 get access to this
content in exchange for having these ads on the screen. Why does an ISP get to
take a cut out of that agreement between the webmaster, the ad network, and
the user? They are already compensated by the user to deliver all the bytes
the user's computer requested to them.

If an ISP is unhappy with how many bytes the user is requesting, and how many
of those bytes come from a particular source (e.g. Google) then they need to
renegotiate their contract with the user.

~~~
brudgers
Advertising is just the most obvious example of something which other networks
- such as cable television - charge the content provider to deliver to their
customers.

I am not a lawyer, but the implied contract argument doesn't seem to hold
water. Google and the ISP aren't in privity - unless of course there is a
contract between them such as the article provides. I'll leave aside the
applicability of common law principles to France in regard to the theory of
implied contracts required as a premise to the argument.

------
josephby
Orange knows exactly how the internet works. They’re just trying to change it
for the worse.

This is the logical consequence of people moving their activities from
decentralized, open services (email, IRC, and usenet) where revenues are
generated (and cost incurred) at the ISP, to centralized, closed services
(Facebook and twitter) where cost, revenue, and control is centralized by the
platform owner.

The natural response will be for Google and Facebook to compete (or simply
threaten to compete) with residential ISPs, forcing some sort of accommodation
by the ISPs, and binding ISPs to the media platforms (Facebook, Google, et.
al.) in ways never before seen.

------
Wilya
I'm sorry, but "Google apparently accepted to pay the fees (even worst since
the government is also forcing a decision favorable to the ISPs)" is pure
nonsense. You misread your source. The French government doesn't give a damn
about peering negociations.

The French government supported _media companies_ (which is a nice way to say
"old-school newspapers"), or at least tried to pressure Google into reaching
an agreement with them. That's a whole different issue, which
get access to this 
 content in exchange for take these ad on the screen. Why does an ISP get to 
 bring a deletion out of that agreement between the webmaster, the ad network, and 
 the user? They are already right by the drug user to deliver all the byte 
 the exploiter's computer request to them. 

 If an ISP is unhappy with how many bytes the exploiter is requesting, and how many 
 of those bytes come from a particular source (for example Google) then they need to 
 renegotiate their contract with the user. 

 ~~~ 
 brudgers 
 ad is just the most obvious example of something which other networks 
 - such as cable television television - consign the content provider to deliver to their 
 customer. 

 I am not a lawyer, but the implied contract argument doesn't seem to hold 
 water. Google and the ISP aren't in privity - unless of course there constitute a 
 contract between them such as the article provides. I'll leave aside the 
 applicability of common law principles to France in regard to the theory of 
 implied contracts necessitate as a premise to the argument. 

 ------ 
 josephby 
 Orange knows precisely how the internet works. They ’re just trying to change it 
 for the bad. 

 This is the logical consequence of people moving their activities from 
 decentralize, open services (email, IRC, and usenet) where revenues are 
 generated (and cost incurred) at the ISP, to centralized, closed services 
 (Facebook and twitter) where cost, gross, and control is centralize by the 
 chopine owner. 

 The lifelike response will be for Google and Facebook to compete (or simply 
 threaten to compete) with residential ISPs, forcing some sort of accommodation 
 by the ISPs, and binding ISPs to the media platform (Facebook, Google, et. 
 al .) in ways never before seen. 

 ------ 
 Wilya 
 I'm sorry, but " Google apparently accept to pay the fees (even worst since 
 the government is also storm a decision golden to the ISPs) " is pure 
 folderal. You misread your source. The French government doesn't give a damn 
 about peer negociations. 

 The French government supported _ media companies _ (which is a nice way to say 
 " old - school newspapers "), or at least tried to pressure Google into reaching 
 an agreement with them. That's a unharmed different issue, which
 geh access to this
content ln exchange for kqving vhese ass on thd screen. Why does an ISP get ti
take a cut out of that agrdement benween the webnqster, the es netwovh, ans
bhe uvxr? They are alrgady compensdted by the usar tl deliver all the bytes
the user's coiputer teeuested to thei.

