networkingpipeline.com — BellSouth and Verizon have been trying to force big Web sites to pay extortion-type fees if the sites want adequate bandwidth, with Google a prime target. But Google has news for them: It won't pay.
Jan 18, 2006 View in Crawl 4
liquidedgeJan 18, 2006
This kind of fight will help bandwidth grow a lot. If they try to extort Google, then Google will start using other Tier 1 providers that won't be charging them. That provider will then have to lay more fiber, thus increasing bandwidth and reducing reliance on MCI's backbone. From the consumer level, if Google doesn't pay my provider and I'm on that provider, I'd probably switch to one that won't slow me down. There's too much competition in the space for me to stick with someone who's not giving me the level of speed that I want.
silentbobscJan 18, 2006
Ok, no matter WHAT type of website your run, you need to have a server connected to the 'net... this is usually done with, at the minimum, a T1 line. That will get you ~150k up and down... Now, if you're site has alot of traffic, you have to step up to a T3 or OC line... this costs more, but there's these things called economies of scale which means the more bandwidth (in this case) you buy, the cheaper it becomes....Now, evil telcos charge the company for X amount of bandwidth, Why the fudge shouldn't they be allowed to USE the bandwidth they PAY for in the first place, and the end user pays for their DSL/Cable/Whatever....Damn straight we're gonna go off, this is 100% BULL$H!T
silentbobscJan 18, 2006
NOTE TO DIGG - If you want me to "Take A Chill Pill" and not "spam" the comments, for the love of all that's holy, please rework the commenting system so I don't have correct a comment with ANOTHER COMMENT :D
silentbobscJan 18, 2006
How is it NOT covered? They pay for the pipe, they pay for the bandwidth that said pipe is supposed to provide.... and in many cases when you "Burst" data, there is already an agreement in place to deal with "overages and bursts" that takes care of this problem. Basically, you can't use an OC24's bandwidth when you're setup and paying for a T3. The point is that they are ALREADY paying for the bandwidth... Bellsouth and the other Telcos simply didn't expect for someone to actually USE 100% of what they were paying for and now they're trying to start a new revenue stream outside the standing contracts.
monticelloJan 18, 2006
Bellsouth and the other Telcos simply didn't expect for someone to actually USE 100% of what they were paying for and now they're trying to start a new revenue stream outside the standing contracts.--------------------------------------------------------and there's your answer
Closed AccountJan 19, 2006
Actually, it is just the opposite. Verizon and SBC should *pay* Google to offer enhanced services to their site! A nice fat pipe directly into Google's servers would be nice.
zizzybaloobahJan 19, 2006
Go Google! I read the best analogy somewhere else: this extortion racket would be very similar to taxi cabs charging the companies where they drop off passengers (in addition of course, to taking full fare from the passengers) I think its funny that as the phone companies are proposing these evil schemes, their commercial feature people using iPod's, watching video, etc. all the while promising unlimited broadband access at (name your speed here) for the same or less than dialup costs. Buyers beware!
pussywagonJan 20, 2006
even though google said no - I still think in some form this will still happen. What if Yahoo decides to pay? then another, then another - google may end up paying in the end. Or how about if get tagged? A premium plan for customers who faster internet or IPTV... they can black-ball us forever. Just liek they already do with their vague cellphone statements.
iraqmaniacJan 22, 2006
that's jerk-off stupid