Scott Cleland, telecom strategist and founder and CEO of the Precursor Group , is accusing Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) of using 21 times more bandwidth than it pays for.
As Google doesn't report how much bandwidth it uses (convenient?), the methodology used in Cleland's report for "estimating" Google's share of the bandwidth was to look at traffic usage data by type and apply market share data from comScore Inc. and Hitwise Pty. Ltd.
According to the report:
The study estimated Google used 16.5% of all U.S. consumer Internet traffic in 2008, and that
share is estimated to grow to 25% in 2009 and 37% in 2010. What drives this conspicuous bandwidth
consumption is Google's search bots regularly copy every page on the Internet, some as frequently as
every few seconds, and Google's YouTube streams almost half of all video streamed on the Internet. The
study estimated Google's payment to fund just the U.S. consumer broadband Internet segment to be
approximately $344 million in 2008 or 0.8% of U.S. consumer's flat-rate monthly Internet access costs of
$44.0 billion.
The report also comments that it is "ironic that Google, the largest user of Internet capacity, pays the least
relatively to fund the Internet's cost" and, moreover, ironic that "the company poised to profit more than any other from
more broadband deployment, expects the American taxpayer to pick up its
skyrocketing bandwidth tab."
The study is being dismissed by some (you know, the screaming, sideline, Google fan-types).
In a blog, Richard Whitt, Google's Washington telecom and media counsel, says the report is chock full of errors. "Google already pays billions of dollars for the bandwidth and server capacity necessary to connect our data centers together, and then to carry traffic from those data centers to the Internet backbone," he says.
And while the results do seem a tad convenient (Cleland also heads the group NetCompetition.org, which is against net neutrality legislation), it's also ever-convenient for Google to pass off its drive for less competition and more domination as altruism and genuine compassion for freedom of use on the Internet.
If the results of this report are accurate, supporting net neutrality for Google means getting Internet service at the expense of the ISPs, which have to continue to expand on broadband for no extra charge. ISPs perhaps got themselves into this mess by offering all-you-can-eat broadband services in the first place -- and now guys like Google fear a day when the ISPs will need to take that back and get them to foot the bill. As one initial sign of things to come, Verizon, for example, recently teamed with content delivery network Velocix to offer media companies faster delivery of video to their broadband subscribers.
While freedom of bandwidth is better for the Internet and its users, who ultimately benefits from net neutrality when one of its leading proponents is using your tax dollars to abuse it?
But it's probably not enough just to blame the ISPs for not anticipating continuous, 2-way, video, free email and Google in their pricing plans -- just as it's not sufficient just to remind the U.S. carmakers how much of the mess they are in is their own fault. Now what do we do?
Okay, that wasn't a rhetorical question -- I don't have an immediate answer. I certainly don't want to pay by usage (I remember a Dutch subscriber complaining about my HTML newsletter -- takes too long/costs too much to download), but I'm going to guess we will get to a three-lane Internet highway...
Second - ALL of the data doesn't run on their (ISPs) networks - they all hook up to the "backbone" - which carries the bulk of the data, and is run and owned by companies you don't hear about. Service providers own the "last mile" - to the consumer. The people complaining are the service providers who have offered "all you can eat" broadband services to consumers, and are now complaining about the traffic. So, being unprepared for the onslaught of bandwidth use, and rather than raise prices and possibly lose consumers, they decide to go after the guys with deep pockets in order to pad their bottom line. If Google bought all their bandwidth from Comcast, this issue would be completely moot.
To suggest that Google is using "more bandwidth than it pays for" is simply a lie. Google has pipes that connect it to the backbone - and they pay for them. They're paying wholesale prices, while we, the consumer, pay retail to the ISPs. Another way to look at this study is to say that the ISPs are charging us 21 times what Google pays for the same bandwidth.
Let's say the ISP's have a toll road. $2 to drive on it. Then they start noticing - hey! half the cars on the road are Toyotas! So then they go to TOYOTA - and they say - hey, your cars make up half the traffic on our toll road. Either you pay us $$$$ - or we'll make Toyota drivers use the side road. They could raise the toll - but then people might choose to drive a different route (and they lose business). It's the people who have chosen Toyota cars that are choosing to drive on their toll road - but they somehow blame Toyota for the traffic. Really - does this make sense?
They want some Federal law to protect them - because if they start prioritizing traffic, then consumers will find someone else that doesn't.
It's all about money. I guarantee you they're not losing money because of Google. They have a "best effort" network - which means they offer speeds "up to" what they tell you - so they can limit traffic that way. Their profits may be getting eaten into - but they're blaming Google for their short sightedness....
I'm with you, in the ISP's side - at least in this topic. They are making a lot of money form other things, but the Google's of the World are taking advantage of them in offering services without paying for them.
