×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

French Telecom Claims To Have Forced Google To Pay For Traffic

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the setting-a-precedent dept.

Google 207

Dupple writes "The head of French telecoms operator Orange said on Wednesday it had been able to impose a deal on Google to compensate it for the vast amounts of traffic sent across its networks. Orange CEO Stephane Richard said on France's BFM Business TV that with 230 million clients and areas where Google could not get around its network, it had been able to reach a 'balance of forces' with the Internet search giant. Richard declined to cite the figure Google had paid Orange, but said the situation showed the importance of reaching a critical size in business. Network operators have been fuming for years that Google, with its search engine and YouTube video service, generates huge amounts of traffic but does not compensate them for using their networks. An editorial piece at GigaOm says Google is abandoning its principles and giving Orange 'the incentive to demand the same from other content providers.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

207 comments

Makes no sense. (5, Insightful)

CurunirAran (2811035) | about a year ago | (#42634901)

The Internet IS DATA. I don't get ISPs. They provide low quality service at exorbitant prices, and then complain about clients using their services.

Re:Makes no sense. (5, Insightful)

cob666 (656740) | about a year ago | (#42634941)

I was under the impression that end users were paying for bandwidth they're using. Now ISPs want usage paid for by the user AND the content provider? Nice business model.

Re:Makes no sense. (5, Funny)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about a year ago | (#42634971)

Like many whores, they charge extra to get it in both ends.

Re:Makes no sense. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42635325)

Adds new meaning to the phrase "Man in the middle".

Re:Makes no sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42635737)

Everyone knows that is called a "Lucky Pierre"

Re:Makes no sense. (1)

CurunirAran (2811035) | about a year ago | (#42634975)

Sadly this model does not look like changing any time soon.

Re:Makes no sense. (5, Insightful)

jbo5112 (154963) | about a year ago | (#42635323)

Google is changing it by coming an ISP. As soon as they offer service in a reasonable share of the market, they can refuse to pay anyone. If the ISP doesn't comply, they can't offer Google to their customers. Orange gets Internet lite. This gives me yet another reason to dislike France.

Google is probably running traffic straight from their networks to Orange, so charging the smaller, connecting network an interconnect fee isn't out of line. However, with two large netowks, they usually just call it even. Google's customer facing network is the 2nd largest in the world, without even counting the new Kansas City service, so it would actually make more sense for Google to charge them.

If I were Google, during negotiations I would have run ads to Orange customers on the main page about Orange wanting to charge Google for bandwidth customers paid for, and point out that additional fees would make it more difficult to run a free service, possibly shutting down access. It would give Google more leverage to just say no to fees, especially if Orange is getting 100,000's of complaints. Option 2 is to charge the customers for each youtube video and explain why. If running Internet search is lucrative, then why is no one else making money on it? Microsoft is losing $1 billion or so per year, and Yahoo nearly went bankrupt.

Re:Makes no sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42635343)

Sadly this model does not look like changing any time soon.

Famous last words at the end of every single piece of legislature that is passed allowing this bullshit to continue, all because people do nothing but talk, not act.

We clearly need more competition, not more monopolies. Don't even know why the fuck we even have anti-monopoly laws on the books...

Re:Makes no sense. (3, Interesting)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#42635023)

As a user, I pay for my cap that includes up and down. When they charge my cap on up only, then they can charge Google for their upload. Though, the terms are pretty light. Perhaps the issue is that Google isn't paying for data, but Orange is lying and Google is paying for space and power for caches (something they do do, though they prefer to not pay, as it benefits the carrier as well as Google). Without both sides talking or other more impartial description of the situation, it may be an exaggeration by one side.

Or maybe not. PR is all about the worst lies you can get away with. The only question is, how bad are they?

Re:Makes no sense. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42635195)

Users don't want ads and that isp was blocking ads from Google. See now why Google caved in?

