Verizon wants to charge website's fees
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020601624.html

the title is a little misleading for the views, but it's essentially what they are trying to do..

Verizon Executive Calls for End to Google's 'Free Lunch'

By Arshad Mohammed
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 7, 2006; Page D01

A Verizon Communications Inc. executive yesterday accused Google Inc. of freeloading for gaining access to people's homes using a network of lines and cables the phone company spent billions of dollars to build.

The comments by John Thorne, a Verizon senior vice president and deputy general counsel, came as lawmakers prepared to debate legislation that could let phone and cable companies charge Internet firms additional fees for using their high-speed lines.

"The network builders are spending a fortune constructing and maintaining the networks that Google intends to ride on with nothing but cheap servers," Thorne told a conference marking the 10th anniversary of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. "It is enjoying a free lunch that should, by any rational account, be the lunch of the facilities providers."

Verizon is spending billions of dollars to construct a fiber-optic network around the country for delivering high-speed Internet and cable TV services. Executives at other telecom companies, such as AT&T Inc. chief executive Edward E. Whitacre Jr., have suggested that Google, Yahoo Inc. and other such Internet services should have to pay fees for preferred access to consumers over such lines.

While Thorne did not specify that practice, he emphasized the need for companies such as his to find ways to make money to justify their investments. "The only way we are going to attract the truly huge amounts of capital needed to build out these networks is to strike down governmental entry barriers and allow providers to realize profits," Thorne said yesterday.

Thorne described two obstacles to building such networks: the task of getting thousands of local franchise agreements to offer cable television; and what he called "Google utopianism," a concept he likened to "spiked Kool-Aid."

He spoke as Congress is considering whether to write provisions that advocates say would ensure consumers unfettered access to the Internet. The Senate Commerce Committee will hold a hearing today on the issue, which is known as net neutrality.

Opponents have argued that there is no need for such laws because there have been few instances of network providers blocking Web sites; because their customers would not stand for such limitations; and because, as a general rule, regulation of the Internet should be avoided.

Thorne did not mention net neutrality by name in his talk, which largely involved an assessment of the 1996 telecom law and what he suggested were its lessons for the future.

"Will another set of restrictions -- the continental minefield of franchise agreements and the free-ridership of Google and its brethren -- choke off investment in broadband deployment?" he said.

Vinton G. Cerf, a vice president and "chief Internet evangelist" at Google, said in an interview that his company is worried that if net neutrality protections are not enacted, the Internet's freedom could be compromised, limiting consumer choice, economic growth, technological innovation and U.S. global competitiveness.

"In the Internet world, both ends essentially pay for access to the Internet system, and so the providers of access get compensated by the users at each end," said Cerf, who helped develop the Internet's basic communications protocol. "My big concern is that suddenly access providers want to step in the middle and create a toll road to limit customers' ability to get access to services of their choice even though they have paid for access to the network in the first place."

Oh boy...I actually never thought about this before but they do have a point. But if this was to go through and create a precedent....it would create a whole fucking mess for hosting companies and webmasters...think mobile cell phone taxes that go to the government...but now online.

I don't think they have a point.. They are offering a service that allows people to go online to different websites and so on. Their subscribers pay to use this service already. Now they want to double dip and also charge websites a fee so their sites can be accessed by Verizon users.

If they can't afford to run a ISP while charging $50 a month for a subscription, then maybe they should get out of the ISP business.

Web company already pay for servers and their bandwitdh why should they have to pay a toll to Verizon as well?

Watch the Senate hearings. They are on CSPAN now. The telecoms are getting bashed alive about this and the Senators are not taking to this idea at all.

Sounds like Verizon didn't pay their republican bribe money.. otherwise I'm sure we would all start getting charged a toll.. :1orglaugh

SBC (now AT&T) has been screaming this shit for years. Back when I worked there they were trying to do it then, and trying to figure out how to do it.

They will always continue to scream "they are broke", while giving their CEO's another few million dollar a year raise, and have their advertisements on every sports game, and this and that.

Yeah, I am sure having the SBC tickers, and stadium advertising is given to these companies.

While they have a point they are investing in the infrastructure. They not only are charging the end users (consumer and business) but then they also charge resellers, and other companies/ISP's/etc using the same facilities.

It's nothing more than greed.

:disgust

cry babies

Hah, let them try it and see how fast subscribers drop them for their competitors.

definitely, that will happen if Verizon do that.

...And their good days will soon be over.

How many more finger pointing matches can Google get into?

It's verizion that's pointing fingers.

LIke they do not make enough money charging DSL subscribers 60 bucks a month they wanna double charge both ends?

Simple Economics dictate the thought is a Pipe dream.

Laughable.

SBC isn't broke. They just bought AT&T, a few years back they bought Pacific Bell.

And if they are broke it's because they have fucking employees who have worked there for thirty years of their life in a entry level position and are now making $100k a year because of "time in grade". Don't tell me I'm wrong; I've worked for Pacific Bell and I've seen it with my own eyes.

And I'm pretty sure if the big boys don't pay Verizon, it's most likely the users that are gonna switch.

fuck those assholes. they charge the end use connection fees. what the fuck i do while i am online is my business. they are just jealous google has a better business plan then they do.

google pays thier access fees to thier hosts and bandwidth providers, as does the end user.