AWildman
msg:1236537 | 11:43 am on Jun 7, 2006 (gmt 0) |
There was a fascinating discussion about this issue last week on NPR. The discussion got pretty heated at times. It is hard to have an objective opinion about the issue when I'm working for an organization that can't possibly pay for faster data download times and one that doesn't really have a use for such a service in any case. We aren't building complex web apps. My ex-employer would have had a different stance since they did develop complex web-delivered apps, but they certainly had no money to pay for such a service either. I'm rather conflicted about the issue, but I CAN see where big companies could certainly abuse this service.
|
Bentler
msg:1236538 | 8:25 pm on Jun 7, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I think download speed and reliability key factors in Google's search algo, at least for the very popular searches. Thus, top listings for popular terms would tend to be monopolized by Web sites able to afford a premium overhead, paid to their service provider.
|
tntpower
msg:1236539 | 12:38 am on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0) |
It is alrite iff G$ is willing to pay ISPs reasonable $$$ for updating hardware & software.
|
rollinj
msg:1236540 | 1:10 am on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Lol... what is bandwidth anyways? Only the MOST expensive forms of electricity in the world... This is all BS to me, electrons and light are/should-be free! FIGHT THEM GOOG!
|
vincevincevince
msg:1236541 | 5:14 am on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I think that big ISPs are going to die out if they cannot evolve. There are so many ways to provide bandwidth which are much less costly than the copper-wire model the telco-ISPs are clinging to for survivial. I'm glad Google is lobbying in Congress, but I would have hoped it wouldn't be needed. Common sense should tell congress that the proposal is only aimed at keeping telco-dinosaurs in a position of virtual monopoly.
|
NickCoons
msg:1236542 | 6:56 am on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I think I might be missing something with this whole thing. My sites are hosted on my own server, colocated at my ISP. I pay them a certain amount per month for a certain amount of bandwidth. If I want more bandwidth (so that my servers can be accessed more quickly), I pay more per month. As far back as I can remember, it's always been this way. What's the difference with this "new" proposal?
|
lammert
msg:1236543 | 7:29 am on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| I pay them a certain amount per month for a certain amount of bandwidth. |
|
You don't pay for bandwidth for the total network from server to consumer, but for the bandwidth from the webserver to the start of the global internet. The global net is provided on a shared use base and the operators of this part of the net and the IAPs providing the connection between the consumer and the global net are free to throttle your traffic independent of how many you pay your hosting company for the first 500 meters of infrastructure.
|
Hollywood
msg:1236544 | 2:06 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0) |
1/2 of the Washington Government staff refused to meet with Sergey as he dressed to unimpress, hard to believe. Jeans, worn sneakers, t-shirt... oops! Hollyweird
|
tntpower
msg:1236545 | 3:55 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| The global net is provided on a shared use base and the operators of this part of the net and the IAPs providing the connection between the consumer and the global net are free to throttle your traffic independent of how many you pay your hosting company for the first 500 meters of infrastructure |
|
Global net is free? Give me a beak! So you mean big Telecomes do that for free? Give me a break!
|
tntpower
msg:1236546 | 3:58 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| electrons and light are/should-be free! |
|
You do not need to pay for sunlight, nobody asks you to pay for that. But for other stuffs, you have to pay. Free? Never!
|
NickCoons
msg:1236547 | 5:49 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| You don't pay for bandwidth for the total network from server to consumer, but for the bandwidth from the webserver to the start of the global internet. |
|
There isn't one entity called "The Global Internet" that all ISPs connect to. The entire internet exists by virtue of all of the independent connections. The ISP that connects my server to the internet connects to various other backbones, and so on, which ultimately go to the end-user requesting data from my site. If User A requests data from my site, the traffic takes a particular path from them to my server. If User B requests data, that traffic takes a different path entirely, except up to the point where it gets to my ISP. There is no single entity that all traffic passes through that can throttle the bandwidth of those accessing my servers, except my ISP. | The global net is provided on a shared use base and the operators of this part of the net and the IAPs providing the connection between the consumer and the global net are free to throttle your traffic independent of how many you pay your hosting company for the first 500 meters of infrastructure. |
|
But traffic from my server goes through my ISP, then from there might go through AT&T, Savvis, Time Warner, or whoever else to get to the end-user. My ISP, as with many others, have mutliple connections to the internet. They don't rely on a single provider, as that translates into a single point-of-failure if their one and only upstream provider were to have a problem. So under this new provision, who would I be expected to pay for faster service? AT&T, Time Warner? Oh wait! I already pay my ISP $X/month for a certain level of service, and they already pay their various upstreams $Y/month for a certain level of service. In other words, I am already paying for a specific amount of bandwidth, and so is my provider, and so is their provider, etc. So again, how is this different than what already exists and has existed for a long time?
|
twinsrul
msg:1236548 | 10:15 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0) |
"Brin's high-profile appearance" What a joke. Sounds like spin to me. Here's the real story: | "Google guy stumbles in D.C." Wearing blue jeans, silver mesh sneakers and a black T-shirt and jacket, according to the Washington Post, the co-founder of Google Inc. found out that while he may be a multi-billionaire, he's nobody to some on Capitol Hill. Four Senators passed on meeting with him to discuss Net Neutrality, the newspaper reported. He did talk with four others including Sens. McCain, Smith (R.-Ore.), Dorgan and Obama. . Full Article [marketwatch.com]
|
|
|
pontifex
msg:1236549 | 10:28 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| he's nobody to some on Capitol Hill |
|
well, he must be aware that he can not be everybodys darling and maybe that was a good experience... welcome back to reality :)
|
claus
msg:1236550 | 10:41 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0) |
As I wrote in a <a href="http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum89/14504.htm">related thread</a>: Google with it's dark fibre, massive datacentres, web accelerator and whathavewe are themselves building said fast lane. This is just a publicity stunt to deter their competition. Wolves in sheepskin, that's what they are.
|
lammert
msg:1236551 | 11:31 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| Global net is free? Give me a beak! So you mean big Telecomes do that for free? Give me a break! |
|
You should quote two more words, I said "free to throttle" :)
|
dauction
msg:1236552 | 11:44 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Good for google and everyone else fighting the nonsense
|
shri
msg:1236553 | 4:45 am on Jun 9, 2006 (gmt 0) |
There is a fair bit of FUD on this. I personally like the story in the ZDNet blog. [blogs.zdnet.com...]
|
wmuser
msg:1236554 | 9:08 pm on Jun 9, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Thats a big question if G is correct in in or not,providers are trying to make their own cut and they are not cheating anyone
|
|
