European Carriers Want Google, Facebook to Contribute to Mobile Data Costs

[TheCapulet]

[citation][nom]mhch[/nom]I disagree with most comments, thinking yes this makes sense cos' companies should pay for the resources they need as a basis of their own business, Google and facebook would not exist if Internet providers did not exist.[/citation]
Wrong. These companies are key to the telecom data business staying afloat. If the telecoms suddenly decided "Hey everyone that offers our customers everything they want, you can sit and spin", they wouldn't have any more customers. Google, Facebook, and Apple will continue to have customers, because they are providing the services they've agreed to. (In fact, facebook and google haven't agreed to anything).

The telecoms throw money away on lavish expenses and worthless boardroom filler, and it has built them an unsustainable business model. They should have instead been building a network framework that could handle the data load that they knew was going to fall on them. (Moore's law has yet to be disproven) They screwed up, and now they want American companies to bail them out of trouble.

They won't get a dime. And IMO, they're better off going out of business and being sold off to the highest bidder that would 'hopefully' build instead of leech.

 

[Guest]

Dont agree with what most comments say.. I would assume Facebook and google pays a preety good price for data connectivity to ground networks. I am assuming there is a very high cost to upgrading mobile networks. There is no incentive for some of these high traffic sites to minimize their their bandwidth usage by compression etc. I don't think they should have to pay, but I think there should be an incentive of some sort to be smart with their bandwidth. Otherwise the end user will pay higher prices... I enjoy the compression that my blackberry offers, i can surf as much as my friends and use lower tier data plans

 

[poxenium]

This is completely absurd. When are large companies (and banks too!) going to become more responsible ? If their services are unsustainable at current costs then by all means, file for bankruptcy already! Let other firms build more realistic business plans. In Romania I pay ~$10 for 100Mbps internet connection FTTB and they gave me a free 3G USB Modem + SIMM card, on which I have 5GB/month at full speed 7.2/3.6Mbps, unlimited at 128/64Kbps. Many people use this SIMM card in their smartphone, tablet pc or laptop, and the company isn't complaining. There's no reason why websites (google, facebook...etc) should pay for internet connection costs for customers, just like there's no reason why wireless carriers should pay google for wireless customers accessing google services.

 

[CTPAHHIK]

Vodafone UK == AT&T. I would avoid them if possible. They complain because their network is terrible.

 

[gh0st]

Ok so if they help pay for these mobile carriers " in return " these companies should be compensated more for the carriers allowing their customers to overwhelm their servers and should get some royalties from carriers for helping give people a reason to use their smartphones and service? .....come on now let's wake up to reality! we can all look at everyone from a dumb perspective!

 

[scrumworks]

Yes, I think Facebook and Google should be milked good. They have plenty of cash to share. Too much I'd say.

 

[Darkerson]

[citation][nom]laizi94[/nom]Christmas was approaching . Everyone must was looking forward to it and was preparing for it . me too . so im willing to share with you a website ===[/citation]

What wonderful Engrish you have there...

 

[jfby]

The main issue is that carriers did not foresee the need for higher capacity bandwidth. If they had there would be little problem providing the capacity consumers demand. Japan and South Korea aren't having these problems because providers PLANNED on high volume where as providers in the USA only care about year over year results and not long term strategies.

 

[x3style]

I think google/facebook allready pay enough for all theyre thousands of servers and hundreads of giga fiber optic conections. I mena seriously the pone company's are allready pretty useless since skype and all now we have to support them from all directions with profit while they are unable to upgrade they're networks and provide a fair unlimited data plan where you pay a flat rate and upgrade only when you need speed.
Someone send them a "being a great ISP" book.

 

[neilnh]

If carriers are running short on bandwidth, why are they pushing streaming video on their networks? How many facebook users does it take to match the bandwidth use of a live streaming football game?

 

[Diversian]

So, are they saying that they are upset that too much business is coming their way and they are unprepared to handle it? Or is it that, they didn't intend for people to actually use what they're paying for?

