Forum Moderators: martinibuster
"The only way you can have a fast lane that is useful, that people will pay for, is if there are slow lanes,"
Sergey then added,
Google's searches are valuable only if consumers can also quickly access the sites listed in its results.
While larger companies like Google will be able to pay a fast lane tax, is there a possibility, as Sergey suggests, of a slow lane for smaller publishers who cannot afford to pay?
And what of medium sized publishers with high traffic sites?
Here is another interesting food for thought:
We - publishers - serve for free what motivates the subscribers to pay the ISPs and carriers for the internet connection in the first place, accordingly it is us publishers that should be getting an internet tax or share from those fat cats.
This is just a publicity stunt to deter their competition.
There's also an open letter by Eric Schmidt: [google.com...]
Wolves in sheepskin
This is just a publicity stunt to deter their competition
How is that?
Hobbs is right. ISPs base their business model on the fact that we the publishers create content that people want access to. Without us they have nothing. They ought to be paying US a fee!
[savetheinternet.com...]
Be careful of astroturf, false-fronts for the telcos such as:
These are the bad guys -- telco shills in populist clothing.
You ask how ISP's are competitors to Google? It's pretty obvious, and they even explain it in their latest "Form 10-Q", eg. on page 40. See [investor.google.com...]
We also compete with destination web sites that seek to increase their search-related traffic. These destination
web sites may include those operated by Internet access providers, such as cable and DSL service providers.
Because our users need to access our services through Internet access providers, they have direct relationships with
these providers. If an access provider or a computer or computing device manufacturer offers online services that
compete with ours, the user may find it more convenient to use the services of the access provider or manufacturer.
In addition, the access provider or manufacturer may make it hard to access our services by not listing them in the
access provider’s or manufacturer’s own menu of offerings, or may charge users to access our websites or the
websites of our Google Network members. Also, because the access provider gathers information from the user in
connection with the establishment of a billing relationship, the access provider may be more effective than we are in
tailoring services and advertisements to the specific tastes of the user.
Google is themselves an ISP, and they have built up a separate fast internet infrastructure (for delivery of Google products of course). So they have the product in the pipeline already, that they now want to stop the other ISP's from getting.
Google as an ISP would compete with AOL and MSN who provide both content and access, but not with carriers, Google can does and will provide free wireless access, that is also competing with ISPs, but again not with carriers. As for having products, that only puts Google in the firing range of Micro$soft, but who isn't, that company is into everything but selling hot dogs and falafel. Personally I am rooting for Google for taking on the cause of the smaller guys.
And yes, carriers should be paying part of our hosting cost, we have been spoiling them now they're prepping the grill for a golden goose bbq.
What I find problematical is the hidden/underlying premise of the discussion of how US legislation will have an effect on the rest of the world. For example, there has been some important legislation in the UK and other countries that will also have a butterfly effect on the rest of the world and on the US. Is it only what happens in the US that is regarded as important? Does not what happens in other countries have relevance to the US?
I'm not saying there isn't a butterfly effect. I'm objecting to the dominant US-centrism when discussing something that belongs to the world.
A departure from "Net neutrality" will have more impact on broadband entertainment, such as distribution of movies and TV over the Web, than on the typical Web site. (Think Netflix or MSNBC, as opposed to mom-and-pop.com.)
That's exactly how I see it, and something that gets left out of all the pundit discussions in the media. Most of us with hosted websites already know that there's no such thing as neutrality, if you swamp the server bandwidth, you get charged more, or asked to leave.
Carrier A announces a rate increase to test the waters.
If carriers B and C then announce similar rate increases the increases stand, for the moment.
If carriers B and C don't announce similar rate increases, carrier A cancel its increase.
Could be a bumpy ride and a rough landing if so.
I have good hosting in various corners of the world, including the US, but my next major bandwidth expansion is going to be in the UK (in Telehouse Europe) because it *is* matching/beating US prices (and it is walking distance from my main client, and the guy who runs the hosting company is one of the best/smartest guys on the Net though you'll rarely hear his name!).
And remember that the EU alone is a bigger market (more people, more capital) than than the US, never mind (say) Japan (and the rest of Asia).
Anyway, walled gardens end up hurting those who put up the walls, to get back to the point!
Rgds
Damon
And remember that the EU alone is a bigger market (more people, more capital) than than the US, never mind (say) Japan (and the rest of Asia).
I don't think it matters where your site is hosted, though. My biggest revenue source is in Europe, my hosting service is in the U.S., and my visitors come from 100+ countries in a typical day. To paraphrase the classic P. Steiner cartoon in THE NEW YORKER, "On the Internet, nobody needs to know the location of your doghouse."
while today is definitely American, tomorrow the picture is different for sure.
Hobbs
It's not often we disagree therefore I shall slightly change your statement:
Yesterday was definitely American, today the picture is different for sure:-)
The times are a'changing and fortunately those at WebmasterWorld are at the forefront of the revolution!
What is going to happen will, yes WILL, be discussed and argued like hell here first regardless of anyone's pre-conceived notions.
WebmasterWorld Members consider this: I can almost guarantee that nearly anything we see on the NET any time in the future will be discussed here years in advance of any implementation.
We're the lucky people, we're at the forefront of all what is happening whether YOU realise it or not!
Do not asssume what have you learnt here that everyone else knows, they do not, use it to your own advantage:-)
These companies can't tell the difference between a HTML file and a video file. So they would just say if you are over 10 megs a month you get moved to the slow lane automatically unless you pay up.
if you are over 10 megs a month
Any specific reason for this figure or merely an example?
At what point would you squeal bearing in mind your traffic levels?
They'll just let the existing 'free' lane continue to get more and more congested
["Google's searches are valuable only if consumers can also quickly access the sites listed in its results."]
LOL, in the real world, it is always to go with these versions:
"The only way you can *always* have a lane that is useful, that people will pay for, is if there is *no other* lane exists".
"Your result is *always* valuable only if consumers can only have *one choice* - the result you offer."
These companies can't tell the difference between a HTML file and a video file. So they would just say if you are over 10 megs a month you get moved to the slow lane automatically unless you pay up.
I think hosting providers have peering agreements with other ISP's and they set the price per MB. If USA Carriers raise prices then prices go up worldwide?
Don't know about you but since Google furnishes me with a goodly portion of my income each month, if they get cold, I shiver. I don't believe they - or any other current big net business - can sustain if the telcos have their way. Instead of the traditional 70-30 split common for publishers now, we could be looking at a 20-80 split with Bell South in the future...
Anyway, Google is already a heavy user of bandwith. Probably the heaviest bandwith user at all. As an aside: Do you think bots are likely to get first priority?
Second, Google is building up efforts to distribute many more types of content, from private homepages to video. That all requires more bandwith.
Google is the one company that will be affected most by price increases or regulation on bandwith. This is not about them being in favour of some free-as-in-libre internet, it's about them being grabbed by the balls. As in revenue-less-costs-equals-profits.
And Google is an ISP as well. They just don't provide ISP services out house (except for homepages), as they consume them in house (for their own products/services).
