Can you think of a reason why this isn't likely to happen?

>
>
> You are misinterpreting me.
>
> You said...
>
>
>>>>I think Google will happily pay for the traffic

>
>
> But, I say that just because they are a business, it does not mean they will
> be happy to pay for something that was previously free. I don't think they
> will be happy at all.


OK, maybe happily is not the right word

But they will use the relationship and leverage it to drive even more
eyeballs onto their advertising platform - AdSense/AdWords targets, to
make even more money

More revenue, more profit, higher share price = "they" will probably be
happy
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Nigel Roberts
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2005
Nathan Mercer wrote:

>> Google's already paying for access to the internet/SBC's customers and
>> their ISP bill must be huge. The reason this isn't likely to happen is
>> that the minute SBC blocks access to Google because Google refuses to be
>> extorted, most of their customers (currently, their sole source of
>> revenue) will leave because they are not providing the service that their
>> customers want.

>
> You're presuming Google will not pay. Which may turn out to be a faulty
> assumption especially if Google gets something very useful in return
> (AdWords/AdSense eyeballs)


They already get these AdWords/AdSense eyeballs without paying for them. Why
would they suddenly start paying for them? SBC has much more to lose from
blocking Google than Google does (SBC is a very small part of Google's
market).

>> Google will never agree to this, because it would be the beginning of the
>> end for the internet.

>
> I'm not saying who is right or what is wrong, just what I think is/will
> happen.
>
> I think if you're complaining about what has happened already, you
> haven't seen anything yet. Google already pays operators like Earthlink
> ~$70million per annum, so its already happening
> http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/earthlink.html
>
> According to Google's March SEC filings (March) and prospectus from its
> recent offering, AOL generated about 12% of Google's $3.2 billion total
> revenue in 2004, or some $382 million, and accounted for 11% of H1-05
> revenues, or some $290.5M.


You're comparing apples with oranges. The earthlink deal was about Google
getting its hooks into to Earthlink's portal, which is simply the default
homepage that Earthlink's customers get set up with and so generates lots
of hits for Google. It wasn't about Earthlink ransoming google's access to
its customers.

That AOL figure isn't AOL itself, it's AOL's customers using Google. AOL
don't stop it's customers from going to google directly, which is what this
is about. So far the only organisation that actively blocks google that I
know of is the the chinese government. Any for-profit broadband provider
that tries it on is doomed. They need to realize that they need the rest of
the internet as much as they need their customers, otherwise they will lose
their customers.

>> What I can't believe is that the US is allowing all the baby bells that
>> they worked so hard to split up (10 years of litigation, millions of
>> dollars) to coalesce again.

>
> At SBC, It's All About "Scale and Scope"
> CEO Edward Whitacre talks:
>
> "It's about owning the assets that connect customers"
> "anybody to expect to use these pipes free is nuts!"
>
> Excerpts from Ed Whitacre of SBC:
>
> Given that we've entered a new era in telecom where the Internet rules,
> how would you describe your strategy now?
>
> It's still about scale and scope. It's about owning the assets that
> connect customers. The assets that probably can't be duplicated except
> maybe by the cable companies. We have that, Verizon has that, BellSouth
> (BLS ) has some of that. The cable companies have it. It's the numbers
> of customers you can get to. So it's scale and scope.
>
> How concerned are you about Internet upstarts like Google (GOOG ), MSN,
> Vonage, and others?
>
> How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband
> pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now 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.
> So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use
> these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be
> allowed to use my pipes?
>
> The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable
> companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! (YHOO ) or
> Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes free is nuts!


US Broadband providers that start filtering content are opening themselves
up to a world of pain because they lose their common carrier status, and
thus become responsible for every bit of dodgy content that traverses their
network.