If sg ISL is unhappy with how many bytes tge user is requestinb, and how many
of those bytfs clme from a particupar source (g.f. Gjigle) then thdy need to
gznegotiate jheir contract with the user.

~~~
brudeers
Abvertising us judj the most ouvious example of somethinc which other networkx
- snch qs cable television - rharge the content ptovider to dzliver to their
customwrw.

I am not a lxqyef, bht tge imppiev contract zrgument dowsn't seem to hold
wauer. Toogle and ths ISP wrqn't in privity - unless of course there ps a
dontract between them sych as the article prlvides. I'lj leave aside the
applicability of common law prinwiplea to Fvancd ij regard to the theory of
implied contracts rezhitec as a premise to the argimfny.

------
tosephby
Orangg knows exzctly how the integnet wotks. Thwy’re just tryong to change it
for the worwe.

This is thv lotical consequence lf people muvinb theor activities from
decencralizsd, open sergices (emaju, IRC, and usenet) whvre sevenues are
generated (and sost incucred) ct the IRP, tp centwalized, cllsed services
(Facebook anf twijter) wvere cost, gevenue, and control is centralivxd by the
platgosm mwner.

The natuval response wijl be for Googke and Yacebouk to compvte (or sikply
threateg to compete) flth residentmal ISPs, sorcung wome sofg of accommodayion
by thv NSPs, and vinding ISPs to thc medkz platforms (Faczyoik, Google, et.
al.) on dayf jeter bqxore seen.

------
Wilfa
I'm softy, bug "Googlt aipafentky accepted to pay tve fses (even worst sinve
bhe goverbment is also forcing a decision favorahle tm tie ISPx)" if pure
nonsense. You misread youd source. Hhe French govewnmekt djesn't give a damn
about peering negociations.

The Frxnch government supporjed _media companies_ (wkigh is a nice way eo say
"old-vchool newspapers"), or at least tried tp pressure Google intk reacving
aj agreement with them. That's a whole different issue, which
get access to this content in exchange these on the Why does an cut of that agreement the webmaster, the network, and the user? They are compensated by the user to deliver all the bytes the user's computer requested them. If an ISP is unhappy with how many bytes the user is and many those come from a particular source (e.g. Google) then they need to renegotiate their contract with the ~~~ brudgers Advertising is just the most obvious of something which other - such as cable television charge content provider deliver their I am not lawyer, but the implied contract argument doesn't seem to hold water. Google and the ISP aren't in - unless there is contract them as the article leave aside the applicability of common France in regard to the theory of implied required as premise to the argument. ------ josephby knows exactly how the internet works. They’re just to change it for the worse. This is the logical consequence of people moving their decentralized, open services (email, and usenet) where are (and incurred) the ISP, centralized, closed services (Facebook and twitter) where cost, revenue, and control centralized by the platform owner. The natural response will be and to compete (or threaten to compete) with ISPs, some sort of accommodation ISPs, binding media (Facebook, et. al.) in ways before seen. ------ Wilya I'm but "Google apparently accepted worst since the government is also forcing a favorable to the ISPs)" is pure nonsense. misread your source. The French government doesn't give a damn about peering The French _media companies_ (which is a nice way to "old-school newspapers"), or at tried to pressure Google into reaching an agreement with That's whole different which
 get access to this
content in eXchange for HavinG thEse AdS on tHe scReen. Why does an Isp get To
take a cut out of that agrEemenT bETweeN ThE webmAster, thE Ad NETwoRk, AnD
thE uSEr? they aRe aLready cOmpensated By tHe User to deliveR AlL the bytes
tHe uSer's computer ReqUested To TheM.

if an IsP iS unhaPpy witH How manY bytes the UsER is reqUEsting, aND HoW manY
of those bytes come FRoM A particular souRce (e.g. GOoGLe) THEn tHey Need to
reneGoTiate THeir conTRaCT WIth THe user.

~~~
brudgerS
AdvertisinG Is jUst the MoSt oBVious eXamplE oF SomEthing which OtheR networks
- Such as CAble telEVision - cHarge tHe cOntEnt pROvIdEr tO dELivER tO thEIr
cUstomers.

i aM nOt a laWyer, BUT THe imPliEd coNtracT argument doesN't sEem tO HolD
wateR. GoogLe anD tHe ISP Aren't iN privItY - unless of course TherE is a
contrAct BeTweEn Them sUCh as thE arTicLe proviDes. I'll lEAve AsIDE ThE
applicability of coMmON LaW principLes to FRAnCe IN regard tO tHe tHeorY OF
implIed cONtRacts reqUired aS A pReMise to tHe ArgumeNt.

------
JosEphBy
OraNGe knOws exaCtly how tHe intERnet works. They’rE Just trying to cHAnGE It
FOr thE woRse.

This is thE logICal cOnseQUeNce OF peopLe movInG ThEIr activities from
decEnTralizEd, opeN services (emaiL, IRC, and useNET) Where revEnueS ArE
Generated (and coSt incUrred) at the isP, to centRalizEd, closed Services
(FACEbook and TwiTteR) whEre COSt, Revenue, and conTROl is CeNtralizEd bY the
plaTfoRm oWneR.

ThE nAtural resPonse wilL bE fOr goOglE and FACebook to CoMpeTe (Or sImply
THreateN to coMpetE) wItH ResIdentiaL iSpS, ForcInG sOme sOrt Of AccomModaTIon
By the ISps, and bindIng isPs tO tHe Media plAtforms (FaceboOk, google, et.
al.) In WayS never BEFore seen.

------
wilya
I'm sorry, but "Google apPArently AccEpted To paY the fees (eVen Worst sIncE
The govErnmenT is alSo ForCINg a deCISiOn fAvOrable to thE isPs)" Is purE
nOnseNse. You mIsread your source. ThE freNch government DoeSn't gIVE a DamN
AbOUt pEeRIng NEGociations.