Re:Makes no sense. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42635203)

More info http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/01/frances-second-largest-isp-suspends-ad-blocking-for-now/

Re:Makes no sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42635721)

Blablabla. Hey shill, how are you? They weren't blocking ads, and the only ISP that did was called for a meeting with government officials and stopped it.

We already pay the ISP, makes no sense at all for the ISP to also charge the content provider except if it was to reduce the customers bill... and it isn't. The ISPs should be the ones under pressure.

Re:Makes no sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42635263)

This is not the norm. Greed is in every industry though.

Re:Makes no sense. (5, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year ago | (#42634955)

Maybe this will work out in our favor. Perhaps it will lead me to forcing best buy to pay me for buying their products or something.

Sarcasm aside, I completely agree. Unless Google is using some sort of peering agreement and just going through their network, all the bandwidth and everything is already paid for by the customer who requests it. There is absolutely no reason to have it paid for twice.

Re:Makes no sense. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42634963)

But it's Google's fault. If not for them, no one would be using the Internet.

Re:Makes no sense. (2, Insightful)

Wandering Voice (2267950) | about a year ago | (#42635003)

They provide low quality service at exorbitant prices, and then complain about clients using their services.

Yeah, no shit. I don't recall Comcast, Qwest, Charter, or Century offering any kind of quality search engine or a user generated content service such as YouTube. I'm not praising Google for their services, but if any is to be given, Google has earned more than any of the ISPs I've suffered.

Re:Makes no sense. (5, Informative)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year ago | (#42635109)

". They provide low quality service at exorbitant prices, and then complain about clients using their services."

From the article:

... areas where Google could not get around its network ..

It sounds like they are not talking about traffic that goes from Google to their customers, but rather traffic that passes through their network on its way to a customer of another provider. If this is the case, then the situation is a little bit different than the "their customers already paid them for the bandwidth" argument. I'm not saying that Orange is in the right; merely that without more information I don't think anyone could make that determination.

Re:Makes no sense. (5, Informative)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year ago | (#42635125)

Looks like Google is simply paying for transit to another networks. Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Makes no sense. (4, Insightful)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year ago | (#42635183)

Then shouldn't Orange have a contract with that 'other provider' to act as either (a) a customer or (b) a push-pull arrangement, like big top-tier American companies do?

Re:Makes no sense. (1)

lsllll (830002) | about a year ago | (#42635215)

I'm sure the "other" providers using Orange's connectivity are already paying based on whatever agreement they signed up with Orange, thus they look like another "customer" to Orange. You can throw more information at the issue, but it just stinks of a business model not good for us end users, since it'll just make content providers more greedy for money if they have to pay network providers.

Re:Makes no sense. (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year ago | (#42635259)

... and you base this on what information source? What part of "more information is required" are you not getting? You're not "sure" of anything. You have a belief that is probably correct, but again, any conclusion you or I form is exceedingly premature. The information simply isn't available to us at the present time.

Re:Makes no sense. (1)

lsllll (830002) | about a year ago | (#42635651)

Of course nobody can tell what future holds, or he'd be a millionaire. However I stand by what I said. Just check out these snippets from the article and tell me how any of these could be good for the consumer:

Google has also been faced with demands for compensation from content providers such as newspapers, who charge the search giant makes lots of advertising revenue from referencing their material.

Is it fair use or not? If it is, then they should STFU and come up with a business model that works better for them and gets them what they want. If it's not, then take Google to court.

France and Germany are considering imposing compensation schemes on Google as the company has refused to reach any deal with media outlets.

Who do you think will pay for these "compensation schemes"? You and I. We're the only ones who have untapped money. True that we're already paying an arm and a leg for Internet connectivity and Satellite audio/video, but where there's more, greedy bastards will follow.

French President Francois Hollande warned Google on Wednesday that his government would legislate a so-called Google tax if the company doesn't reach a deal with French media companies.

Ditto above.

