Verizon: Pay Attention To What We Do, Not What We Say
from the hypothetical,-huh? dept
The network neutrality issue continues to get a lot of attention, with both sides talking around the issue rather than addressing the real issue (the lack of competition). The latest is that a VP from Verizon is claiming that the idea that Verizon would discriminate with its service is entirely hypothetical. That’s true… except for the fact that just a few months ago this guy’s boss made it clear that he wanted Google to pay Verizon for using its pipes. So, while it’s true that Verizon might not be discriminating right now, the company has publicly made it clear that it would like to. To then say it’s “hypotethetical” seems a bit misleading. That’s not to say net neutrality legislation would help the situation, but for the telcos to be claiming that there’s no problem at all is to ignore all the public statements the telco execs made over the last few months.
Comments on “Verizon: Pay Attention To What We Do, Not What We Say”
Heh
Funny how they always seem to forget those commants made at an earlier time that does not reflect positively on them now…
The net should be neutral.
Nuff said!
Re: Heh
why does the first post to all these articles have a subject of “Heh” ?
Paying for pipes...
I know this isn’t really the point of the story, but i’m so sick of hearing how line providers want Google to pay them for the bandwidth their site consumes on their network. Aren’t they already getting paid by CUSTOMERS? I mean. Google isn’t exactly a Verizon customer, now are they?
This is the typical mindset of companies today: Hey Company A has a boatload of money. There MUST be some way we can get some of it by doing absolutely nothing…
What ever happened to providing good service and keeping your customers happy? Is being the leading cell phone provider for the US not good enough? If you aren’t making enough money, apparently it’s time to find a new market.
Re: Paying for pipes...
“Aren’t they already getting paid by CUSTOMERS?”
Yes but why does everyone think that is the end all-be all of this argument?
Our tax dollars paid for our roads but as more people use them and costs to operate them and improve them go up so do our tolls. Why is this any different. The internet pipes that many people today think of as a god-given right of everyone cost the telco companies BILLIONS to build most of which is being financed. BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR since if they allow Google and others to use them at no cost than the operators will raise their cost to cover their expenses. Back to my Road analogy, the alternative option is saying that the larger trucks cause more damage, drive more miles, etc… and they should be required to pick up the extra fees. Those trucks are Google, et al who seek to monetize the application based services without properly paying for the network based service it sits on.
Bash away if you will but too many of you think that this stuff will have no additional costs as these more advanced services roll out.
One more thing is this is no different whatsoever than SLA agreements that have been in place for years
Re: Re: Paying for pipes...
I hear your point, and it makes a good amount of sense. But, the road analogy doesn’t work, I am thinking you are from the north where you pay tolls on the highways you drive. In the South there are no tolls and the roads are just as good if not better, they are more publicy financed.
In addition wouldn’t paying for tolls equate to the customer paying for the service, no the McDonalds that is on the exit ramp?
Just a question, it’s early for me I am still asleep, so this might be a difficult train of thought to follow.
Re: Re: Paying for pipes...
Sorry, but your analogy nor your argument hold water. As for your road comparison, Google would not be the truck; they would be the make of the car (packet). When you pay for your broadband access you pay for x speed and the often hidden y volume. Now as long as I am not exceeding my paid for volume my cost should not go up. It does not matter if that volume is from 10,000 Google searches, or streaming videos of silly teenie boppers on Youtube, a packet is a packet. Back to your road just because every 3rd car is a Ford (Google) does not mean should be charged for people choosing to drive them. And lastly do not forget that Google does ay for their huge Bandwidth usage, to their ISP.
GOM
Re: Re: Paying for pipes...
“…most of which is being financed.”
– Yes it is being financed, by the customers who use it.
“…if they allow Google and others to use them at no cost.”
– Where is the rock your living under so I can find it and kick it off of you? Let’s follow the money trail….
GOOGLE buys bandwidth from CARRIER A.
CARRIER A buys bandwidth from CARRIER B to accomodate.
CARRIER B buys bandwidth from CARRIER C to accomodate.
CARRIER D buys bandwidth from CARRIER D to accomodate.
CARRIER D sells you bandwidth as well.
You browse to GOOGLE…everyone along your path to GOOGLE is paying for the bandwidth.
What Verizon (heck all of them) is saying is: “I’m CARRIER B and I’m not going to route your traffic as quickly to CARRIER A, even though the bandwidth is there, unless you pay us EXTRA.” In most dictonaries that is called Extortion.
“…this is no different whatsoever than SLA agreements”
– I work with SLA agrrements and those determine how much bandwidth, in my example above, CARRIER D is willing to provide me out the other side to CARRIE C. I do not have an SLA with CARRIER C. CARRIER D willl buy more bandwidth from CARRIER C to accomdate selling me an SLA.
Any of this sinking in…..
kinda off topic but i watched SoD Rummy do the Texas Side Step today…lying sack of shit didn’t know whether to shit or go blind.. so he closed one eye and farted…… when u lie u need to try and not be taped doing it. it can bite u on the ass.
Re: Re:
Kinda off topic? That ain’t ‘kinda’ off topic!!!
charges
funny, i work at a top 3 telco company now for 5 years. And I’m on google’s gmail home page reading this story. In a way, I’m being paid by telco company to read google, which pays the telco company. seems to me the same as if I paid for a subscription to car and driver. I pay the magazine and they let me read their articles. but that magazine also charges a little extra to cover mailing costs (telco bandwidth). This is cool.
What a scam!
So, Verizon is wanting Google to pay so they won’t implement QoS on their Internet pipes. But, they weren’t planning to do it anyway. Knowing the technical shape of major telcos, I doubt their ability to pull this off, given the diverse spread of the Google servers.
So, Verizon is just wanting to be paid to do something the probably couldn’t do. It would actually cost Verzon (or any other Telco) a bunch of money to set up Internet QoS, so that doesn’t make sense. They aren’t going to implement a “feature” that will anger users and especially cost themselves money.
Just threaten and hope someone pays up, as a source of free money, and hope no one looks behind the curtain to see the real wizard.
new game
its based off hungry hungry hippos
but instead its GREEDY GREEDY CEOS!!
they grab and grab and grab for as much cash as possible 😉
better customer service
Instead of extorting money from other companies why don’t they work on their customer service to keep the customers they have.
I do not like Verizon because of how I was treated as a customer of them when I had their cell phone service while living out west. I just moved to the east coast and they are the local service provider for home phone service here. I went out of my way to not use Verizon for my local phone service. (I have VOIP from the cable company)
If they would just have a little more customer service to keep their customers happy, they would not need to resort to extortion.
For Rizzle
For real, as most of you have already said, customers are already paying…. why should the sites.