European telecoms want Apple, Google, and bandwidth-sucking service providers such as video streamers to help pay for improvements needed to support steadily increasing loads on their networks. Phone companies' infrastructures are straining under the demands of data, video, music, and other bandwidth munchers, and Bloomberg …
What a joke...
'Cesar Alierta, CEO of Spain's Telefónica, said earlier this year that Google, Yahoo!, and others "use Telefónica's networks for free, which is good news for them and a tragedy for us," adding "That can't continue."'
Solution: Block Google, Yahoo!, and the others from your network if you think they're taking advantage of you. What's that? You need them? Stop complaining then.
It's a business model, just not a very good one.
Let's block all the most popular websites/services from our customers and see how fast we can go out of business.
Pipe providing fuckwits
Do they not realise that they only have customers due to the content someone else is providing?
So what would you prefer...?
Bandwidth throttling? DPI and Net non-neutrality?
If you built a motorway network and businesses started huge lorries along it, breaking up the surface and causing congestion for other users, would you consider it unreasonable to ask those businesses to contribute to the cost of upkeep or would you think it better that those businesses' traffic be diverted to slower roads?
All the users are effectively demanding their own personal lorry to their home, and so the ISPs should be charging the users an appropriate level to meet their demands. Unless the user makes a request to Google, Youtube et al, there would be no traffic on the road.
Google and many other major providers already have their own network for their personal heavy lorries and they pay for it accordingly, so its not realistic to ask them to pay for providing what the user of that ISP has requested they deliver
... but it aint google, etc that are actually providing that content is it. Its others that provide the content that Google etc allow their users to store on their servers. In fact much of it is stolen, and Google etc simply scrape the ad revenue. In point of fact Google freetail both ways 1) in the content, and 2) in the delivery.
not thought out properly.... would you expect to be able to charge Mercedes, Iveco, Scania, Volvo just because consumers bought those trucks and drove them on the road? no you couldnt.
Its the businesses that use those trucks who get charged.
and in this case, its the user of the phone who uses the bandwidth who should be charged, but because the mobile phone co's are all in a race to the bottom to appear to be the one who gives you everything for free, they actually forgot to be able to pay out to upgrade the network as they saturate it with users.
So now they go whaaa whaaa all the way to the regulator and want free money. Muppets!
@Graham Marsden: What would you prefer?
That's just plain wrong
The telco's are discovering that they may have offered those unlimited dataplans a little too cheaply back in the day when winning new customers was their primary concern. We, their customers, pay them for the use of their infrastructure according to contracts and a pricing model established by those same telcos.
The comparison to a road is wrong. Because we the subscribers to their service use the bandwidth, we are your lorries. Not Apple, Google and whomever else may be providing the services.
A closer analogy would be a supermarket selling cans of chicken soup at a discount and attempting to send an additional bill to the poultry farmer because his chickens are too tasty.
be more precise
be more precise, or it will be easy to make the sort of mistake you made.
You used the word "provide" when you meant "originate" or "create".
In an internet, each connected party pays for their own connection. Google pays for their connection, the broadband customer pays for theirs.
Grasping ISP's have realised that most traffic comes from a few sources and think it worth whining and begging to get some free money.
The fact that you think Google has too much for free doesn't mean that ISPs are the ones who should take the money.
If the content creators and publishers agree with you they can robots.txt (even user-agent based robots.txt), but presumably they think they are getting good value for money.
Its actually a little bit of both. Traditional business has a cost called 'delivery'. Typically when you order something, you pay the seller, and they pay for the delivery using a 'logistics company'. This has traditionally not happened for online electronically delivered (logistics=telco) content - the content sellers have had it really good delivering more and more with little increase in cost to themselves.
It seems wholly reasonable that this model should come in line with traditional business models? I don't really understand the outrage at the operators here? The alternative is that you buy* from the content providers AND YOU pay the extra required now for delivery? Its a double sided business model and is actually nothing new ... just that this industry was not employing this and using an unsustainable business model until now?
NB - by content and buy, I include click revenue etc that has been growing at cost to the 'logistics firms' and not the people who get revenue from them.
