The InformationWeek -- Blogs
Welcome Guest. | Log In| Register | Membership Benefits

InformationWeek's Analytics Weblog

Topics:   Analytics

  • Email this page E-mail this page
  • Print this page Print this page
  • Bookmark and Share
  • icon

ISP-Funded Group Claims Google Isn't Paying Its Fair Share


Posted by Mike Fratto, Dec 7, 2008 08:36 PM

Every once in a while, I come across some really bad conclusions based on some really bad research. The A First-Ever Research Study: Estimating Google's U.S. Consumer Internet Usage & Cost -- 2007-2010, from netCompetition.org, is one such document. Promising to be "straightforward, open, transparent, and replicable as possible" in its methods, the group's research findings are based on a mishmash of sources randomly aggregated to a wholly unfounded conclusion that Google isn't paying its fair share of bandwidth.


I don't know if Google or any content provider is using more than its fair share of the Internet and, frankly, it would be interesting to find out how the Internet is being used, but taking usage data from a Cisco report, a report from the USPTO peer-to-peer file sharing, search engine and video-sharing market share data and a few others, and then coming up with some percentage of total Internet usage, is wildly unreliable. What exactly is the relationship between market share and bits per second consumed?

The response of Richard Whitt, Google's Washington telecom and media counsel, to this so-called research is that that the author, Scott Cleland, is wrongly equating consumer's use of Google's services such as Gmail, YouTube, and the search engine as Google originating traffic. Whitt's right. You, the consumer, who already has paid for your bandwidth and access to the Internet, is using content hosted at Google, or Yahoo -- content providers who also have paid for their bandwidth and connection to the Internet. Neither Google nor any content providers are forcing content on you.

Consumers pay for their access. Content providers pay for their access. The telecoms, in providing the access to consumers and content providers, already are getting paid to carry the bits by both content providers and consumers. That's fair.

Through peering arrangements, (you can read more about peering, transit, and transport in this paper), some tier 1 service providers such as Verizon and AT&T agree to exchange traffic essentially for free because that lets their customers, content providers and consumers alike, interact. The traffic that flows between tier 1 providers is roughly equal and the peered ISP's have an equitable arrangement. Peering is similar in nature to reciprocal charges in the public switched telephone network (PSTN) where each telcom company paid a few pennies to have its customer calls terminate on another telecoms customer. Lesser service providers pay transit or transport costs to their upstream ISP's because the smaller providers are getting more benefit -- access to the Internet -- than they are giving. Its how the world works. Or doesn't work, like when Sprint cut off Cogent last October.

However, the tier 1 ISPs that form the backbone of the Internet, also carry traffic where neither the content provider nor the consumer are paying that ISP. Those bits are transported for free. But that works out because the tier 1 ISPs also get their bits transported for free by other tier 1 ISPs. It's still a fair and equitable arrangement and has worked out pretty well.

But what the ISPs really want is a chunk of the advertising revenue that content providers receive, and that advertising revenue is a substantial sum. Look at the size of Google, Yahoo, and other ad-based businesses. The various attempts by some ISPs to replace the content providers' advertising with ads that pay the ISPs instead shows the lengths that some telecoms will go in tapping into that revenue stream. Alternatively, ISPs also could charge content providers like Google and Yahoo again to move the same bits over the same pipes that you and the content providers have already paid for!

This is going to get ugly. Real ugly. Big money is at stake and you can bet someone like the consumer is going to get trampled "for our own good." Too bad the ISPs can't figure out how to make money by pushing bits.

« Air Force Seeks (Non Lethal) City Stopper | Main | Six Great Ways To Save On Holiday Shopping »



Sign Up Now
For InformationWeek News Alerts




This is a public forum. United Business Media and its affiliates are not responsible for and do not control what is posted herein. United Business Media makes no warranties or guarantees concerning any advice dispensed by its staff members or readers.

Community standards in this comment area do not permit hate language, excessive profanity, or other patently offensive language. Please be aware that all information posted to this comment area becomes the property of United Business Media LLC and may be edited and republished in print or electronic format as outlined in United Business Media's Terms of Service.

Important Note: This comment area is NOT intended for commercial messages or solicitations of business.




 
 

  1. HPC Joins the Dummy Revolution?
  2. Detecting Scalability Problems With Intel Parallel Universe Portal
  3. Just Say No To SFAQL Parallelism


Join The InformationWeek Group On LinkedIn


                           


  1. HTC Droid Eris To Get Android 2.0 Update
  2. Google Goggles Visual Search Fails Early Testing
  3. Google Android A No-Go In Europa
  4. AT&T Asks Users To 'Mark The Spot'
  5. Verizon Calls iPhone A 'Digitally Clueless Beauty Queen'


  1. Windows 7 Family Pack Discontinued
  2. Global CIO: The 50 Top Tech Quotes For 2009, Part II
  3. Barnes & Noble Delays Nook Sales In Stores
  4. HP Launches Small Footprint PC
  5. Google Reinvents Search For Mobile Era
  6. Oracle To Plead Sun Acquisition Case Before EC

 

  Ars Technica
Boing Boing
Channel 9 Forums
CRN Blogs
Dr.Dobb's Portal: Blogs
Engadget
Gizmodo
GrokLaw
  Lifehacker
Schneier on Security
Slashdot
TechCrunch
Techdirt
Techmeme
Valleywag

  DECEMBER 2008
NOVEMBER 2008
OCTOBER 2008
SEPTEMBER 2008
AUGUST 2008
JULY 2008
JUNE 2008
MAY 2008
  APRIL 2008
MARCH 2008
FEBRUARY 2008
JANUARY 2008
DECEMBER 2007
NOVEMBER 2007
OCTOBER 2007
SEPTEMBER 2007