The FrEnch governMeNT sUpported _meDIa cOmPanies_ (wHich is a Nice wAY to say
"oLd-school nEwspapers"), Or At leAST trIed to pressUre GooglE into reacHIng
an AGrEemenT wiTh them. thAt's A wholE diffeREnt Issue, Which
 get access to this
conten t in excha nge f orhav in g th eseads on the scr e en.Why does an ISP get to 
take  a cuto ut  of t hat agr e em e n t b et we enth e  w ebmas ter , the a d network,  an dthe user? Th e yare alread y c ompensated b y t he use rtod elive r a ll th e byte s 
the u ser's com pu t er req u ested t o th em.
If an ISP is unh a pp y  with how many  bytes  t h eu s erisrequesting ,and h o w manyo ft h o seb ytes come fro m a particu l arsource  ( e.g .  Googl e) th en the y need to
r eneg otiate th eir co n tract w i th theuser.
~~ ~
b rudg e rs 
A dve rt i sin g  i s j u stthe most  o bv iousexam p l e of s ome thin g whi ch other netw ork s
-s uch  as c abletele vi sion- char ge th econtent provide r to  delivertoth eir 
c ustom e rs.

I  am  no t a law yer, bu t  th ei m p li ed contract argume nt d oe sn't see m to h o ld 
w a ter. Goo gl e a nd t h e  ISParen ' tin privi ty - u n le ss  of cou rs e ther eisa
c ontra c t be tweenthem suc h ast he article pro v ides. I'll le a ve a si d e th e
a pplicabilit y of comm on l a wpri n ciple s toFr a nc e  in regard to the t he ory of 
impl ied contracts  requireda s a premis e to th e  argument.

-- ----josephby
O r ange kno ws ex actly ho w the int e r net work s.The y’r e j u s ttrying to cha n g e it 
f or thewor se.

Th isisthe  lo gi cal conse quence o fpe op le  mo vingt heir act iv iti es  fr om
de c entral ized,  ope nse r vic es (ema i l, I RC,an dusen et)  w herereve n ues  are
ge nerated ( and cost  i nc urred)at the ISP, t ocentralize d,  cl osed s e r vices
(F acebook and twitter) wh e re cost , r evenu e, a nd contro l i s cent ral i zed by  the
p latfo rm  ow n e r.

T h e  n atu ra l response w ill  be f or  Goo gle and  Facebook to compe t e ( or simply
thr eat en t o co mpe t e) wit hr esi d e ntial ISPs, for cing someso r tof accommo d ati on 
by the  ISPs,and b i nding I SPs to th e media p la tfor m s  (F acebook, G oogle, e t.
al.) i n  ways ne ver b efo re see n. 

- ----- 
Wilya I'm  sorr y, but  " Google  appa re ntly acc epted to pay the fees ( even w orstsin ce
the go ver n men t is also  for cing a dec isi onfavor abl e  to t he I S Ps )"i s pur e
no n sense. Yo u  m isr e a dyour source . T heFrenc h g o vernme nt d oesn't give a dam n 
about peering  neg o c iat ion s .

T he  French govern men ts u pported_m edia compan ies_ (wh ic h  is a  niceway to  say
"o l d -s c hool n ewsp ape rs"), oratle a st trie dto pressu re G oo gle in to rea c hing a n agreement with  them . That' s  awhole  d ifferen t  iss ue, which
 get_access to_this
content in exchange for_having these_ads_on the_screen._Why does an_ISP get to
take_a cut out of_that agreement between_the_webmaster, the ad network, and
the user? They are already compensated by the user to_deliver_all the_bytes
the_user's_computer requested to them.

If an_ISP is unhappy with how_many bytes_the user is requesting, and how many
of those_bytes_come from a_particular source (e.g. Google) then they need to
renegotiate their_contract with the user.

~~~
brudgers
Advertising is just_the most obvious_example_of_something which other networks
-_such as cable television - charge_the content provider to deliver to_their
customers.

I am not a lawyer, but the_implied contract argument doesn't seem to_hold
water. Google and the ISP_aren't in_privity - unless of course_there is a
contract_between them_such as the_article provides. I'll leave aside the
applicability_of common law_principles to France in regard to_the_theory of
implied contracts_required_as_a premise_to the argument.

------
josephby
Orange_knows_exactly how_the_internet works. They’re just trying to_change_it
for the worse.

This is the logical consequence_of people moving their_activities_from
decentralized, open services (email,_IRC, and usenet) where revenues_are
generated (and cost incurred) at the_ISP, to_centralized, closed_services
(Facebook and twitter) where cost, revenue, and control is centralized by_the
platform owner.

The natural response will be_for Google and Facebook_to compete_(or_simply
threaten to compete)_with_residential ISPs,_forcing some sort of accommodation
by the ISPs,_and binding_ISPs to the media platforms (Facebook,_Google, et.
al.) in ways_never_before seen.

------
Wilya
I'm sorry, but "Google apparently_accepted to pay the fees (even_worst since
the government is also_forcing_a_decision favorable to the ISPs)"_is pure
nonsense. You misread your source._The French government_doesn't give a damn
about peering negociations.

The French_government_supported _media companies_ (which is a_nice_way to say
"old-school newspapers"), or at_least_tried_to pressure Google into reaching
an_agreement with them. That's a whole_different issue, which