Telcos Still Pretending Google Gets "Free Ride"
from the repeating-something-relentlessly-does-not-make-it-true dept
Back in 2005, former AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre (now the head of GM) boldly proclaimed that Google was getting a "free ride" on his company's "pipes," and that they should be charged an additional toll (you know, just because). As we've discussed several times now, Whitacre's argument made absolutely no sense, given that Google not only pays plenty for bandwidth (as do AT&T's customers), but the company owns billions in international and oceanic fiber runs, data centers and network infrastructure. Despite making no sense, this idea that Google was some kind of free ride parasite quickly became the cornerstone of the telco argument against network neutrality. In response,Techdirt has suggested that telco spokespeople should pay for Google's bandwidth bill for a month if it's so low -- with no takers.
Of course, lost under the circus of the network neutrality debate was Whitacre's real goal: to get content providers to subsidize AT&T's network upgrades, something many myopic investors don't want to pay for. Whitacre was also afraid; he understood Google poses an evolutionary threat, the likes of which traditional phone companies like AT&T had never seen before. Incumbent phone companies had grown comfortable sucking down regulatory favors, subsidies and tax cuts while operating in non-competitive markets. Suddenly, increasingly-ubiquitous broadband allowed companies like Google to enter "their" telecom space, gobbling up ad dollars and offering disruptive products like Google Voice -- which threaten sacred cash cows like SMS and voice minutes.
Instead of competing with Google by out-innovating them, Whitacre's first reaction was to impose an anti-competitive toll system like some kind of bridge troll -- which should tell you plenty about pampered phone company thinking. Whitacre's fuzzy logic was given a new coat of paint in pseudo-scientific studies paid for by phone carriers, and has since floated overseas. In the UK, incumbent phone companies have taken a page from Whitacre, insisting that the BBC should pay them extra money -- just because people were using the BBC iPlayer. Now Google's non-existent free ride has popped up in Europe this week, with Telefonica, France Telecom and Deutsche Telekom all jointly insisting that Google should be paying them a special toll for carrying Google traffic:
Cesar Alierta, chairman of Telefonica, said Google should share some of its online advertising revenue with the telecoms groups, so as to compensate the network operators for carrying the technology company's bandwidth-hungry content over their infrastructure. "These guys [Google] are using the networks and they don't pay anybody," he said.
Yes, Google doesn't pay anything -- except for the billions they pay for bandwidth and extensive infrastructure. Were Google a telecommunications carrier, they'd be the world's third biggest according to Arbor Networks. It's absolutely stunning that such a ridiculous argument remains in circulation (and that many press outlets don't debunk the concept as painful nonsense). If electric companies went to AT&T or Telefonica to inform them that they wanted a cut of revenues on top of payment for electricity "just because" -- they'd be laughed out the building. Yet somehow we're supposed to take phone companies seriously, when in reality they're simply repeating total nonsense in the hopes that repetition will magically make it true.
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
Filed Under: bandwidth, infrastructure, network, telcos
Companies: at&t, google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I am always amazed
dipshits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am always amazed
"You're making money off our pipes, we should get a cut."
Not like they're already double dipping: charge consumers to get to Google, and the also charge Google for its Internet traffic. Should we be paying three times for the same connection?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google should probably get more free rides
A SMART ISP would put Google Servers near customers and so that the customer accessed the servers on their own internal bandwidth rather than on the backbones where it costs them money.
Customers are going to access Google no matter what, and companies like Akamia (sp??) are already in the business of content replication and making a killing off of it. So why wouldn't local ISP's also use it to manage costs.
Putting a rack of Google Servers in each major city would seem pretty cheap in comparison to the costs of the bandwidth consumed by users. And hell I'd even bet that google would be all over giving them the racks and servers because it also makes their service more efficient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google should probably get more free rides
Yes, "Akamai" (sic) does effectively profit from replicating popular content.
It's just ridiculous for AT&T to be talking about charging more for popular content-providers' bandwidth. For one, the modern AT&T had one of its most successful years ever in 2009 (its good to be king).
And of course there would be no significant ISP business for anyone were there no popular and useful services such as Google.
Myopic, greedy and entitled... sounds familiar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google should probably get more free rides
FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google should probably get more free rides
That's was I was thinking. Without content, ISPs would not be there. That's the ISPs reason for being, it's only reason for being: to serve sites like Google. AT&T should be paying Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google should probably get more free rides
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google should probably get more free rides
is this bizarro Michial Thompson?
Where is the old Michial Thompson cheap shot artist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
google voice has sadly been countered
Well, the numbers for google voice are landline.