@RegisterThis Re@Martijn Bakker
"Its actually a little bit of both. Traditional business has a cost called 'delivery'. Typically when you order something, you pay the seller, and they pay for the delivery using a 'logistics company'. This has traditionally not happened for online electronically delivered (logistics=telco) content - the content sellers have had it really good delivering more and more with little increase in cost to themselves."
Google (and whoever else) *does not connect to the internet for free*. They pay for their bandwidth, and the ISPs they buy connectivity will in turn pay for their own connectivity from other companies, or have reciprocal peering agreements where they're effectively paying for someone else's bandwidth by providing their own in return. Mobile end users also pay for connectivity. Everyone already pays!
The telcos want to keep all the customers they're apparently undercharging, and they want to keep making a profit by getting successful companies to make up the shortfall. Why on earth should anyone else have to prop up this sort of flawed business model? They've painted themselves into a corner, unwilling to raise prices before any of their competitors because they will lose customers in droves. They're all equally stupid and guilty, and a nice healthy kick in the share price will do them a world of good.
@ Graham Marsden
"If you built a motorway network and businesses started huge lorries along it, breaking up the surface and causing congestion for other users, would you consider it unreasonable to ask those businesses to contribute to the cost of upkeep or would you think it better that those businesses' traffic be diverted to slower roads?"
Using your road analogy, we the customers are already paying the road owners for the building and upkeep of the small branch roads to enable delivery of the content we want to our doors. They aren't provided for free.
Apple, Google et al are paying the super highway owners for the building and upkeep of them, to get the content delivered to the small road owners so it can then be delivered to us.
Do you consider it reasonable for these small road owners to expect payment from customers at both ends of the roads?
1. I did not say free - I said: 'the content sellers have had it really good delivering more and more with _little increase in cost_ to themselves'. Very little of their cost is based on usage - it is typically leased line and is not where the capacity issue lies.
2. "flawed business model" - you hit the nail on the head. The sellers in this equation delivering their services through the telcos need to pay more? You know very well that you can setup an online business (say selling eBooks) for a lot less cost than a traditional bricks and mortar comapny partly because of the low cost of 'rental' (your store front delivered via the telco) and 'delivery' (delivered via the telco). This business model IS changing and the Telcos are telling Google, Yahoo, Amazon etc. that they are gonna have to pay higher rent and delivery costs which is very fair? They are selling services ... they get to set the prices!
3. Your last paragraph analysis is flawed. At current price levels, they get zero return on increasing network capacity. If they raise their prices and lose customers, they get even less return. Most operators networks would come to a grinding halt in the developed world if they had a surge from their competitor who had just raised prices. You are right they have painted themselves into a corner, but they are not the ones propping up a flawed business model ... they are the ones trying to change it. The world is just about to discover that the costs of doing online business is not quite so cheap anymore. The Googles and Apples of this world are the ones with soaring profits and share prices ... I think you will see most telcos SPs are depressed and are struggling to remain profitable. It is in Google and Apple's interests to play along as they DEPEND on the operators to deliver their services and SOMEBODY has to pay. I vote it is the corporates and not the consumer?
Lorries pay their fair share...
Don't think for a minute that those trucking companies have a free ride on the motorways, there are plenty of taxes and usage fees being paid that the average motorist is oblivious to. The telecom company infrastructure is the business, without it there are no customers, to provide better service upgrades are required, plough some profit back into infrastructure upgrades (fibre is good) and you will have very happy customers happy to pay for the quality service. Start screwing around, artificially degrading performance, or operating the infrastructure like a slum-lord while whining about maintenance & upgrade costs and you'll just piss everyone off.
Without search engines the "stolen" content would never likely see the light of day. Folks like Google allow that "stolen" content to be found and viewed, which must surely have been the intent of the entity who placed the information on the Internet. Create as much content as you like, if nobody can find it then what is the point? Writing a book, printing a million copies and storing them in a shed somewhere does not a best-seller make, people need to first know about it, then find it and obtain a copy. Google et all provide a kind of free marketing, use it to full advantage.
First it was Tiscali vs BBC
...now it's bigger, but the same old debate.
If the telcos can't handle the traffic, they should stop promising unlimited traffic and multiplexing so much over the limited bandwidth - and upgrade it, whilst charging people for the usage they get.
On a side note, it might encourage devs to be smarter about what they implement so they use less data per request. It might not, but it can't hurt to hope, right?