Of course the other side of the coin is that it's in nobody's interest for newspapers or media companies to go out of business, but enough is enough. Newspapers can definitely reach a sustainable model. It just means they'll have to change. Look at Newsweek. They just issued their last print edition. They figured they'd make out better financially. Media companies are the whores of this planet, loving to charge for both ends as someone else already put it very elegantly in this thread. For them, the more holes they have the better off they are.

I'm not saying we have all the facts of the case and obviously more information is always good. I'm just saying that a network provider who is (highly) likely already getting paid for traffic going across their wires getting paid twice CANNOT end up being good for us consumers. If Google pays for the double traffic, then the least it'll cost us is in terms of innovation coming out of Google.

Re:Makes no sense. (1)

jbo5112 (154963) | about a year ago | (#42635409)

If the traffic is going to Small ISP's customers, then Small ISP has already paid Orange for the traffic. Google has a rather large network to be paying such internetworking fees, considering their customer facing network is larger than all but 1 ISP. Fees like this are probably the main reason for their fiber service starting in Kansas City. I wonder how many price gouging services Google can sidestep before governments call them a verticle monopoly, finding some way of saying they have an unfair advantage of being more efficient than the competition.

Re:Makes no sense. (-1, Offtopic)

mihahalu (2819363) | about a year ago | (#42635449)

http://www.cloud65.com/ [cloud65.com] my buddy's mother makes $82 every hour on the computer. She has been fired from work for 5 months but last month her income was $19402 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on this web site

Re: Makes no sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42635523)

$82? I paid her more than that last night when she played "Orange Telcom" with me.

What? (4, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#42634909)

"Network operators have been fuming for years that Google, with its search engine and YouTube video service, generates huge amounts of traffic but does not compensate them for using their networks."

Are these the same operators who make users pay for the bandwidth consumed by the YT videos the users view as part of their ISP contracts? So they want to be paid twice for the traffic, or what?

Re:What? (1)

greg1104 (461138) | about a year ago | (#42634935)

Yes, they want to be paid twice for the traffic. Who wouldn't want to be paid twice for the same thing if you could? Orange discovered they had enough leverage on Google that they could, so they did.

Re:What? (1)

meerling (1487879) | about a year ago | (#42634973)

True, but I wonder if the 'payment' was actually in monopoly money, or old confederate bills. :)

For their next trick, they'll try to use this unspecified payment for leverage to get the government to mandate a usage tax payable to themselves.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42635099)

Ah. I get it finally. ISPs want to be a publisher, like the RIAA and co are. They want content makers to pay them so that the ISP can then sell to customers.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42635119)

Orange discovered they had enough leverage on Google that they could, so they did.

Or Google could have just told them to piss off and told anyone coming from *.orange.fr to get a different ISP.

The BBC in England said they'd do exactly this if ISPs were to block or throttle their traffic.

Just name and shame the ISPs, they will soon kick it in unless they want to go out of business.

Of course when they all start doing it, its over unless Google then fought for legislation banning the practice, we NEED net neutrality more now than ever!
 

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42635271)

how about an analogy of what "google" is in this situation

you rent out a room in your house. rent paid includes utilities (water, electricity, gas, internet).

your typical renter will meet a standard by which you can make a tidy profit. in some cases you'll be making an exobitant profit. in others you'll be making a loss. overall it averages out that you make a small but modest profit.

your google renter is not your typical renter. he blew through the internet allowance cap in less than one day, his electricity usage has resulted in calls from DHS to checkup on your "activites". the water company is insisting you need to buy in bulk allocations. the gas company constantly sends people over assuming there is some kind of leak. in addition your fridge is always empty regardless of how you stock it, there's no soap, the dishwasher is always full, and the washing machine is always running. appliances "google" publicly has access to are constantly left on and runnig. things "google" private items that were left out in public for a moment have been left on and running or fiddling with in some way. nothing is quite where you left it. your lounge, dining room, and kitchen are all make shift waiting rooms filled with people waiting to get to goolge's room. the bathroom and toiler are always occupied. your front yard and drive-way is filled with cars that aren't yours. google itself is never seen. though you can tell when it's been then due to trails of empty champagne bottles and various scraps having been left around. the lock on google's door has also been changed. you approach google to renogiate the terms of the rental agreement due to google's consumption. you never get to see google and only see canned responses such as "i'll take it into consideration". you activate a termination clause in the agreement and lock google out of the house. while google isn't trying to get back in, a tonne of the people who claim to be working for google are constantly banging on the doors and walls outside.