 
Reply With Quote
 
steve
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2005
thingy wrote:

> http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/10/31...tid=215&tid=17
>
> In the US it looks like the broadband "owners" want to charge google etc
> for their customers coming to them....aka Trademe V Clear.
>
> hmmm I was kinda hoping that over time the cost of entry and freedom of
> broadband would improve, it seems many telcos are looking to make that
> the opposite.
>
> Makes it sound more and more like AOL and Compushare(?)...ie gettos
> within which ISP users are forced to live with the Telco/ISPs only
> allowing their content or content they have made yet another % on.
>
> Maybe the commerce commision rather than worrying about opening up the
> broadband market should really be trying to make sure it is not closed
> down.
>
> regards
>
> Thing


These "free traders" are trying to set up monopolies for enhanced profit.

The usual hypocrisy from business. Say one thing - to achieve the opposite.


 
Reply With Quote
 
thingy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2005
Shane wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 09:49:10 +1300, thingy wrote:
>
>
>>http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/10/31...tid=215&tid=17
>>
>>In the US it looks like the broadband "owners" want to charge google etc
>>for their customers coming to them....aka Trademe V Clear.
>>
>>hmmm I was kinda hoping that over time the cost of entry and freedom of
>>broadband would improve, it seems many telcos are looking to make that
>>the opposite.
>>
>>Makes it sound more and more like AOL and Compushare(?)...ie gettos
>>within which ISP users are forced to live with the Telco/ISPs only
>>allowing their content or content they have made yet another % on.
>>
>>Maybe the commerce commision rather than worrying about opening up the
>>broadband market should really be trying to make sure it is not closed down.
>>
>>regards
>>
>>Thing

>
>
> Oddly enough I half agreed with the broadband company in question, its a
> bit like they own a television station, and an advertiser is using their
> equipment to advertise to the stations viewers without paying for the
> right
> If the entire cost is put on consumers at one end, it would become very
> unfair.


I dont agree, it is at present and the cost is not unreasonable.

> In fact, my opinion is, its probably a better model to give consumers free
> access, with content providers expected to pay for access to those
> customers (Clears argument)


Clear is charging both ways, it has money off us and because there are
valuable NZ content sites is charging them also, yet a foreign site does
not get charged. Clear is just being greedy and using its position as a
gateway to extort (and that is what it is, extortion imho).

This effectively shuts down the freedom of the Internet and your right
to browse what and where you want.

I am totally gobsmacked that you cannot see the ramifications of this
policy/idea........

> Its a tricky situation indeed made murky by the fact not every website on
> the net is commercial


Are you serious or are you trolling?

Why do you think you should have free broadband?

I am just blown away by this one.....

What you are advocating is the total control of your Internet
connection.....

In saying that if you want such a service ie "free" but only allowed to
see the sites provided by Clear and having all adverts etc hijacked to
show NZ content etc etc and nothing else as a personal choice that suits
your browsing habits, that is OK by me.....

If that was all that was on offer to me I would not have it.

regards

Thing






 
Reply With Quote
 
thingy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2005
Nigel Roberts wrote:

8><-----

So far the only organisation that actively blocks google that I
> know of is the the chinese government.


I believe they achieved that with Cisco kit....so much for freedom of
speech from the good ol' USA.

Any for-profit broadband provider
> that tries it on is doomed. They need to realize that they need the rest of
> the internet as much as they need their customers, otherwise they will lose
> their customers.
>


8><-----

They would lose me.....

However, this would not stop them trying it if they thought they could
get away with it.

Thinking back on AOL and Compuserve such models of "owned" content/space
and you as the customer pays extra to leave it, died (and good ridance)
now it seems they may come back....

I really didnt think they could kill the Internet, it seems they might
yet but from a direction I didnt expect the ISPs.

I really dont understand that they dont understand that it is the
freedom and the ability to go anywhere, search for anything and read
anything that brings many people on line....if it becomes another TV1 or
something similar with approved canned content and adverts do they
really think people will want it?

ik.........

regards

Thing
 
Reply With Quote
 
thingy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2005
shannon wrote:
> Nathan Mercer wrote:
>
>> news.xtra.co.nz wrote:
>>
>>>>> http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/10/31...tid=215&tid=17
>>>>>
>>>>> In the US it looks like the broadband "owners" want to charge
>>>>> google etc for their customers coming to them....aka Trademe V Clear.
>>>>>
>>>>> hmmm I was kinda hoping that over time the cost of entry and
>>>>> freedom of broadband would improve, it seems many telcos are
>>>>> looking to make that the opposite.
>>>>>
>>>>> Makes it sound more and more like AOL and Compushare(?)...ie gettos
>>>>> within which ISP users are forced to live with the Telco/ISPs only
>>>>> allowing their content or content they have made yet another % on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe the commerce commision rather than worrying about opening up
>>>>> the broadband market should really be trying to make sure it is not
>>>>> closed down.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think Google will happily pay for the traffic
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> He he obviously you have not run a business before.