That is the exact problem - dev are smarter
Quote: "On a side note, it might encourage devs to be smarter..."
That is the exact problem here. The monetisation and ROI models for modern (post-rel 5) 3G and LTE are based around them being _NOT_ smarter.
They are expected to be terminally dumb and leave the smartness to the operator by asking "nicely" the 3GPP policy function via IMS for a reservation for the duration of the service. The provider after that bills customer, service provider, or both for the service provided based IMS information. If all this fails to materialise the operators will not have the 3G data and LTE investment pay back.
Here comes the problem. The developers _ARE_ smarter in using resources. When there is more resource available they use it to the hilt and they throttle back when there is less. This breaks the ROI model for any mobile investment for the last 5+ years, any planned investment for the next 5+ years as well as some investment by fixed line operators.
To put it bluntly, if the current status quo stays the same and the developers backed up by Google and Apple continue to be "smarter" instead of developing the required dumbness and outsourcing the "intelligence" to the operator, the Ka-Ching mobile operators at the end of the end of the HSDPA and LTE deployments starts looking more and more like the Knock-Knock of the bailifs on the door.
If Telefonica cost vs revenue model does not fit the way the world turns they should either try to change their revenue model, their network/capacity model or both instead of try to spin the world the other way around or flatten it.
On a grander scale this is the 3GPP chickins coming home to roost and having diarrhea.
Both Internet Multimedia Subsystem from Rel5 onwards and LTE have their service model built around "giving" content providers service reservations and paying on a per service reservation basis.
This passes "your village just called, they are missing you" test on more than one account:
1. It makes all services which the provider considers as premium to look like circuit emulations. Anything that is not circuit oriented does not fit the bill so it has to be forcefully shoehorned into this shape. As a result you build a super duper next gen network which is pretty much geared towards voice alone and has no clue on how to work with next gen services which are all variable bandwidth coming from more than one source. This means that the entire billing model, economic model, etc do not fit what the user perceives as premium service. It is not the fact that Google and co are using the network which bothers Telefonica and co. It is the fact that they categorically refuse to shackle their services with IMS.
2. The fixed reservation guaranteed service model which Telefonica and Co consider essential and keep voting for in 3GPP, ETSI and the like does not fit the realities of economics. It guarantees that a service fails to be adopted. Guaranteed service is for the masses and only once the legislator has made it into a universal service obligation. Early adopters could not care less about the "guaranteed" bit. They want the service to be "the best possible" so it is "shiny, shiny" and they can show off with the latest toy or gadget.
A classic example here is 3G video calling vs Facetime. The telcos have been peddling 3G video calling as a killer feature for what? 10 years or so now? Has it been widely adopted. Hell no. Has it ever gotten raving reviews? Hell no. Did Facetime when released cause a w*nkfest on par with the iOS passing the Turing Test? Hell yes. There is a reason for that. 3G video calling fails the "early adopter" test because some idiot decided to make it a "guaranteed" service. As a result it is is guaranteed to be sufficiently _MEDIOCRE_ to never be looked upon by the early adopter.
It is the same story with any other IMS or next gen telco service. Rinse, pepper with some IMS and policy vendor voodoo, FAIL, repeat. That repeated FAIL costs. A lot. A hell of a lot. And then more some, because everything in the network starting from topology and ending up with OSS has been specifically designed around the idea that all premium money will come from IMS.
Apple and Google _REFUSE_ to implement it not just for any of their own services, but for any service running on their platform (IMS support in iOS anyone?). This means that the entire network economics for people like Telefonica go out of the window. I am not surprised they are throwing toys out of the pram.
However, instead of blaming Google and Apple for what is their _OWN_ failing, Telefonica and Co should actually take the people they themselves employed to rig the 3GPP standards and reference designs into such an idiotic state and deal with them appropriately.
Good points re IMS ... but ...
The fundamental issue is that there is no such thing as a free lunch ... somebody has to pay for very expensive network/capacity upgrades. Whether 3GPP works or not, it was an attempt to address an unsustainable business model which does need to be addressed. If it was a crowded mall, who would pay for the renovations? The tenants or the customers coming? It seems here that we have been so Apple-washed and Google-smitten that we are suggesting we should pay and they should get richer?