the fact your isp doesn't get charged much for downloading off other networks is because 99.99997% of users will have reasonable download usage, which is seen as an acceptable cost when the other network will possibly be downloading a similar amount from your isp's network. that even includes people running torrents 24/7 to some degree. google though is part of 0.00003% which represents an excessively disproportionate bandwith consumer that isn't even subscribed to your isp's network. now would you rather see your monthly isp bill go up to account for consumers such as google so that google can continue to do what it does at no extra cost to them, or would you rather your isp actually target those that are a burden on their network?

remember, this isn't about people downloading from google. that part is fine. it's google's many, many bots pulling data from the isp's network that is the problem.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42635393)

Yes, they want to be paid twice for the traffic. Who wouldn't want to be paid twice for the same thing if you could? Orange discovered they had enough leverage on Google that they could, so they did.

This is a perfect example of how business does not operate anymore within the confines of right and wrong, good and bad, or moral and immoral.

They (barely) operate within the confines of what they .thinkcan get away with, and don't give a fuck who they piss off when they do it. They purposely break laws anytime the fine or penalty is a fraction of the revenue generated.

There's another group that exhibits those same characteristics.

We used to refer to them as the "Mafia".

Now, we just call them "Corporations".

Isn't it funny how shit changes right under your nose when apathy takes over...

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42635043)

Depends. It seems (from their site) that Orange internet plans in France do not have volume caps, and so Orange is trying to pass the variable cost up to Google instead of down to its subscribers. It also seems that their monthly plan for what I get up here in Canada is 2.5x cheaper not counting that up here we have volume caps and overage charges.

Re:What? (2)

Kjella (173770) | about a year ago | (#42635579)

Yes. Our biggest ISP tried that when Netflix launched, that they should pay the ISP for all the traffic they were sending. Netflix's reply was (paraphrased) "How about I give you the finger and if you want to keep your customers, deliver our videos." From what I understood it was rather effective, wasn't the first time they've tried and I'm sure it won't be the last but they've been shot down in flames every time.

WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42634915)

That better not be true.

Hurray for French internet users! (4, Funny)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year ago | (#42634917)

Congratulations, French internet users; pretty soon you should see your internet bill lowered!
Atleast... I'm assuming Orange isn't going to charge twice for the same traffic.

Re:Hurray for French internet users! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42635061)

You seem to have a poor grasp of just how it is that Socialism thrives...

Re:Hurray for French internet users! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42635107)

monopoly rent-seeking is a consequence of socialism?

Re:Hurray for French internet users! (-1, Flamebait)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year ago | (#42635131)

Yes, how do you think the companies got the monopoly in the first place? That's right, the government gave it to them. Although the correct term is fascism. However it is an easy mistake to make since there is so little difference between socialism and fascism anyway.

Re:Hurray for French internet users! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42635597)

Yes, how do you think the companies got the monopoly in the first place? That's right, the government gave it to them. Although the correct term is fascism. However it is an easy mistake to make since there is so little difference between socialism and fascism anyway.

You're an ignorant fool. Fascism is innately totalitarian, wheras socialism can be totalitarian or be based on democracy.

Re:Hurray for French internet users! (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year ago | (#42635671)

since there is so little difference between socialism and fascism anyway

Yes, because we all know there's little difference between modern day Sweden and Nazi Germany. /sarcasam

Re:Hurray for French internet users! (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year ago | (#42635897)

The difference between modern day Sweden and Nazi Germany is not their economic system. The difference is their political system.