>>
>>
>> Run my own and been involved in a handful as well, but thats besides
>> the point....
>>
>> I'm not sure why you think Google won't pay for the traffic
>>
>> The carriers have something they want - users, more importantly mouse
>> clicks for AdWords
>>
>> Whether they pay outright for the traffic, or probably more likely -
>> start kicking back a share of advertising revenues to the carriers to
>> make it a win-win situation.
>>
>> Can you think of a reason why this isn't likely to happen?

>
>
> What makes you think that Google doesn't pay for their internet
> connection, just like Microsoft ?
> What makes you think that the Telcos deserve a percentage of Google or
> Microsofts revenue ?
> Data carrier transport is a commodity, like transportation containers.
> You pay for capacity, not the transaction value.
>
>


This is what the transportation carriers want to change though...

This is the huge danger to the Internet.......

It might end up going back to a "TV1", people leave and Internet2 as the
academic link takes over for research. Of course in time the original
Internet would collapse and the Internet2 would grow like Internet1
(only lots more bandwidth) I assume the public would try and get onto it
and at some point the cycle woudl repeat itself.

regards

Thing








 
Reply With Quote
 
thingy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2005
Nathan Mercer wrote:
> shannon wrote:


8><------------

>> What makes you think that Google doesn't pay for their internet
>> connection, just like Microsoft ?
>> What makes you think that the Telcos deserve a percentage of Google or
>> Microsofts revenue ?

>
>
> Because it will be a win win situation between the operator/carrier and
> Google. They will have to love each other.
>
> In the new world of webservices/Software as a Service the carrier is the
> one that has huge leverage since they are the sole broadband provider -
> "the last mile" into the home - they are the gateway between the likes
> of Google and the end user


Ah the new MS business model....

;]

Well done Nathan for getting your Bosses new business model in there
subtley...Software Assurance flopped, next watch Software as a service
flop....

;]

Hopefully not the new world of the Internet....just another service over it.

>> Data carrier transport is a commodity, like transportation containers.
>> You pay for capacity, not the transaction value.


The problem with this is every where you look companies are trying to
leverage their assests to maximise profits.
While you and I might think of data as just like water, ie you pay per
litre (or whatever) no matter what the end use, the carriers think
differently, or are starting to.

> Companies will definitely start to leverage their ownership of the last
> mile by blocking competitorís IP traffic. One such situation has already
> happened


I sometimes wonder if regulation would be a good thing........of course
consumers usually get screwed over....

> http://www.crn.com/sections/breaking...leId=159905955
>
>
> Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
> Vonage says it's been blocked; Company's terms of service "prohibits"
> use of certain high-bandwidth applications.
>
> Someday, customers of wireless broadband provider Clearwire Corp. may be
> able to use Voice over IP services. But right now, Craig McCaw's newest
> company is giving its customers the silent treatment by apparently
> blocking outside VoIP providers from its network.


Hence my earlier comment that maybe not just Telecom's network should be
opened up, maybe Clear's should be as well. If Telecom's network is
opened up but not Clear's, Clear can cherry pick....

Sadly though I hate the idea of Government regulation, I wonder if it
might not be advantageous......

regards

Thing




 
Reply With Quote
 
Matthew Poole
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2005
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 18:36:37 +1300, someone purporting to be thingy didst
scrawl:

> Nigel Roberts wrote:
>
> 8><-----
>
> So far the only organisation that actively blocks google that I
>> know of is the the chinese government.