The Mall Renovations have already been paid on credit
The credit however has been taken based on a the mall owner having the following revenue flows:
1. A parking cost to enter the mall which is deliberately kept low not to scare people away.
2. Cost of using each shop: Each shopper asks the mall owner for a permission to enter any of the shops, enters only after getting a permission from the _MALL_ owner, gets the entrance time registered with the _MALL_ owner, browses the shop for amount of time X possibly buying something, gets out, registers with the MALL that he is leaving the shop after which the Mall owner bills him _AND_ the shop for that time.
Anyone who wants to run a mall with that model? AAAAAAAANYONE? Counting once, counting twice... No takers... Guessed so...
Quite clearly the Mall renovations cannot be payed back using only the money from the parking fees. So the "Mall owner" now asks the shops to contribute. At which point he discovers that he has _NO_ contractual agreement with them and they tell him to go south.
So who is at fault here? The customers. Do not think so The "shop owners"? Do not think so either. It is not the fault of either the "shop owner" or the customer that the MALL owner had an unrealistic business model. It is a model which _obviously_ does not work and in the real world out there nobody would have given you the credit to run a Mall with this model.
You have things mixed up. The Malls customers are the tenants. The "customers coming in" are customers of the tenants, not the Mall.
To fix your idea...
You and me are the customers coming in.
The telecoms are the tenants.
And the Mall is a backbone provider.
Apple is a tenant in another Mall also connected to a backbone.
Why would you expect Apple to pay you so you can fix up your store, it's not their problem if you want to sell at a loss.
The telecoms are like UPS or the post office. They get paid for shipping packets.
If I mail order something there are two choices.
- I can pay shipping in advance and shop pays the shipper on my behalf and I pay nothing to the post office when it's delivered. Telecoms don't do this*, I pay for every packet.
- I can have it sent with shipping COD. I pay the shipper when it arrives, but I pay by weight/size not the value of the contents, or how much profit the seller is making. A kg of gold costs the same as a kg of organic fertilizer.
If I use 1 GB of data, I should pay for 1 GB of data. If I'm pulling data from my home computer, a work email server, or youtube there is no difference.
* Other then a few walled garden services offered by the telecom where you pay a monthly fee for the service and data is included.
Q: "Why would you expect Apple to pay you so you can fix up your store, it's not their problem if you want to sell at a loss."
A: I assume you mean the mall owner (telco)? It is Apple's (for example) problem if the malls are so overcrowded that nobody can buy from them? Furthermore, this highlights the problem between online and B&M world vendors. In the 'real world', the store owner pays his rental to the developer for the shop size, and even indirectly for the access to his shop through the rates etc. that the mall owner pays and are included in his rent. You the consumer pay the store owner and he pays a portion to the mall owner, govt etc. for the facilities. This is totally destroyed in the online world as the value for the ACCESS is decoupled from the value you get from receiving the goods. Instead you pay for the access direct to the mall owner, govt etc. and of course access by itself is of little value? (How much would you pay to just walk around a mall vs. how much would you pay if you were charged access to collect a DVD you had ordered ... clearly you would pay more for the priovilege of getting the DVD than browsing. The problem is that as long as Google etc. have the direct relationship with the customer, the mall owner slowly goes bancrupt. The business model has to change and Google et al of course don't want it to as it means the overall cost of their 'electronic products' become less attractive compared to bricks and mortar.
"The telecoms are like UPS or the post office. They get paid for shipping packets."
That was the shift in the perception of Telcos a few years ago following the dot com crash hat they are just 'utilities'. The current business model based on that clearly indicates they are not even though it tries to make them out to be that. UPS or Post Office is NOT a good analogy - you only use them when you have something you want ordered or shipped, and I bet downloading an album costs less than shipping a CD. This has to change, and as I pointed out, you don't want to pay for the low value consumption of browsing or 'trying', but the telco cannot distinguish this beahviour from the high value behaviour of dowbnloading an album. Rather the online vendor has to charge you and pass on the true delivery cost commensurate with the value you place on downloading that album (as in the decision you would make to pay for postage to have the CD delivered). This means their prices have to go up.
For the love of...
Dumb != Dumb
We need intelligent networks, not dumb pipes. We want networks to compete on innovation, service quality and price.
You're confusing the political and the technological. On a dumb pipe YouTube wouldn't work at all.
