Telco Chief Explains That We Really Only Pay For Half Of Our Internet Connection
from the break-it-down dept
AT&T's CEO Ed Whitacre was the one who kicked off all the US telcos publicly talking about ending network neutrality when he complained that it was "nuts" that Google, Yahoo and Vonage got to use his network for "free." Of course, he was ignoring the fees they already paid in bandwidth, along with the fees consumers pay for bandwidth (which they're only paying because they get access to various web sites and services). So, now, he's trying to better explain how, despite the fact everyone has already paid, these service providers are really getting a free ride. He does so by trying to split up how internet access is really sold:"I think the content providers should be paying for the use of the network - obviously not the piece for the customer to the network, which has already been paid for by the customer in internet access fees, but for accessing the so-called internet cloud."He's actually suggesting that when we buy bandwidth, we're just buying the bandwidth from the end-point to the backbone... and everything else is just free. He's conveniently forgetting (again) that without the content and services provided at all the other endpoints, the value of connecting from the end to the middle is pretty much gone. No one is paying to connect from the end to the middle. They're paying to connect all the ends to each other. That's the value of network effects, and it's what makes it worthwhile to buy internet access. So, he's being both misleading and wrong when he says: "But that ought to be a cost of doing business for them. They shouldn't get on [the network] and expect a free ride." It's a very telco way of looking at things. These are companies that are used to providing centralized services with a government granted monopoly. To them, the only important thing is from the ends to the middle -- where traditionally the telco then provided all the services you needed. They'll conveniently ignore that the only value of connecting to the middle is if you have unencumbered connections to all the other ends as well. In the meantime, with all the big telcos so brazenly talking up how they're going to ditch network neutrality, how is it that FCC chair Kevin Martin can still claim with a straight face that there's no evidence that anyone is trying to break neutral network principles.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
FCC = For Corporate Control
because Rupert Murdoch told him to?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Free Ride?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Maybe if you could keep up ...
Hey fuck-tard,
No one is getting a �free ride.� Google � and every other �content provider� ALREADY pay you for bandwidth.
Now that that is cleared up, (again) perhaps you can pull your head out of your ass, and do something about the fact that the US has fallen to 16th in the world in the percentage of citizens with access to broadband. 16th. We are slower than Israel. LOOK MOM, we are #16!!!!!
You are rich enough already, now start being fucking productive, for a change.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I agree completely
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kevin Martin
Is it just me, or does Kevin Martin look as if he's about 20 years old?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Free Ride?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I hate LECs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
I seem to recall visiting a site or two where bandwidth allocation was being exceeded and *poof* no more page. Funny how that would happen since they were getting a free ride and all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Content Provider
[ link to this | view in thread ]
taxi cabs
i mean after all the taxi cab companies are providing a free service to those places, they are delivering people right to their door, and the places arent even paying!! 'its nuts' that these places should have people delivered to them without having to pay!!
its our cabs!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Greed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
I pay to get from my house to the "middle" and Google pays to take me from the "middle" to Google.com. When my search results are generated, Google pays to send them to the "middle" and I pay to get those results from the "middle" to my computer.
Who hasn't been paid and where is the free ride?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Content Provider
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bribes are the FCC's best friend.
ummm...he is being paid off by the telcos?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I hate LECs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Maybe if you could keep up ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I hate LECs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Maybe if you could keep up ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Costs
If their business model is that deranged then either they need to go back to business school and take those courses in economics that they obviously slept through again or they need to correct their fee structure to recoup the costs they obviously have been undercharging for all these years. If the former, they might gain a bit of enlightenment although I seriously doubt that will happen. If the latter, then more than a few content providers will leave the net (of fire up their own dark-fibre, e.g. Google].
Heck, I (almost) wish Google would fire up that fibre and spend their billions on the last mile problem. I'd hail my new Google overlords and willingly pay, and pay, just to get these blood-sucking leeches off our backs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Costs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GOOGLE
I suspect that the reason that Google is building their own fibre network is because they want to allow free access to the Internet to everyone via their own network?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Only halfway eh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Good joke.