Re:Hurray for French internet users! (1)

Cruciform (42896) | about a year ago | (#42635111)

No wonder you posted anonymously. If you didn't take the time to look up that they're a corporation practicing capitalism then navigating a login must be tough.
It hasn't been a government entity in 23 years.

Re:Hurray for French internet users! (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#42635739)

I think they're actually a Monopoly. Capitalism usually "should" include competition.

Re:Hurray for French internet users! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42635117)

How is this not normal capitalism?

Step 1: obtain dominant market position.

Step 2: charge rents.

The point is to accumulate capital. This is a market transaction. There's no government mandate here. The system is working as intended.

Re:Hurray for French internet users! (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#42635745)

If it was capitalism then someone could actually start a company to compete with them.

Google is a free service, it is a public good (0)

achlorophyl (2205676) | about a year ago | (#42634919)

Google gives us stuff for free. It is a public good. These telecoms who claim to be doing so much "work" for Google are really doing work for their clients/customers -- the real beneficiaries of the internet in general, and the people who are presumably paying fees to use the net.

Re:Google is a free service, it is a public good (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42634979)

the worlds largest tax evading commercial advertising data miner is NOT for the public good, however well their services are technically, forgive me if i dont gush praise on them.

Re:Google is a free service, it is a public good (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#42635755)

Google provides an extremely valuable service for free. This is good. Some of their practices may not be good but frankly I can't care less if they evade taxes since it is flatly impossible to build wealth without having a wise tax strategy. Taxing corporations only causes them to pass those costs to their customers anyway.

Re:Google is a free service, it is a public good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42634985)

I impregnate women for free. Is my cock a public (not pubic, lol) good?

Re:Google is a free service, it is a public good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42635035)

Google forces data into vaginas?

Re:Google is a free service, it is a public good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42635087)

Not sure, but the hair around your cock is definitely public. Not sure if it is good either.

Google Fiber (4, Insightful)

areusche (1297613) | about a year ago | (#42634927)

It's crap like this that I bet is pushing Google to roll out their own fiber. With crap like this and the entrenched nature of ISPs and media companies, I look forward to the day Google's vast walled garden pushes out players like this. I'd rather be in a Google Garden than a Comcast, Orange, or worse. Too bad competition isn't fostered taking one turd for another.

Re:Google Fiber (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42635287)

Most people will be happy as long as their garden contains youporn, youtube, and facefuck. They really don't give a shit about anything else. And their becoming entrained quite well.

They should pay google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42634945)

The users pay their ISP to get data, so the ISP should pay Google for the data, not the other way around.

They already paid them once before.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42634949)

I paid for my bandwidth and they paid for theirs. Why the fuck should Google be forced to pay them again cause I "a paying customer" requested their data. They already paid on their end to deliver it.

Google, I think you need to expand your internet beyond Kansas at breakneck speed. This is complete bullshit double dipping.

I'm confused. (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about a year ago | (#42634953)

Network operators have been fuming for years that Google, with its search engine and YouTube video service, generates huge amounts of traffic but does not compensate them for using their networks.

Isn't it the ISP's *customers* that are using Google and YouTube? Don't those customers pay the ISPs, who, if not one-in-the-same, pay the network operators and any (negotiated) inter-connection fees? Seems the ISP/network operators just want in on a little double-dipping. Perhaps I'm naive, but aren't they greedy enough?

Re:I'm confused. (1)

meerling (1487879) | about a year ago | (#42635013)

It's the internet equivalent of you paying the grocery store for your food, and the grocery store then trying to force the farmers to pay for the food they provided as well.

Re:I'm confused. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42635067)

Which happens all the time -- the grocery store gets to negotiate bulk pricing from the farmers, which is much lower that what the farmers would get if selling directly to you. Farmers are sometimes forced to even sell below cost if there too much supply. So it's nothing new.

Great investigative reporting, there... (1)

Mathinker (909784) | about a year ago | (#42634959)

> The head of French telecoms operator Orange said

Yes, let's just go and believe everything this CEO says. After all, such important people never lie, right?