We need dumb networks. They need to implement the fastest technology available on regularly refreshing cycles. In many cases competition simply ISN'T FEASIBLE. (How many companies do you think have the money to plow the last mile?) We do not want the “pipes” intelligent at all. They should be provisioning network access and flinging bits. Nothing more.
A certain (very large) % of their budget should be going to troubleshoot physical plant issues, build new physical plant and constantly increase the speed of existing physical plant. In other words, they should be UTILITIES. They can be privately or publically owned – as per your personal philosophy – but they should never in any way be offering “services” over these pipes.
The provisioning of bits should be 100% separate from what those bits themselves provision. This shouldn’t be a question anymore. Bandwidth needs to increase at a continual rate, regardless of if your are a monopoly or competing in a healthy market. A monopoly company that plays by these rules is quite frankly perfectly acceptable to me.
If the US of A is so terrified of “the evil socialists” that the concept of public ownership of utilities leaves millions of it’s citizens unable to sleep at night…bully for them. They can try to enforce a “competitive” market of multiple people providing physical plant to the same premises. Other countries don’t have that weird hang-up and might well prefer a state-owned “pipe owner” that provisions only one pipe into people’s homes…but makes sure it’s the best pipe reasonably possible.
This really isn’t any different from many utility models. You pay a delivery charge (the cost of the infrastructure) regardless of who provides you your power/water/natural gas/sewage/bit pipe. Once the backbone (wired or wireless) is provisioned, you should be purchasing access to the internet itself from a completely separate company. It is here that you can choose how much of that pipe into your house that you choose to use.
Maybe some backbone bit providers offer unlimited packages (within reason.) That’s no different than electricity providers who offer me a flat, guaranteed rate every month. Maybe choose to pay market rates per GB/month (allowing contention to have it’s way with my bitrate.) Maybe I stump up extra for a guaranteed bitrate.
Once the provisioning of bits is decoupled from the actual network access competition CAN thrive. I wholeheartedly disagree however that competition is necessary for the proper provisioning of physical plant. What is necessary is quite simply that physical plant owners not be allowed to provide “services.” They provide a utility. They do not get to discriminate what goes over it.
Maybe not the most popular view…but it’s my belief.
Are these fucktard Telco going to force us to long for the days when the US Gov't ran the Internet? Ugh.
...you mant want to research how many US senates are getting their asses kissed by the Telcos over there before you spout out. The EU is copying the US on this.
The telcos should get to fuck
They need Google et al to even remotely function.
If telcos cut Google off, Google goes out of business .... not the telcos? Since when does a roof survive after the walls have been removed? You HAVE been drinking too much Googleberry juice ...
Customers will go where the content is
If my telco cut off Google and others, I'd switch telcos. Why use any telco that restricts any of the internet? So, lets say telco "X" bans Google. And telco "X"'s competitors would start advertising that they offer the full internet, unlike telco "X". Assuming all other things are equal, which telcos will get more customers?
That is just daft
It's like Ford trying to sue Tesco's because they can't make cars fast enough to cope with the demands of people who want to go shopping.
If you can't make any money on the current deal, charge your customers a realistic price for the service you are selling them. If they don't like it they can try and find an alternative provider and see if someone else can cope.
RE: Dazed and Confused
"It's like Ford trying to sue Tesco's because they can't make cars fast enough to cope with the demands of people who want to go shopping."
Can't we just buy a Peugeot and go to a nearer supermarket?
Nope, never, do not want
Customers pull the content, customers should pay.
This would be the end of the neutral net.
ISPs should provide tiered bandwidth plans to customers and charge what it actually costs to provide a decent service.
No backroom deals with major corps to decide who gets what bandwidth.
Customers DO pay
The past 5 years have been a painful time for telcos around the world. Almost over night, people began canceling their home telephones and using strictly mobile phones instead. Companies who run cables to people's houses are in a competition to deploy the highest speed topology possible without bankrupting their companies with the debt they incur doing so. It can take 5 years of payments before a new fiber is actually paid for by the consumer.
Wireless Internet is becoming ever more available and people are making their "more expensive" phone calls more often when they have wifi access over VoiP services instead of normal phone services.
Today, the telephone company has very little to do with telephones themselves but instead are nothing more than ISPs that also offer telephone services.