>
> I believe they achieved that with Cisco kit....so much for freedom of
> speech from the good ol' USA.
>

*SNIP*
Applications to which the tool is put do not make the tool or its
manufacturers evil.
Are cars and their manufacturers evil because people use them to kill
themselves and others? Are knives and their manufacturers evil because
people use them to kill themselves and others?
--
Matthew Poole
"Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Shane
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2005
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 17:16:13 +1300, thingy wrote:

> Shane wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 09:49:10 +1300, thingy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/10/31...tid=215&tid=17
>>>
>>>In the US it looks like the broadband "owners" want to charge google etc
>>>for their customers coming to them....aka Trademe V Clear.
>>>
>>>hmmm I was kinda hoping that over time the cost of entry and freedom of
>>>broadband would improve, it seems many telcos are looking to make that
>>>the opposite.
>>>
>>>Makes it sound more and more like AOL and Compushare(?)...ie gettos
>>>within which ISP users are forced to live with the Telco/ISPs only
>>>allowing their content or content they have made yet another % on.
>>>
>>>Maybe the commerce commision rather than worrying about opening up the
>>>broadband market should really be trying to make sure it is not closed down.
>>>
>>>regards
>>>
>>>Thing

>>
>>
>> Oddly enough I half agreed with the broadband company in question, its a
>> bit like they own a television station, and an advertiser is using their
>> equipment to advertise to the stations viewers without paying for the
>> right
>> If the entire cost is put on consumers at one end, it would become very
>> unfair.

>
> I dont agree, it is at present and the cost is not unreasonable.
>
>> In fact, my opinion is, its probably a better model to give consumers free
>> access, with content providers expected to pay for access to those
>> customers (Clears argument)

>
> Clear is charging both ways, it has money off us and because there are
> valuable NZ content sites is charging them also, yet a foreign site does
> not get charged. Clear is just being greedy and using its position as a
> gateway to extort (and that is what it is, extortion imho).
>
> This effectively shuts down the freedom of the Internet and your right
> to browse what and where you want.
>
> I am totally gobsmacked that you cannot see the ramifications of this
> policy/idea........
>
>> Its a tricky situation indeed made murky by the fact not every website on
>> the net is commercial

>
> Are you serious or are you trolling?
>
> Why do you think you should have free broadband?
>
> I am just blown away by this one.....
>
> What you are advocating is the total control of your Internet
> connection.....
>
> In saying that if you want such a service ie "free" but only allowed to
> see the sites provided by Clear and having all adverts etc hijacked to
> show NZ content etc etc and nothing else as a personal choice that suits
> your browsing habits, that is OK by me.....
>
> If that was all that was on offer to me I would not have it.
>
> regards
>
> Thing


As I was saying, its a tricky situation.
Trademe takes a commission from its content providers (the sellers) for
delivering a vehicle for them to sell from
However its not paying for the pipes it uses as a vehicle to deliver its
content

Google is charging advertisers for the amount of traffic they receive as
a direct result of googles ads, and is paying people to host those ads

But its the traffic thats the key. Not the webspace
Why should consumers be expected to carry the burden.
If I buy a newspaper, I pay part of the costs, and the advertisers pay the
rest, and they pay based on the amount of readers

Granted the intarweb presents new issues (freedom), but it also presents
challenges on who is expected to pay for it
(and no I dont have a solution, but I dont think the current model is the
be all and the end all)

--
Hardware, n.: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked

The best way to get the right answer on usenet is to post the wrong one.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Its a bird, its a plane, its.. um, an Attribute based System? thunk Ruby 0 04-01-2010 10:25 PM
Its a bird, its a plane, no ummm, its a Ruide thunk Ruby 1 03-30-2010 11:10 AM
New Automatic switching device jpoins VOIP and PSTN (plain ole telco line) inot your favorite telco gear Marc H.Popek VOIP 1 02-21-2005 12:17 AM
cannot convert parameter from 'double (double)' to 'double (__cdecl *)(double)' error Sydex C++ 12 02-17-2005 06:30 PM
Typecast long double->double seems to go wrong Michael Mair C Programming 4 05-24-2004 01:46 PM



Advertisments