I remember the DSL/cable advertise for both uplink and downlink bamdwidth. I bet Google/yahoo paid for downlink/uplink bandwidth in Gigabits. So there is no cloud. I wonder if ATT would sue google over it. It would be real funny to watch such case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
At its core, it's about consumer protection. Consumers should have unencumbered access to the Internet and not be subject to blocked content. AT&T vigorously supports net neutrality as defined by the FCC last August when it laid out its "New Principles to Preserve and Promote the Open and Interconnected Nature of Public Internet:"
Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;
Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network;
Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
Sounds reasonable. Where's the disagreement?
Some Internet content providers have hijacked the concept of net neutrality — away from consumers — and made it a rallying cry to protect their business interests.
Here's the basic premise: We invest billions in our broadband network, which gives content providers — popular Web sites, VoIP providers and so forth — access into the homes of customers like you and me. That works fine, to a point. These content providers more and more are offering online services — especially video — that require more bandwidth. They want to ensure that these services get to consumers without any delay or latency, which happens sometimes with a typical Internet connection. They want us to give them premium bandwidth — not only more bandwidth, but some level of service guarantee — to deliver their services to Internet customers. Just as people are willing to pay more for next-day mail delivery instead of regular delivery, we think content providers should help pay for this premium delivery if that's what they want or expect. Put another way, our customers should not be expected to pay more for DSL because a content provider demands premium bandwidth treatment. Companies seeking increased bandwidth should bear the cost.
Can you elaborate?
As I said, we agree with the FCC and we side with consumers. A truly healthy Internet is one where all parties who use it share in the cost of ensuring the health of the networks. We invest billions to build and maintain networks. Content providers count on that investment to reach their customers. Prioritization of data over private networks is an essential part of managing traffic. We simply want to allow content providers the option of choosing different service levels when moving bits over our network. From that point, it's up to them whether they want the service we're offering.
But no blocking or degrading?
Absolutely not. Any broadband provider who blocked access to the Internet would be inviting its customers to find another provider. AT&T has made clear, as a matter of company policy, that we will not block or degrade anyone's content.
Why do people sometimes equate net neutrality to highway construction?
It's a good analogy. Double-load tractor trailers pay extra fees to travel our highways because they require more room and they cause more wear and tear on the roads. Companies that push bandwidth-consuming applications such as video are the equivalent of big rigs on the highway. If Internet content providers had their way with the highway system, two things would happen: Everyone would have sub-par roads and everyone would pay significantly higher gas taxes. There is a better way, which would continue to provide consumers what they have today as well as offer them more options.
Everyone would pay more under the Internet content providers' plan?
Yes. By denying companies a choice of selecting different levels of speed and security, net neutrality proponents are really advocating a "one-size-fits-all" Internet. That would add costs for all Internet users, regardless of usage. Higher-bandwidth applications, like gaming and video, require billions in investment for fatter pipes. Absent the ability to manage traffic and offer differentiated pricing, low-volume users would pay more for basic activities such as e-mailing and Web surfing just to subsidize gamers and others. Some Internet companies want all consumers to pay for the high-bandwidth services, regardless of whether or not they use them. Instead, we believe the cost of providing high-bandwidth, high-quality services should be paid for by those who actually use them.
What are we proposing?
It all boils down to this. We don't want to restrict anyone's use of the Internet. We just believe that high-volume, bandwidth-intensive content providers should be asked to contribute proportionally toward the huge costs they create-rather than demand premium network services with the costs being passed on to DSL customers who may never use or need their applications.
And, more importantly, we think customers should continue to have control over their Internet experience, including their monthly bill, rather than have their services and costs dictated by the unreasonable demands of a few large content providers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Bandwidth is not some magical substance that gets stored in a warehouse...if a company provides a popular service they pay more by their bill increasing....if they generate an unpopular service then they go out of business using no bandwidth at all....
Content providers DO contribute proportionally to their bandwidth they use by paying PER GIGABIT...the faster the connection, the more is sent per second hence the bigger the bandwidth bill.
Is it just me or is "read me" a telco drone cut&pasting from some feeble comms companies official dogma...?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]