Large telcos who for nearly a century had government sponsered monopolies can't compete in these markets. Many of these companies, when they were privatized made agreements with their governments that they would have to offer things like "coverage to 98% of the country" of any new service they deploy. That mean's to meet the agreements they signed, they have to put up 4G access in areas that are populated by people who move their farm products to the market using goat drawn carts.
The cost of establishing high quality 4G access in a large city is INSANE. We pay things like $29 for a wireless access point in the grocery store. The telco pays closer to $15,000 for a single point of presence plus rent for where they placed it since the range is so bad that they can't just use the poles they own.
There is no possible way the telco has recovered from the last upgrade to 3G networks (which basically were way over priced and sucked ass to install). The 4G upgrade is going to cost them a fortune. They will have to use cabling (copper, fiber, etc...) between antennae as wireless technologies aren't fast enough to keep up with the bandwidth load of 1000 users on a single POP using 4G at the same time. That means expensive fibers, expensive digging, etc... If they don't have the rights to dig, they'll have to purchase fiber from a competitor who does.
So, right now, they're trying everything they can imagine to get every penny they can from every source that they can.... AND even if they don't have a case against Google or Apple, they can roll their networks out slower complaining that Apple and Google are holding it up... not them.
Most balanced non Google-washed analysis so far. I cannot believe most consumers here want to pay for Google et al to make more money.
The knob of the problem:
"""competition to deploy the highest speed topology possible without bankrupting their companies with the debt they incur doing so."""
In ye olde days of the heady credit derivatives markit the banks could repackage the debt and sell it off to suckers so if anyone defaults - it's somebody else's problem and even an investment opportunity by shorting the securities just sold. Therefore any shit would go over with the banks as a business model - they didn't need to care because they would not get stuck with the loss.
Now the game is "Save The Banks for the sake of the Children" - The ECB e.t.c. is accepting as collateral any rubbish that the banks want to rid their balance sheet of in return for new loans, at Zero procent interest, that the banks then use to buy up government bonds, thereby financing the governments bailing the banks without calling it "Printing" but it really is.
The banks are not interested in lending to telecoms (or others) - 'cause it might take a while to read all that paper and it might be difficult to understand - borrowing at 0% and lending at 3-5% is easier.
"I cannot believe most consumers here want to pay for Google et al to make more money."
I can't believe people expect Google et al to pay for me to use their services.
They *are* being paid! I'm pretty bloody sure the BBC, Yahoo, Google and their ilk are paying through the nose for their bandwidth usage.
Last time I looked, I couldn't ask BT or Telecom Italia (and I can talk about the latter from a position of personal experience as I'm currently living in Italy) for a fat fibre-optic connection to my home! I can barely get decent ADSL. As a business, getting full-fat bandwidth ain't cheap either: you pay quite a big chunk of money to lose the "A" from "ADSL" and get "DSL". If you want anything faster—as I'm sure Microsoft and Auntie Beeb do—you pay even more.
And you don't pay the buggers just the once either. You pay 'em every damned month.
So: Telecom Italia, BT, Telefónica, etc., are *already* being paid handsomely for their infrastructure. And their users are *also* paying money for *their* connections to said infrastructure. So these shysters are getting paid *twice*. And, of course, without those big companies offering bandwidth-gobbling services, none of these telcos would *have* any users. They'd be in the position of, say, a cable TV company with no television programmes.
If these idiots still haven't worked out how to turn a decent profit, perhaps they should stop pissing so much cash up the wall on idiotic, bullshit adverts that redefine the word "unlimited" to mean the exact opposite of what it says right here in my Oxford Dictionary of English.
Gah! Froth! Foam! ***EXPLODES***
"They *are* being paid! I'm pretty bloody sure the BBC, Yahoo, Google and their ilk are paying through the nose for their bandwidth usage."
actually, they aren't. it's medium-level players who pay, directly, through the nose - your big-but-not-tech involved companies, your local governments, things like that. When you're a player as big as the Beeb, Yahoo, or Google things get very fuzzy. The hand-wavy phrase 'peering' is usually used to simplify it; all the really big players participate in various arrangements whereby they exchange access to their networks (I'll show you mine if you show me yours). From one point of view, this more or less *is* the Internet.
Google doesn't just go and pay some huge-yet-secretive ISP-type organization squillions of dollars for seven thousand T3 lines, it's all a bit more complicated than that.
