France Wants Google to Pay for TrafficAdded: Friday, January 25th, 2013
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Current Events
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extratorrent.com
Although the rest of the world is still fighting against a two tiered web, it turned out that in France, search giant Google has surrendered. According to French telecoms operator Orange, it has managed to make company pay in order to compensate it for the enormous amounts of traffic sent across its networks.
According to Orange CEO Stephane Richard, with 230,000,000 clients and areas where the search giant couldn’t get around its network, Google had been forced to come to terms. It seems that there is an anti-trust activity which an ISP would be better off keeping its mouth shut about, but it looks like the company can’t help but brag.
Although Orange hasn’t said how much it got from the search giant, it admitted that the situation revealed the importance of reaching a critical size in business. This means that the ISP has a monopoly over certain traffic and the search engine has to do what it is told. Network operators have been complaining that Google’s search engine, along with its YouTube, generates enormous amounts of traffic but doesn’t compensate them for using networks. In the meantime, many of them will decide that it’s unfair one ISP gets a slice of the pie and they don’t.
Orange CEO put Google traffic over their online networks at around half. Undoubtedly, this means that it will be paid twice for the traffic: first time is by the user and the second time is by Google. This is quite a nice little earner for a company that has a monopoly and can enforce it.
Nevertheless, Google is unlikely to get any support from the authorities. Moreover, a number of European countries, including France and Germany, are considering introducing compensation schemes on the search engine to defend their failing newspaper industry and Big Media.
January 25th,2013Posted by:
Friday, January 25th, 2013
|posted by (2013-01-25 15:37:12)|
|Just to clarify : "Undoubtedly, this means that it will be paid twice for the traffic: first time is by the user and the second time is by Google" is kind of misleading - as in France, there are no "caps", connections are unlimited, Orange (and the other FAIs) don't get a cent more money now that most Youtube videos are in HD for example than before.|
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the idea that Google should participate in the big investments needed for its service to be properly connected to the internet "backbone" in any country (or disagree) but I think it's wrong to let people think the ISP want money to keep it.
Billions are needed to connect Google (and other's) services to the internet with enough bandwith, and neither Google nor the FAIs seem to think they should pay for it alone (Google's position being : it's YOUR network, YOU should pay to upgrade it, and the FAI's being : YOU are saturating our network with more and more data, which brings YOU money with advertising and we get NOTHING - why should WE invest for YOU to get more money ?)
There - agree or disagree, or think they should get to a middle ground, but have all the facts before slamming Google, Orange, the FAIs, etc..
|posted by (2013-01-26 09:10:05)|
|another trick to get out country from recession dump lolz ..... ma be gud or bad policy can clarify in future !!!|
|The ISP's get money from their subscribers, content providers shouldn't be forced to pay for that access?! Basically this says that unless the webpage owner pays for the access the ISP can stop it's subscribers from accessing the page. Bloody ridiculous. BT have just paid out with the help of UK tax money to rebuild their network and are slowly rolling out FTH networks. I disagree that Tax money should have been used. For decades telecommunications firms got FATTER than FAT on profits and didn't upgrade their network infrastructure. Why should anyone but they build the required infrastructure to provide high speed access. They will get their money back from subscription fees|
|posted by (2013-01-27 06:55:05)|
|Typical French, socialist nonsense. If I were Google, I would get completely out of that country or move my servers to the neutral Channel Islands. Either way, don't cave in to this extortion. Now that they've appeased one company, you can expect hundreds more to follow. Really dumb move if you're Google.|
|posted by (2013-01-27 11:04:11)|
|Now this is interesting! Wonder who's going to blink an eye.|
|posted by (2013-01-27 22:05:59)|
|Perhaps it would be wiser in the long run to just drop the networks that block Google until their customers do the work of making changes. Why should everyone who uses the web be eventually punished because of the greed of big corporations.|
|posted by (2013-01-28 01:34:10)|
|A lot of good points from everyone - but just two clarifications :|
- 1 : The French Government had NOTHING to do with this deal apparently (Orange is a private company - yes the Gov is a big shareholder, but it doesn't seem to have played a role - actually I think their involvement would have been counter-productive, and they even recently sided with Google when an ISP threatened to block online ads to piss Google off)
- 2 : Even if I'm sure there are REAL PROBLEMS with network saturation, especially at peak hours, and if ISP are selling bandwidth they DON'T REALLY HAVE, the issue in question here is not the capability of the ISP network as a whole, but the "connection points" between Google's servers and the ISPs. Google has of course its own servers (when you deal with this amount of data you don't use shared hosting lol) and the only way to cope with the traffic is to have DIRECT DEDICATED LINKS between Google and every major ISP (as I understand it).
It's THOSE LINKS that need to be upgraded, and it's THIS INVESTMENT that neither Google nor the FAIs wanted to pay for (it's not upgrading the network as a whole to cope with saturation, just at the "exchange" points between the FAIs network and Google's servers - it would ONLY benefit the access speeds to Google services)
|people already pay for internet service, why should anyone or any isp have a right to expect to be paid from a web site for generating too much traffic? thats ridiculous, and could only come from the french...|
don't forget, orange is/was france telecom, which is mostly owned buy the french government...
but i heard they sold it to a british company...
france telecom bought orange for the brand, because france telecom has such a bad name/reputation...
a rose by any other name is still a rose.
|posted by (2013-01-29 20:35:28)|
|Orange sold to a british company ? lol I would like to hear more about it, considering the debt they have and their loss of market share in both broadband and mobile. (who would want to buy them at this exact moment lol - 10 years ago maybe, in 10 years maybe, but now I doubt it)|
"france telecom bought orange for the brand, because france telecom has such a bad name/reputation..." Well, no. France Telecom created the brand "orange" because they are exporting their services to the UK, the US, most of Africa, a lot of Eastern European countries and Russia apparently, etc... so they thought it would be weird to keep the name "France Telecom" when trying to establish themselves around the world - plus "France Telecom" in French minds is the landlines, so when they started their mobile services they also wanted to separate the two. (actually, France Telecom have a great reputation in France - totally UNDESERVED, but they have it anyway).
This case with Google is so far unique (there is not another company in the world with that amount of cloud / online services using that much bandwidth) so the situation is new, but not specific to France - dig a little and you will find that all over the world (US, UK, Canada, Germany, ..), small FAIs in particular have big problems with this : Google basically knock on their door, says that for their subscribers to be able to access their services correctly the FAI needs now to create a new link between their network and Google's servers, that this will cost X billions, and it's all at the FAI's cost.
Big FAIs can cope, but smaller ones have big problems. (Orange could easily cope, but they're using their size to force Google in an accord to share the bill)
Believe me, you will hear this kinds of stand-offs / deals a lot in the next few years, from all around the world, as Google (and other companies) are going more and more "cloud", the streaming services are going HD, maybe soon ultra-HD, and where there is ONE company, which needs to be connected to the network at a HANDFUL of points, and those "links" (which are the shared propery of the FAIs and the company) need to be updated every few years for a few billions, neither side are gonna want to pay.
Now I think FAIs had it good for long now, so I'm not crying over them for having to suffer a little - but considering that those connection points are basically the shared property of them and Google, I'm not against them going Dutch (especially considering that the FAIs should really invest in their overall infrastructure, FTTH for everyone, and fast ! Because right now a few people are unhappy that for maybe an hour during workdays their youtube in HD is too slow .... I don't know if people living in the country with dial-up or re-Adsl 512 kb/s would be very sorry for them lol)
Most Popular Stories