Verizon Exec Whines About Google Spiking The Kool-Aid At Its Free Lunch
from the not-sure-who's-drinking-the-spiked-kool-aid dept
Another week, another bizarre and misleading statement from a telco on network neutrality. It seems that the telcos are really stepping up their efforts to get online offerings to pay extra -- but it's fairly amazing that no one in the press seems to be calling the telcos' bluff on all of this. No one is pointing out that what they're saying is 100% false. Last week, it was AT&T's Ed Whitacre claiming that the internet connection you paid for only went from your endpoint to the backbone, and now a Verizon exec is trying to get away with claiming that Google is somehow getting a "free lunch" online, while also claiming that the debate has been skewed because Google "spiked the Kool-Aid." That's fascinating, because we still can't figure out which part of the network isn't getting paid for. Google pays for the bandwidth it uses. End users pay for the bandwidth they use. Everyone knows that the value isn't in getting to the middle, but in connecting all the endpoints. So we're left with a network that is clearly paid for, and a bunch of telcos who are resorting to what appear to be outright lies and misstatements based simply on greed and jealousy. Of course, if the telcos actually got their way, it would destroy a lot of the value in what they provided, hopefully opening the doors to some much needed competition.
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
Whats the big deal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whats the big deal?
They are actually regulated utilities, i.e. a public monopoly.
Over the past decades, the telcos have broken up and yet mysteriously continue buying one another out...looking for all the world as if the Bell System is pulling itself back together.
Kind of reminds me of the liquid metal terminator.
Think about it for a moment. They own the copper telephone system, the wireless telephone system, and now they want the IPTV system as well.
It's not good when one organization controls everything.
The **AA are pikers compared to these guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just wondering
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just wondering
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just wondering
And once one (or more) companies get away with this racketeering scheme, how long before all of them don't get on board. It's easy money and, unfortunately, most people who use the net are not sophisticated enough to realize they're being had (as evidenced by the fact that AOL still is in business).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are they kidding?
This guy is a lawyer. Verizon (and the all the other FrankenTelcos out there) employ more lawyers than network engineers. That's a fact. They don't "compete" with their networks; they "compete" with manipulation of the public service infrastructure under which they were born. They then grew so bloated with cash that they subverted public interest -- buying it out while everyone watched in confusion -- and now have their sights set on FINALLY getting around to building the ubiquitous tollbooths they've been planning for 15 years. They're pissed because they've had to ride out all this open IP nonsense which made it harder than they expected to proceed with their final build-out of pay-for-play services. But it's here now
I ask are they kidding because what to they think their customers are doing? In what bizarro world does it look like the content providers are getting a free ride? Google, I'm sure, pays Verizon beaucoup bucks for access -- as well as...well, I'm not sure who their providers are, but I can only imagine they pay a seven-figure monthly access charge to somebody. If Google (or Yahoo, Or AOL, for that matter) don't provide the content and the structure for presenting it, then there's no demand for their DSL or (don't hold your breath) fiber-to-the-home service. Is their only plan to become "DisneyBell" and become totally vertically integrated content-and-carrier? I wonder.
The stupidity of these people is boundless. Beware of any "network" company that hires more lawyers than engineers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are they kidding?
Yep, you've got it. We're all going to be penned up in little AOL-like online worlds, seeing what our providers want us to see and going only where they want us to go. When that happens, I'm unplugging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are they kidding?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NJ has exactly what the telcoms want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thinking ahead
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: thinking ahead
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NJ has exactly what the telcoms want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NJ has exactly what the telcoms want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Double True
Go wimax baby!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
The fact is, Google could offer a new high-bandwidth service that increases overall Internet bandwidth utilization by... say... 10%. Obviously, Google is paying for that increase to whomever their service provider is, but it also effects every other network that connect consumers to Google.
Now, while I agree with the networks that this could be an issue, and that ignoring it completely will stagnate infrastructure development, I don't agree with their solution. The one thing we absolutely can not afford is a plethora of vertical solutions, whereby Google managed to pay the premium to Verizon and Comcast, but not UUnet and Sprint, creating alternate views of the common Internet depending on what service the consumer is connected to.
The clean answer is paying for bandwidth at the consumer end. After all, why does Google introducing a new service effect all of the other internet backbone providers? Because that traffic has to go somewhere, and that "somewhere" is the consumers of the service. They are who is truly creating the bandwidth, not Google per se. If we all paid per byte, the costs of the bandwidth would be distributed to each of the effected service providers, paid by each of the individuals responsible for that bandwidth.
It's not the answer anyone wants to hear, as we all just want to pay our $20-40/mo and expect an ever-faster Internet, but that isn't going to work. I want network-neutrality, as I believe government regulation is needed, at least as thigns stand today. Without government-enforced neutrality, the telcos would have a field-day. However, the issue of stagnation is completely valid, and we as consumers need to stop the vertical break-up of the Internet by putting our money where our mouth is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
In addition to that, The telcos should take the risk out of their own profits. If the service is better, people will go to them, they make more money. Competition and free enterprise.