Wait, What? Ah, But..
What you say is in essance very true but with a very big but....
The BBC is paying its huge fee to a British (I hope) pipe supplier - not to the isp of the end consumer in Latvia or Cape Town.
Similarly, Apple are paying their large sum to a pipe supplier in Texas or California or whichever carolina is getting the new data centre. Similarly Google - wherever its data centres are.
Therefore (in simple terms - although I'd image it's a bit more complex in reality) all those big sums being paid by the 'content providers' (with he exception of Auntie) are being paid to American providers - not Telefónica, BT and the others.
On the brighter side. a BT Fibre cabinet has just appeared at the end of my road.
So the adverts are lying then?
Vodafone has an advert in Holland at the moment showing all these sites on their phones with the tag line 'Vodafone - we're ready for it'
T-Mobile had a similar one when the iPhone came out...
Doesn't sound like it from this... I hate phone companies...
Is this for real? Is 1st April early?
I've never heard such nonsense before. I guess the liked it better when we paid for the connection but didn't have proper devices to consume it.
I've never heard such nonsense before.
Yes you have, the ISPs have been crying the same story for months if not years :)
Another clash of culture?
In North America, where the telephone was invented on picturesque Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, Canada, the early telephone 'companies' were formed by farmers getting together and erecting telephone lines that terminated on a manual switchboard somewhere in the centre, geographically.
The operator, often a housewife, would connect the calls on her cord board. The whole system was financed by occasional payments whilst the individual calls were 'free'.
Later lines were installed that interconnected individual farmers groups systems together, the use of which was subject to charge.
Elsewhere in the world per call charges were used.
Rarely have 'consumption' charges been used in North America since the InterNet became more ubiquitous. Generous limits were imposed but few hit this jackpot, at first.
Now Europe wants to reintroduce it's metering schema.
Several things aren't too obvious to the casual user. The BBC, for instance, maintains servers in White Plains, New York State to service North America.
Google also owns InterNet pipelines around the world that terminate in many countries for which they pay the freight. Other heavy consumers, such as Facebook, do not, relying on regular carriers.
So before people go bad mouthing the usual suspects, just investigate who the real free-loaders are.
Thailand and VietNam have Google pipes: Cambodia doesn't - what a difference!
Unfortunately my country pf residence doesn't have a Google feeder -going to Thailand makes anything Google much faster.
Cry Me a River!
Tough! You were happy raking in the cash for over-priced services when all we wanted was some email, the news and a weather update, but now we actually want to use the services for what we were promised way back in the 70's and 80's, the digital TV and movies on demand, well boo-hoo!
Tough luck! You bought into the market thinking it was going to be an easy ride, setup some cable a few modems, easy money! Well I suggest you simply ask the media providers to cut back their offerings! You mean you can't? You screwed us for the huge profits you made, how about you plough some of those profits back into the network now? What, you don't have them? You mean you gave all the profits to pay for flipping stupid corp rebranding projects and sucking up to the shareholders? F**king tough!
Someone knows there is 'gold in them hills' so the first ISP to drop prices, raise service standards and quality will trounce the others and I'll be first in line to drop the rest in favour of the best!
Someone knows there is 'gold in them hills' so the first ISP to drop prices, raise service standards and quality will trounce the others and I'll be first in line to drop the rest in favour of the best!
For 6 months or so until they go bust - unless they actually manage to get enough punters to be one of the largest T2s going then they MIGHT have enough clout to get decent peering agreements with everyone else... but of course, getting that many customers also increases your bandwidth requirements.
meant gbps for some of those figures, not mbps.
And the real reason is...?
I find it ironic that Orange (France Telecom) are complaining about YouTube et al, given that they offer a carousel of 40 channels. Lowish bandwidth, but it works from 1megabit up. http://webtv.guidetv.orange.fr/
Oh look. BBC World is one of them.
Maybe they need some of the bandwidth for their own services now?
I liked what the DailyMotion guy said.
'you break, you pay'? sounds reasonable at first.
How about 'You promise, you deliver.'?
All these telcos & isps sold us a service where we could stream video, download isos, share pictures, really quickly. If they can;t provide that for the quoted price that is their fault, surely?
All together now. 'You promise, you deliver.'