One thing I disagree in is about the comparison that no one pays for Google's service - that was their choice. And their business model works fine by offering a free email account, but they are using a resource that is not theirs without paying for it (or paying enough) - and that has to change.
Couple strays to round up,-- stuff that has started hapening that we didn't expect,--
First, with respect to Google eating bandwidth we really didn't expect people to send out programs that would then send back data i.e. to use other peoples' computers to run programs in their own interest.
"may I use your computer, please" Google doesn't ask, and that makes them just about as bad as a hacker: stealing the use of resources that they did not pay for. Formally: Trespass to Chatels
in the second issue, often called 'net neutrality', again we didn't expect so much CONTINUOUS duty use of internet connections. the planning model assumed customers would be using their browsers to poke around a little here and there. and so, yeah, they need a fast rate, but the traffic pattern is bursty -- read a page there, click a page there -- and so a stat-mux model is going to work beautifully
but now we have p2p nets and streaming audio and video and the model used for planning is invalidated
because CONTINUOUS duty service is a very different product from BROWSER service
the engineering and sales model will have to be re-worked to develop proper rates and services.
And most of guys who favor Net Neutrality were against paying Additional Charges for Bandwidth ,etc.My position on this is ,I am more with the ISPs somebody has to pay for the upgrades ,etc and when they see Companies like Google ,Amazon profit & push from 'In the Cloud" technology why should'nt they get in on the Pie too? After all,its on their Pipes that the entire Data runs on.And we have to treat Bandwidth as little more precious than we are treating it now.
We have to start looking at Bandwidth ,more like we treat Electricity-Nobody pays a Fix Charge for unlimited and thus wasted Electricity,do they?
Hopefully,this will mean an end to totally crap videos on Youtube,which serve no purpose and look absolutely ghastly.
As for asking Google to pay more for their services,I am not sure it will work-Just check out their Lobbyists in Capitol Hill & DC in general.Plus,its also true that Google does spend a lot of money on their Datacentres(nobodys paying them for basic GMAIL,Youtube,Office Docs,and other stuff which they host on their Data centres,etc,etc).
I won't be surprised if we nove either towards a Two-Tiered Internet or one where Charges for Bandwidth Hogs goes up dramatically.This will also mean that Botnets/Malware writers will have to think of different ways to propagate their Software and Spam for if these PCs are not on 24/7(which will indeed be a consequence of extra Banddwidth charges) we are going to see Malware writers change tactics.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
In another step toward becoming socially acceptable, Google today unveiled "Google Buzz" -- a method for social sharing from inside Gmail. Naturally, some ever-creative types are already dubbing this release as a "Twitter-killer" and a "Facebook-killer." Because, we just can't get enough of that kind of language.
Hey, IE Radio lovers: We're live right now with Jeff Jonas, chief scientist at IBM Corp. (NYSE: IBM). You won't want to miss this, so hurry up and head on over!
We hope you can tune in for an IE Radio interview today with a true industry innovator, Jeff Jonas, chief scientist at IBM. We're talking to Jonas today at 3:00 p.m. ET. Do. Not. Miss. It.
Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL)'s recent unveiling of its "magical" iPad may have fanboys counting the days until March, but if a recent poll on Internet Evolution is any indication, not everyone is buying into the hype.
We do a lot of grousing here on Internet Evolution, and usually for good reason, considering the amount of nonsense that keeps this industry afloat on its cloud of hot steamy air!!!! But... we can still happily acknowledge those titans who have succeeded in leading the way or paving new ground in their respective fields and, in turn, give credit when it is well deserved.
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
With the number of mobile broadband users more than doubling in 2009, and soon to exceed fixed broadband, the Internet saw a historic transition this year – and the long-term effects are incalculable.
Comparing Internet services is tough because service providers price and market their services based on a best-case scenario connection that most consumers will never enjoy.
In the final episode of this series about the death of Internet anonymity, Saunders describes how the Internet of the future will start to attain a level of intelligence that requires no human intervention. Scary.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
The 20th Century Internet was characterized by the ability to interact with other people and information on the Internet largely without anyone knowing who you were. The Internet of this century, conversely, will be defined by identity. Saunders explains how Internet users are unwittingly contributing to the demise of the anonymous Internet.
Mobile TV is everywhere, and yet, nowhere. Nobody uses it – because the handsets aren't good, the pricing is too high, and the coverage is not good enough. But Qualcomm's FloTV Personal TV aims to change all of that.
China is investing heavily in fiber to the premises to propel itself into the world broadband Internet first division. What's it deploying, and what's it going to do with all that bandwidth?
Research shows that the youth of today like Facebook – but not blogging or Twitter. Does that mean Facebook has won, or just that it's not yet out of favor? Will all the services we see today fade into Ovaltine-or-Wheaties status in just a few years?
What kinds of companies are doing the most innovation in the data center? Turns out it's midtier enterprises that are taking the "Just Right" approach.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