It's really backwards to try to institute a new pay scheme and justify it by citing "future costs".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
I'm just saying that there is a point in there. I'm also saying that it's their problem to solve, and not content providers. I agree that Google shouldn't have to pay for network B and C's bandwidth when they use network A.
In that light, the argument is settled. We both agree that their proposal is crap.
But on a side note, there is still the issue of rising utilization and funding. In the example above, networks B and C will have to improve their service if Google releases a high-bandwidth app on network A. They can either a) choose not to and lose customers, b) do so at their own cost to retain their customers, c) do so at taxpayers expense, d) increase and/or restructure customer subscription fees, or e) try to extort the content providers.
Obviously, they're currently doing some of (b) and (c) and threating a lot of (a) and (e). I'm against the latter, but what is the correct answer? Is their profit so rediculously high that we can rightfully demand (b) exclusively? What if they say "screw you" and choose (a) because lack of competition (because of a gentlemen's agreement between major providers) will keep customers from going anywhere?
Uhg.... messy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
You forgot about option (f). Netowrks B and C could pull a Level 3 stunt and just disconnect from Netowrk A, claiming unfair amounts of bandwidth are being transfered. Although after the backlash Level 3 got from people over that fiasco, I think it'll be at least a year or so before the telcos forget what happened and try it again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
The Bells were granted monopolies in practically every market, in order to incentivate them to complete their buildouts - ie. this is in the Public Interest.
The FCC is supposed to allow the Bells to earn a "fair return", and in return the Bells agree not to abuse their monopoly positions.
The Bells are ignoring this equation and trying to establish monopoly control. The FCC and the States should remove their sole provider positions, and open the markets up to greater competition from other landline providers if the Bells insist on abusing the Public Interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Second, being that Verizon has been accused of keeping up to 80% of its bandwidth set aside for its TV offering, this is their bandwidth issue no one else's. How many others are doing this same thing? And it is nice they are doing it on my dime twice, my old DSL, which I no longer have, paid for it and my tax dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
What they are doing is choking the speed over the fiber for the IP portion and reserving the rest of that bandwidth for the Cable TV they plan to provide. It's not like the average consumer need 45MB download speeds anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Users don't pay by the byte??
- Yes, we have already paid for the pipes via taxes and the telcos haven't even completed installing the fiber to our homes yet, but want to charge more for bandwidth.
- We do pay for bandwidth on the user end each and every month; or are you still using a 56k dial-up connection. You can currently get one for $5-10 a month? Now, if you want more bandwidth (cable or DSL) you pay more, roughly $15-20 more, on the low end, for a "basic connection" - read slower high-speed. Now if you want a higher bandwidth from your provider you pay more for this premium service (usually $10-20 more), correct?
What do you call that if not paying for bandwidth? We already pay for our bandwidth![ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No Subject Given
And every last one of us consumers is paying for our connection. Google isn't getting a free ride. They're providing content, and I'm paying my network provider to deliver it to me. Nobody is getting a free ride here, because it's already being paid for by the consumer.
A free marketplace? That's exactly what network neutrality provides -- and exactly what the telcos don't want. They want to be the gatekeepers to the market, where anyone who might want to do business on the Internet (especially any business that's competing with some branch of their business, such as information services) has to have their approval, or be priced out of the market. No competitors need apply. It's like Disney owning all of the movie theaters and being able to double the ticket prices for any non-Disney movies being shown.
It is no less than giving the telco monopolies the power to control content on the Internet. That is not a position I want to see any private company in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
psychological analysis
The other side of the coin, of course, is that they misunderstand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WWII?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WWII?
Ladies and gentleman we have the first Hitler reference! :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Telcos are only setting Google up to cash in on a low cost (or free) Google ISP offering. Why pay to not have Google when I can have Google for much less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Google OS? MS is going down!
Google PC? Die, Dell! Die!
Google ISP? Call my broker! We're hitting $800!
Google Commuter Service To Alpha Centauri? Two tickets, please!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
That's a lot of ifs, though, and telcos own a whole lot of backbone.
Not to mention that cable companies want to do the exact same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Thanks for pointing that out. In the end, this effects EVERYONE. BTW, as much hatred as people have for the telcos I find the level of naivety that people have regarding this more scary. So many posters have this "they can't do this cause, it's wrong" thing going. Bottom line is that telcos have deep pockets and politicians have lots of room in their bank accounts. Rest assured that when/if it happens it won't be one telco doing it, they'll all push for legislation and do it as a group (kind of the same way gas companies keep gas prices about the same even though they get oil from several different sources, that have different prices).
Sorry to rain on anyones happy land.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
I totally agree, and I think the telcos should be allowed to implement their two-tiered network. The internet will route around this damage, probably through Google, and the foot-dragging telcos and their bad service will be gone once and for all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i love jordan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jordan is excited about kissing me too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
got rocked to sleep by jordan claus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]