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

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by thingy, Oct 31, 2005.

  1. thingy

    thingy Guest

    http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/10/31/1548247.shtml?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
    thingy, Oct 31, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. thingy

    Shane Guest

    On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 09:49:10 +1300, thingy wrote:

    > http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/10/31/1548247.shtml?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.
    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)


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


    --
    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.
    Shane, Oct 31, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. thingy wrote:
    > http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/10/31/1548247.shtml?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
    Nathan Mercer, Oct 31, 2005
    #3
  4. thingy

    ChrisOD Guest

    In article <-a-geek.net>, Shane wrote:
    > On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 09:49:10 +1300, thingy wrote:
    >
    >> http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/10/31/1548247.shtml?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.
    > 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)
    >
    >
    > Its a tricky situation indeed made murky by the fact not every website on
    > the net is commercial
    >
    >

    I don't see it as tricky at all,
    I think consumers should pay for their access and data providers should pay
    for their access as well. Peering should be free.

    Making it free for consumers and puting all the burden of payment on data
    providers would see the disappearance of the Not for Profit Internet.

    Clear's argument is that the data providers get a free ride to "their"
    customers. This is bollocks, I as a customer pay my ISP for them to bring
    data to me, there is considerable more burden on my ISP for me downloading
    from a US site than from trademe, but because Clear has no ability to charge
    google, MS, BBC etc, they think they can use there power in the market, with
    clandestine cooperation from telecom to force trademe etc to pay them. Sheer
    extortion.
    ChrisOD, Oct 31, 2005
    #4
  5. "Nathan Mercer" <> wrote in message
    news:43668bd6$...
    > thingy wrote:
    >> http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/10/31/1548247.shtml?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.
    news.xtra.co.nz, Oct 31, 2005
    #5
  6. news.xtra.co.nz wrote:
    >>>http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/10/31/1548247.shtml?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?
    Nathan Mercer, Oct 31, 2005
    #6
  7. Nathan Mercer wrote:

    > news.xtra.co.nz wrote:
    >>>>http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/10/31/1548247.shtml?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?


    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.

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

    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.
    Nigel Roberts, Oct 31, 2005
    #7
  8. thingy

    shannon Guest

    Nathan Mercer wrote:
    > news.xtra.co.nz wrote:
    >>>> http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/10/31/1548247.shtml?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.
    shannon, Oct 31, 2005
    #8
  9. "Nathan Mercer" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > news.xtra.co.nz wrote:
    >>>>http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/10/31/1548247.shtml?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.
    news.xtra.co.nz, Oct 31, 2005
    #9
  10. Nigel Roberts wrote:
    >>>>>http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/10/31/1548247.shtml?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?

    >
    >
    > 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)

    > 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.

    > 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!

    http://www.businessweek.com/@@n34h*IUQu7KtOwgA/magazine/content/05_45/b3958092.htm
    Nathan Mercer, Oct 31, 2005
    #10
  11. shannon wrote:
    > Nathan Mercer wrote:
    >
    >> news.xtra.co.nz wrote:
    >>
    >>>>> http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/10/31/1548247.shtml?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 competitor’s IP traffic. One such situation has already
    happened

    http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/dailyarchives.jhtml?articleId=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.
    Nathan Mercer, Nov 1, 2005
    #11
  12. news.xtra.co.nz wrote:
    > "Nathan Mercer" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>news.xtra.co.nz wrote:
    >>
    >>>>>http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/10/31/1548247.shtml?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
    Nathan Mercer, Nov 1, 2005
    #12
  13. 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.
    Nigel Roberts, Nov 1, 2005
    #13
  14. thingy

    steve Guest

    thingy wrote:

    > http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/10/31/1548247.shtml?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.
    steve, Nov 1, 2005
    #14
  15. thingy

    thingy Guest

    Shane wrote:
    > On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 09:49:10 +1300, thingy wrote:
    >
    >
    >>http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/10/31/1548247.shtml?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
    thingy, Nov 1, 2005
    #15
  16. thingy

    thingy Guest

    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
    thingy, Nov 1, 2005
    #16
  17. thingy

    thingy Guest

    shannon wrote:
    > Nathan Mercer wrote:
    >
    >> news.xtra.co.nz wrote:
    >>
    >>>>> http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/10/31/1548247.shtml?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
    thingy, Nov 1, 2005
    #17
  18. thingy

    thingy Guest

    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 competitor’s 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/breakingnews/dailyarchives.jhtml?articleId=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
    thingy, Nov 1, 2005
    #18
  19. 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."
    Matthew Poole, Nov 1, 2005
    #19
  20. thingy

    Shane Guest

    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/05/10/31/1548247.shtml?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.
    Shane, Nov 1, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Tom Accuosti
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    458
    Travis Evans
    Sep 27, 2004
  2. Jason
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,030
  3. Marc H.Popek
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    608
    Marc H.Popek
    Feb 21, 2005
  4. Marc Popek
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    702
    Ivor Jones
    Dec 14, 2005
  5. The Man With No Name
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    831
Loading...

Share This Page