 
Chris 313
Come get some
Premium
join:2004-07-18
Houma, LA
clubs: | Come beat this horse some more... This horse isn't dead yet? Somebody get the shotgun. | |
|  | 89707828
join:2006-10-24
Chicago, IL
| Re: Come beat this horse some more... This horse was in the glue bottle already this time last year...
Please go ahead and try to charge for access, Google, Amazon, Apple or anything. That's how new, more innovative companies get traction in the market...by capitalizing on the mistakes of the dominant players. All three are showing signs of turning into logy, corporate dinosaurs. We need new entrants especially to compete with the latter two. They are getting as bad as IBM was in the early 90's. | |
| | 
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs: | I'm sure this will drag on forever. The idea is stupid and shows no knowledge of how the internet works. If you don't want to be a pipe, then get out of the business. | |
| 
brandon
Some truth included in this post.
Premium
join:2003-03-31
Hurley, MS | He's right.... Both content providers and last mile providers need each other in order for the other to have value. Neither has intrinsic value without the other. | |
| | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
edit:
November 3rd, @10:13AM
| Re: He's right.... duplicate post.
See post below. | |
| |
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| said by brandon  :Both content providers and last mile providers need each other in order for the other to have value. Neither has intrinsic value without the other. That is certainly true.
said by oroper :Is it possible for Google or all content providers to say, Anyone accessing from a Verizon connection will be "restricted" or blocked. Browsing from a Comcast connection will have full and unaffected access. How do you think this scenario would playout? But Mike at Techdirt's comment:
Mike over at Techdirt wonders why broadband content providers don't start charging incumbents. fails to see 1 major difference. And that is that content providers make money by getting views of their embedded ads. Less viewers and less money from ads. If the content providers cut off an entire ISP(say Comcast or AT&T), their income would drop like a rock. And there are thousands of content providers. Not all would agree to this tactic. The incumbents are few in number and they make money from monthly fees and very little from ads. The loss of 1 or even a dozen content providers would result in very few customer drops for the incumbents.
The power is disproportionately on the side of the incumbents and the content providers know it. They just don't have the power to win that battle and they would run into anti-trust laws if they got together and tried to form a group to target a specific incumbent.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| | | 
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: He's right.... Your view is too narrow...
First, any blog/website can display Google Ads. Google makes a nice about of money simply by those ads. What the suggestion is talking about is restricting Vz access to Google services (search,mail,news,maps,ect). A Vz IP that goes to a website with Google Ads will still show the ads since the actual page requests the content.
Also, Google serves people all around the world, not just in the US.
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: | |
| | | | 89707828
join:2006-10-24
Chicago, IL
| Re: He's right.... The links to the ads are embedded in the web page but the browser requests the ads, and the address in the header would be that of the browser's connection, not the website.
This whole discussion is silly anyway. As TK Junk Mail points out, the "content providers" have a lot more to lose in this battle than any ISP. What do you think would happen to Amazon if they cut off Comcast, for example? That's a lot of shoppers.
And as we sit here wasting keystrokes, nobody has actually done this (on either side). What you've got are some pinheaded corporate execs spouting off without thinking, and some equally pointy-headed bloggers ranting away at ghosts.
Once there is a verified case of this happening, then the discussion has merit. The rest is a colossal waste of time. | |
| 
oroper
Patriots Rule
join:2004-06-01
Beverly, MA
| What if? Is it possible for Google or all content providers to say,
Anyone accessing from a Verizon connection will be "restricted" or blocked. Browsing from a Comcast connection will have full and unaffected access.
How do you think this scenario would playout?
Are there enough loyalist that would switch or would they just move on to something else?
Note: This is just random thoughts so don't be a nazi.
--
I'm a Chapelle Fan-I'm Rich Beehatch!! | |
| | 
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Re: What if? Very possible. Bad for business (for both affected parties), but very possible. | |
| chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
| cable is feeling like cheap labor! I guess that they feel like cheap labor, they do get compensation from their subscribers but they they look how much google and company make and the feel they deserve more.
Sadly for them they do not deserve more. They are contracted to move data thru their networks. And they get paid well for that. If they want to make "google money" well, try to provide services that are as good. | |
| nater351
join:2006-06-08
Modesto, CA | doesnt make sense To me this would be like the gas stations wanting a cut on what delievery drivers make because they are providing the driver the ability to get to his destination. Doesnt make much sense to me | |
| spent
Hooked
join:2001-05-17
Toronto, ON | Analogy check Actually I think your analogy should be more along the lines of toll roads. The SP's provide a highway to get the content to the end user's destination. Videotron is proposing a Government toll booth on that highway. | |
| 
ftthz
If love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17 | thinks i remember didn't google say once that if incumbents started to charge them they'd charge a fee equal in cost  | |
| | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
edit:
November 3rd, @12:37PM
| Thoughts If the big content providers were charged for serving data over certain lines, and they refused to pay. Then the said line owners would block all access to those sites by the customers of the aforesaid line owners.
Does this mean that if you have a two year contract and they blocked your favorite site, you could get out of that contract? Or in my case, if Xmission decided to keep using Qwest (just as an example, I have not looked to see who the backbones are now) and Qwest decided to block DSLR/BBR because they did not pay extra, then would I be able to cancel my Xmission contract?
Add this into all the other posts, and all sorts of possible legal shenanigans possible.
EDIT: Typos
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| tkdslr
join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL
·Speakeasy
| Stupid Idea.. Cut off your nose to spite thy self.. As long as Canada provides the rest of the world with a complete list of IP address ranges to cut off.
Canada, and it's 32 million residents, would loose access to ALL of the internet's FREE content.
Those organizations who provide FREE content at no charge; Certainly won't continue provide content when it costs extra $ in order to get the content delivered.
The internet is huge network and most free content providers of could care less if 1% of the web requests vanished overnight.
So go ahead.. Videotron..
We've got the answer to your lame brain scheme.
And don't forget to start the paperwork for an insolvency filing at the same time.
Once that goodwill is gone, you'll never get it back and Canada will become a Permanent Internet Black hole. | |
| 
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs: | Idea why stop OVER paying exec's?
when we can make a fake tax and squander the proceeds.
--
Reach out and Tap someone! | |
| canuck999999
join:2004-04-19
·MTS
| What I don't get Here is what I really don't get, these people are whining about Google, Yahoo, Apple, etc. stealing their bandwidth, but they don't seem to realize is that people like Google, Apple and Yahoo tend to command more clout among North America's Internet users. All these ISP's have to do is annoy these guys just enough to force them to work together on launching their own ISP and taking these incumbents on and they would probably win. For example, I was on the boards when those USA providers lost access to Google, people freaked, if they start charging Google to gain access to their customers and Google decides to not pay them there will be a lot of PO'd people. So what does Google do? They start their own provider, with the help of the other companies that these incumbents have annoyed, that gives people full access to what they want without charging the content creators for access. What happens then? Simple, incumbent ISP's lose their customer base because people can't access Google, Yahoo or anything Apple related because and all the lost customers sign on to Googlenet or whatever said ISP would be called.
Oh and by the way, I know that this wasn't written very well and that it will never happen so you don't really have to mention that. Although I have been hearing some things about Google building up for something like this.... | |
| | | |
|
|
Tax Incumbents for Accessing Google