If I were Google, I'd prefer to pull the plug on all of France rather than agreeing to push the first rock which would be almost certain to start a landslide that even I wouldn't survive...

Re:Great investigative reporting, there... (5, Interesting)

alostpacket (1972110) | about a year ago | (#42635053)

If I were Google, I'd prefer to pull the plug on all of France rather than agreeing to push the first rock which would be almost certain to start a landslide that even I wouldn't survive...

I was wondering this as well. I would imagine the ISP would reverse course in a matter of nanoseconds if their users started seeing a page like

"Your ISP has blocked Google from providing you Gmail. They are demanding we pay for your use of the internet, something which you already pay for. Here's their contact info:...."

It always strikes me as funny too since Cable is the other way around. I'm pretty sure Cable providers pay television stations. And even if a station doesn't have enough clout there is a law (in the US) they can use called "must carry" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must-carry [wikipedia.org]

I'm surprised this analogy isn't used much.

Re:Great investigative reporting, there... (1)

jbo5112 (154963) | about a year ago | (#42635445)

"Your ISP has blocked Google from providing you Gmail. They are demanding we pay for your use of the internet, something which you already pay for. Here's their contact info:...."

Maybe Google is just paying so they can deliver that message.

How quickly things change (4, Insightful)

HangingChad (677530) | about a year ago | (#42634987)

Network operators have been fuming for years that Google, with its search engine and YouTube video service, generates huge amounts of traffic but does not compensate them for using their networks.

I remember when the US government turned over the internet backbone to the telecos. The deal was they would get the infrastructure in exchange for upgrading the network and the telecos were all about that deal, for a few years. Then AT&T started making noise about places like Google not paying for "their" pipe.

If it's that unprofitable, give it back to the government or sell it. Get out of the network business if it's that hard. Notice that idea never comes up.

Re:How quickly things change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42635487)

Network operators have been fuming for years that Google, with its search engine and YouTube video service, generates huge amounts of traffic but does not compensate them for using their networks.

I remember when the US government turned over the internet backbone to the telecos. The deal was they would get the infrastructure in exchange for upgrading the network and the telecos were all about that deal, for a few years. Then AT&T started making noise about places like Google not paying for "their" pipe.

If it's that unprofitable, give it back to the government or sell it. Get out of the network business if it's that hard. Notice that idea never comes up.

So, you want to simply hand over the internet backbone to the most corrupt business in the entire world...because they've done such a good fucking job at running everything else they're in charge of?

Please do us all a favor and put your head back in your ass. If there's any idea that could possibly make things far worse, it's that one.

Re:How quickly things change (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#42635775)

I think it's time the government took the pipes back. These greedy bastards are making government mismanagement look more and more palatable. It's a fucked choice between government utility or greedy fucking money grubbing bastards.

I pay my ISP for my traffic (2)

frovingslosh (582462) | about a year ago | (#42634991)

Shame on Google if it is true. I pay my ISP for the traffic that I use (and with AT&T even my land line is capped). Google should have said "fine, we will not let your customers access our data" and then waited to see how the French ISPs paying customers reacted. After all, the users are going to use some form of search engine, it really doesn't affect the ISPs traffic if they use Google or Ask or Yahoo or the more evil bing. They just saw Google as a company who depends on providing a free service to the ISPs users to generate revenue and decided that they could bully them.

Re:I pay my ISP for my traffic (1)

evilviper (135110) | about a year ago | (#42635917)

Shame on Google if it is true.

Shame on you for reading Slashdot, and all the inflamatory and trolling article summaries this place has turned in to.

CmdrTaco knew what was coming after /.'s change of ownership before us. We should all follow his good example and get the hell out of here.

I recomend ArsTechnica, PopularScience, and HackerNews. None of which has a good discussion forums, but I'm open to suggestions for others.

Charging on both ends (1)

grimsnaggle (1320777) | about a year ago | (#42635015)

Users pay for the bandwidth already. Orange should just charge all content providers to send data across their network and see how many users they can hold on to.

