What happens when Google thinks they are more valueable than the
Why couldn;t it happen the other way arround?
Google says, Comcast, we aren;t going to allow your subscribers to Google,
unless you pay us.
Small ISPs? Verison just offered us lots of money for exclusivity, You need
to start paying us for direct peer connections, or we aren't going to allow
your customers to play.
I do not think Googles are big enough to do that yet, nor limited to one
content competitors like connectivity, but one day it could happen.
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Tetherow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tonight: Join SavetheInternet.com on PBS
From a marketing/sales perspective the proposed plan is a "no win" for the
broadband providers. If I'm Comcast and I go to Google and say pay up or
else, what is my follow through?
If Google says "no thank you" as I'm sure they will, you have just told
your customer that their internet experience is going to be worse than
before because Google refused to pay for bandwidth on your network.
Now as Joe Customer on Comcast's network I have two choices regardless of
how I feel about Google not paying up. I can either put up with crappy or
no service to YouTube and Google or I can go somewhere else.
The problem with this scenario, from a Comcast perspective, is that the
customer's choices have no positive impact on their Comcast experience.
The best they can do from a Comcast perspective is put up with a degraded
internet experience. Not a choice any businessman would want to force on
If you are Comcast going to Google, what do you ask for? I would think
anything less that $0.50/customer would be a waste of time. Raising your
broadband price $0.50/month is not going to cause a big stir and mass
migration. Sure you are going to get other people to pay eventually, but
how many can really afford it beyond Google, Yahoo and MSN for instance.
Now, from a Google perspective $0.50/customer/month for Comcast is going
to be $4.5 mil extra every month and for the top 5 providers it is going
to be $16 mil per month. I doubt they are going to be able to pay .
And finally, from a competition perspective, you are Verizon and Comcast
has just issued the ultimatum to Google who said no, do you follow suite
and hit Google up as well or do you now advertise that you have an
'express lane' to Google and Comcast customers are more than welcome to
the fold. Instead of getting $0.50/customer out of Google you get X many
new customers from Comcast.
The content provider's pockets aren't deep enough to make sticking them
more profitable than sticking your customer. It is back to a volume
question. Do I sell 10 items at a $1000 markup and make $10000 or do I
sell 10000 items at a $1 markup to make my $10000. You are going to have
a lot more potential customers on the $1 markup.
I just don't see the teeth in the argument. Way too many things have to
align, against natural market forces, make the doomsday a reality.
Pete Davis wrote:
Hmmm.. I think they DO charge the recipient of the cell call. Even if its
a land line, the recipient does have to pay for service, even if it is a
"unlimited minutes" plan. Nobody has FREE phone service. Someone pays for
the dial tone, even if its VOIP.
The telephone system kind of IS the original INTER(national)NET(work)
just that it was in place before everyone out there was trying to hook up
a computer and send each other video clips of chimpanzees lip-syncing
Sonny and Cher songs.
The nice thing as a provider (of the phone or the internet, or both) is
that whether your customer is sending bits (or voice) or whether the
customer is receiving, they are still paying you. Peering agreements
between tier 1 providers only make their network better. AT&T knows that
if they can't get my bits to connect to websites hosted on Sprint lines,
then I will find an upstream who will. Same thing if I am a hosting
company. If I host using a Verizon upstream, and L3 customers cannot
connect to my server, then VZ will get the boot.
Same analogy applies to phones. If my Sprint phone in Texas couldn't
connect me to a Verizon subscriber in West Virginia, and Sprint said it
was because they couldn't get a peering agreement with Verizon, then I
would discontinue the peering agreement between Sprint and my checkbook.
On the other hand, as a provider, I do have the ability to give access to
only my subscribers for certain perks. Some cell providers offer "free"
mobile to mobile calling. And why not? This gets them loyalty to both
customers. Other ISPs offer "exclusive content" (AOL, YahooDSL, etc). The
"exclusive" video clips available offered by cell providers is a war
going on now that I don't really understand, but if it brings in the
customers, then good for them.
If you cannot offer something more than the competitor, then you are just
another ISP. To stand out from the competition, you need to offer
something. Speed, reliability, security, exclusive content, price,
availability to connectivity when the customer lives 14 miles out of the
city limits, or whatever.
WISPA Wireless List: email@example.com
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.6/486 - Release Date: 10/19/2006
WISPA Wireless List: firstname.lastname@example.org