This was a direct strike at google, and the telcos didn't even sit a second. Even tmobile switched their plans due to this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: google voice has sadly been countered
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: google voice has sadly been countered
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number_identification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: google voice has sadly been countered
Well, the numbers for google voice are landline.
that's a good thing. that's what competition is for.
now google will counter, and the telcos will counter, and in the end we the customer end up paying less than we did before google voice came along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: google voice has sadly been countered
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just makes me Angry
Why can't they simply be a provider of highly available, fast, internet and just be happy with that. Most of these guys are a monopoly or douopoly so what do they have to complain about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But, I think Mike's absolutely spot-on with his analogy (these kinds of ridicularities are best exposed with a good analogy): by the same logic, the telcos owe the electricity utilities -- at least -- a cut of the revenue.
Don't try to set a legal precedent you don't want to have applied to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Pft. Who am I kidding? Big companies need tax breaks. Let the peasantry subsidise the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
FTFY
Tons of posts from more authors lately. I've made the mistake too, so not trying to be an ass, but we're all going to have to start paying attention to who the author is....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm hoping you responded to the wrong post, because that would be stupid on a biblical level....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So when you posted that there are other authors than Mike, he reversed the "Hi Mike" meme. Not so funny when you explain it fully.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I love that you figured this out...and are probably right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dark helmet, not having any god like or god inspired powers, backs up a dump truck of week old dead trout to Free capitalists convertable ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe "stupid on a cosmic level...." would have sounded better?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're OK in my book DH :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
now what group of people do we know that we can apply that to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
also telco execs and RIA(wherever)s
and newspaper execs
and...
ok, there's way too many.
oddly, probably not cosmonauts though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What would AT&T internet be worth without Google?
It certainly would be less than they are worth now. Heck the way I use the internet they would be worth next to nothing. Google is the index, my mail and lots of the content i consume. Without Google it would hardly be worth paying AT&T.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The big flaw in the telco's reasoning is that Google isn't pushing this stuff over their pipes, their customers are initiating the exchange. If their customers are using too many bits, then charge them more.
I don't think it's that unreasonable to have tiered plans based on speed or number of bits used. They shouldn't discriminate on the type of traffic or its destination.
In other words, be dumb pipes. I think the first company to come along and really embrace that philosophy is going to make a killing. Be the best damned dumb pipe you can be and slash costs (especially advertising) and deliver huge value to your customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
most ISP also are our phone providers and remember they like to charge those long distance fees that's how they think. google pays a small set of isps for the bandwidth it uses but although isp x gets some from google traffic goes to isp y to get to the customer and it is y that wants some money ie long distance charge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Honestly, I can't blame them for trying to do this. They have very little to lose and a lot to gain. When a situation that comes along that's all upside, why wouldn't they pursue it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: HaHa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmmm ....
With what Google pulled in china I would be very cautious if I was running a telco.
from : google.com
to : google mail and applications user
Due to the charges being levied against us by you telcom provider we are with drawing google.com from your telcom provider as of xx/yy/zzzz. We will no longer be providing search, e-mail, apps, reader, .... (two pages later) ....finance, translate, and blogs. We will how ever be opening stores to sell the new google data pad, and cell phones all of these products work on our new 4g network. The cost will be less than you are being charged by your current provider and there will be no disconnect fees by EU law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is obvious that with an ever more interconnected world those kind of disputes will only get amplified in the future and still those governing doesn't seem to grasp the height of the wave coming their way in the not so distant future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I keep saying this is going to be fun to watch ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shoes on both feet
- for Internet services, carriers claim the content producers are getting a free ride;
- for television, the content producers (broadcasters) claim it's the carriers (cable and sat providers) getting a free ride.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Didn't we pay for upgrading the Internet already?
Does anyone here know anything about that? I don't remember any more details than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Didn't we pay for upgrading the Internet already?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YouTube
I mean, that's really what this is about. I'm surprised it hasn't come up in the comments yet. Most of you are talking about how Google search or mail or blogs is what you use, etc, but I don't think that's what this is about.
This is about the tremendous amount of capacity that is consumed by YouTube, and the impact it has on the carrier's networks, and their capital expenditures.
Not that it changes any of your arguments. Most commenters here, and Karl's article are spot on.
Really, what's going on here is the telcos are pissed at YouTube for filling their pipes, making money for another company, beating them to offer compelling services, edging out their video offerings, and forcing infrastructure upgrades.
And the carriers really have only two solutions:
1) Suck up to regulators, charge Google for causing increased demand for the product the telcos sell, or
2) Charging customers more for using more of the product telcos sell.
Number 2 is going to be a very unpopular solution, as feedback here at Techdirt has illustrated in the past. And the eventual public backlash can mostly be blamed on the same ISPs who have ingrained the "unlimited" expectation into customers.
Why did they ever promise "unlimited" if it was never what they meant? Because they didn't envision something like YouTube. Oops. If it wasn't YouTube, it would be something else, guys. Maybe Netflix or Amazon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]