Money Grubbing (1)

psherman2001 (2739057) | about a year ago | (#42635031)

Is it just in France, all of Europe, or is the whole world becoming money-grabbers? It seems the Europeans like to sue the successful companies (unfair business practices) and now "surcharge" them by proxy.

Full of shit (5, Insightful)

Mullen (14656) | about a year ago | (#42635079)

The CEO of Orange is full of shit. There is no way that Google or any other provider would pay a carrier a "fee", since if they did, EVERYONE would start charging Google.

Google is not dumb, they know when they pay out the first carrier, they will be paying out a lot of other carriers. I am really sure that Google would cut off France (or whom ever Orange carrier for) rather than give in. Google not only would have the users on their side (You know, they PAY for Internet), but also the local governments and every other business out there. Orange is just blowing smoke up people's asses on this one.

Re:Full of shit (3, Interesting)

Dan667 (564390) | about a year ago | (#42635163)

the orange ceo may be trying to start and argument about it, because the decisions becomes what you argue about. He may be lying on purpose to try and eventually really get paid by Google.

Re:Full of shit (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42635363)

I am really sure that Google would cut off France (or whom ever Orange carrier for) rather than give in.

Exactly like they did in China!

Re:Full of shit (2)

jbo5112 (154963) | about a year ago | (#42635473)

Google has cut off companies before. This market is large enough that it could cause a culture shift away from Google.

Re:Full of shit (1)

Rhapsody Scarlet (1139063) | about a year ago | (#42635879)

The CEO of Orange is full of shit.

Not really surprising. As a former customer of their UK arm, I can attest that Orange is shit. They're probably trying to gouge Google because of all the money they're losing from their actual customers leaving and not coming back.

It isn't Google that generates that traffic. (2)

John Hasler (414242) | about a year ago | (#42635103)

It's Orange's customers. Surely Orange could to block them from Google. That would reduce Orange's traffic, would it not?

Re:It isn't Google that generates that traffic. (2)

John Hasler (414242) | about a year ago | (#42635269)

And now I see that it is actually a peering dispute. Both the article and the Slashdot summary are, as usual, misleading.

WHAT?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42635123)

Google does not generate traffic!
ISP's customers generate traffic!
And they pay for it!
What's the difference wheather they use YouTube, Vimeo or their friend's private FTP server?

Wtf is wrong with some people's brains? Wtf is wrong with France?

It's a peering dispute. (5, Informative)

Animats (122034) | about a year ago | (#42635153)

For a less clueless article, see "France Telecom and Google entangled in peering fight". [fiercetelecom.com]

Re:It's a peering dispute. (3, Interesting)

mysticalreaper (93971) | about a year ago | (#42635413)

Mod up please. This is much more reliable that the shrill /. summary, and the poorly informed article.

A peering dispute is totally conceivable, it's happened many times in the past between ISPs. Google paying a consumer network fees to carry traffic has *never* happenend. The former is much more likely.

Re:It's a peering dispute. NOT! (1)

redelm (54142) | about a year ago | (#42635705)

Peering dispute? Why? Just blackhole the packets! FT is presumably in control of their routers -- they do not need to allow pass-thru.

Of course customers will scream, and loud, but that is the choice -- charge for the traffic or live with the losses. The french probably don't want to, and think they can lean on GOOG who can and should give 'em the run-around. FT probably has the only fiber to Corsica and the Quai d'Orsay (English Whitehall, American Foggy Bottom) don't want to upset the natives. So an unfortunate attempt to treat business as power-politics.

Raving /.ers are right even at a deeper level. Do not mistake analysis for correctness, nor emotion for error.

out of context? (1)

technosaurus (1704630) | about a year ago | (#42635157)

Perhaps the actual agreement was for big G to colocate some servers so that the isp doesn't need to use external pipes for some requests. gstatic would be most appropriate and beneficial to both companies. I wrote a small app that does exactly that for end users (I'm not targeting isps for net neutrality ethics)

Google Doesn't Generate Traffic (2)

nemus11011 (938658) | about a year ago | (#42635173)

Google doesn't generate traffic, people visiting Google generate traffic! They clearly have the wrong perspective.

well (1)

ruir (2709173) | about a year ago | (#42635239)

If a provider doesnt allow me to get to google, gmail and whatever anytime, I will change providers...