 

[accolite]

Whats up with all these spammer in the comments section?

sdfsdfsddfdsf
hnhn
zzjjj13
wuxie102
kasjfhak8899
meijin66
laizi94
hajs87

I suggest toms ban these spammers and then prevent the mac address of the spammers from registering.

 

[millerm84]

So the carriers oversold a service and wants to charge other companies because of their shortsightedness.

Google/Facebook/Apple all have spent millions and millions on infrastructure and bandwidth to insure their users have the best experience possible, and for the most part only offer free services to the end user. They have paid for the service they provide, and reap the rewards of that cost.

Telcos of all shapes and sizes need to wake up and realize that they sold a product that they couldn't support, and they need to do one of the following.
1. Limit services and block content that overloads their systems.
2. Change the business model to a more substantial one.
3. Beg/bribe/bully their respected national governments into footing the bill for expansion.
4. Suck it up and build a network that can support current needs and add scalability for future expansion.

In the end it takes money to make money. If current telcos/wireless providers are unable to part with current profits for future profits, then companies like google and apple may step in to cut out the middle man and offer internet access.

 

[Guest]

this is what they should do to SUV makers

 

[rhino13]

I think the European courts should stop awarding money to frivolus lawsuites.
That way idiot service providers wouldn't think that they can get money from just anyone.

 

[MU_Engineer]

[citation][nom]pandemonium_ctp[/nom]I'll digress it'd be nice if they did, then the consumer wouldn't have to shell out so much.[/citation]

First of all, anybody with a website already pays to upload their data to the Internet. These European mobile ISPs want Google and others to not only pay for their uploads to the Internet, but for your downloads as well. And then they will still charge you for your downloads too. They are just trying to bill twice for the same service to try to make more money, and anybody with half a brain would just refuse to use their service. I am sure Google won't miss a few tens of thousands of users from some dinky little Eurotrash ISP if they refuse to pay their double-charge transit fees. But that ISP will sure as heck feel it when their customers move to another ISP because their Internet service is literally useless since they can't visit the websites they want to visit.

Also, if this did actually fly, we'd pay at least as much as before. Businesses do not eat costs. Period. They pass them onto the customer. If this stupid proposal actually happened, then Google and such would either charge more for ads, sell more ads, or start to charge a subscription to use their service. They would not simply "eat" the costs.

[citation][nom]mhch[/nom]I disagree with most comments, thinking yes this makes sense cos' companies should pay for the resources they need as a basis of their own business, Google and facebook would not exist if Internet providers did not exist.[/citation]

Correct, Google and Facebook would not exist if it wasn't for ISPs, which is why they pay large sums of money to ISPs to upload their data onto the Internet. They do not get a "free" connection to the Internet like these goofball wireless ISPs imply. These ISPs simply are trying to find some mental gymnastics that allows them to charge twice to carry one set of bits on their network.

A good analogy to their argument is a gas station that bills both the car owner and the car owner's employer the full price of the gas that gets put in the car's tank. The car owner and the business that employs the owner both benefit from being able to get to work, so thus both of them should pay for the gas. That's pretty stupid, isn't it?

 

[blackened144]

[citation][nom]mhch[/nom]I disagree with most comments, thinking yes this makes sense cos' companies should pay for the resources they need as a basis of their own business, Google and facebook would not exist if Internet providers did not exist.[/citation]
Right, and McDonalds should have to pay the state for the roads that allow their customers to get to them too..

 

[igot1forya]

If the carriers did not want the extra load, then they should stop selling phones to the masses. This is ridiculous!

 

[g00fysmiley]

i hate telecoms... so you'll have to drop a zero on your bonus down 8 figures from 9 on the ceo end... you're still makign money hand over fist

 

[bastard]

Most of people have a best effort internet connection, so if google, apple, facebook, twitter want to milk their users and if they want to have a smooth experience they should pay.