Sounds more like a peering arrangement to me (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about a year ago | (#42635245)

Since we are denied any real details other than what some ceo is spewing for public consumption it seems pointless to draw any conclusions at this point.

On the more general problem of service provider entitlements from those who give their customers what they want this seems to me to be all about lack of effective competition, rise of the mega ISP and total ownage of the last mile.

Allowing ISPs to get big, fat and lazy leads to inflated sense of entitlement and piss poor value for consumers.

The french and many others other need to get their shit together and open up the last mile and beyond to effective competition.

Google should charge them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42635327)

If I were google I'd send Orange a bill for twice whatever they are billed for bandwhich for providing access to Orange's customers. I mean they are giving services to Oranges customers for free, that hardly seems fair.

WTF is sending data? (1)

Omegium (576650) | about a year ago | (#42635351)

What is sending data over the network? There is no sending. It is not like google is holding me at gunpoint to download cat video's, or that they push it in any other way. I, as a client, request the cat video, and google supplies it. The whole internet is client-server based, and the client almost always initiates the data transfer.

Re:WTF is sending data? (1)

Rising Ape (1620461) | about a year ago | (#42635465)

The internet is not client server based. IP doesn't make any distinction between client and server, and doesn't have a concept of a connection. That's all handled by higher level protocols, which ISPs shouldn't be concerning themselves with.

So yes, it *is* Google sending the data.

Re:WTF is sending data? (1)

mikkelm (1000451) | about a year ago | (#42635541)

At the request of their users. Just like every other part of the Internet works. ISPs make money because their users want to access resources, including Google's. Charging Google for the traffic generated by the requests sent by the subscribers who are also being charged is like the grocery store charging the dairy farm for the shelf space to stock their milk.

Re:WTF is sending data? (1)

Rising Ape (1620461) | about a year ago | (#42635629)

The "users" want to access resources. Google want them to, so they can sell advertising. The benefits of the transaction aren't one-way. Besides, if I used my internet connection exclusively to host a server I would still have to pay for it. The difference is that Google is big and important enough to be able to bargain for good terms.

  It's all just throwing packets around, ultimately. Considerations of "who benefited most from this exchange of packets" are outside the concern of an ISP.

...so cut them off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42635441)

France Telecom's customers will soon let the greedy parasites know what they think.
Why do these people expect to be paid twice? Don't their customers already pay them to provide a service? Why should content providers also pay? Greedy scum.

absurd (4, Insightful)

excelsior_gr (969383) | about a year ago | (#42635577)

This story is absurd any way you look at it.
First of all, the telecom's customers already paid them for the traffic. The telecom should shut up and deliver their product already (with the promised bandwidth).
Second, Google should just ignore them. What will the telecom do? Block Google? Good luck with that. I would be surprised if they'd have any customers left by the end of the month.
Third, if Google pays up, suddenly all telecoms around the globe will come asking for money. Nobody in their right mind would succumb to such an absurd demand from some telecom.

Reason to connect to the internet? (1)

jd659 (2730387) | about a year ago | (#42635681)

Isn't the reason to connect to the Internet and to put up with demands of ISP is precisely because there are services like Google, Netflix and others? What next, ISP advertising internet without access to Google?

This is complete idiocy (1)

plazman30 (531348) | about a year ago | (#42635769)

Google (among other content providers), is the reason why anyone even gets Internet access. Imagine if Cable companies' TV service worked that way, and they attempted to charge the cable channels for access to their US households. How fast would their service fall apart? The Internet pipe I get from a telecom is WORTHLESS without Google, YouTube, Netflix and all those other services. They should be glad Google doesn't charge THEM for access to Google.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...