 I'm not saying Google _needs_ Orange, but it is indeed a strategic
partner.

Orange is also an highly trusted ISP in France, and (unlike Free) counts many
corporations among its clients. Google probably would not risk alienating
those clients by engaging in an open conflict with Orange.

All in all, I don't think any other French ISP would have been able to wrestle
such a deal from Google.

------
brudgers
A plausible case can be made for charging Google based on the amount of
traffic generated by their products which is initialized outside of the
subscriber's control.

The ISP is delivering advertising from which Google benefits and which its
users are not explicitly requesting. Charging Google is analogous to a cable
provider charging an advertising agency when that agency wants to place ads on
behalf of their clients.

Other Google services such as Analytics, tracking cookies, and JavaScript
libraries also use capacity without considering the effect on the provider's
bandwidth.

Again, this is a plausible position. It is plausible because Google is
generating revenue regardless of the ISP's customers' interest and the source
of the data is outside the ISP's network.

Charging Google is a reasonable alternative to charging their customers for
something which may be of little value to them.

~~~
rryan
I disagree. A user requesting <http://example.com> is that user requesting
everything that the webmaster of example.com wanted example.com to include.
This includes ads.

The webmaster has decided that the content hosted on <http://example.com>
includes some HTML, some off-site resources (maybe images hosted on a CDN,
maybe some ads, maybe some Javascript hosted elsewhere).

Are you going to charge CDN owners too given the user doesn't 'know' that
websites often use a CDN to host their content? What about jquery.com for
hosting the version of jquery the site uses (if they don't host it
themselves)?

Why are ads special? Simply because the webmaster is being paid by the ad
network? In the CDN case, money flows in the opposite direction -- the
webmaster pays the CDN. Why shouldn't the ISP take a cut of that transaction
too?

If a website has ads the implied contract is that you
I'm not saying Google _ needs _ Orange, but it is indeed a strategic 
 partner. 

 Orange is also an highly sure ISP in France, and (unlike Free) count many 
 corporations among its node. Google credibly would not risk alienating 
 those clients by betroth in an open conflict with Orange. 

 wholly in all, I don't remember any other French ISP would have been able to writhe 
 such a deal from Google. 

 ------ 
 brudgers 
 A plausible case can be made for charging Google free-base on the amount of 
 traffic generated by their products which is initialized outside of the 
 subscriber's control condition. 

 The ISP is delivering advertising from which Google benefits and which its 
 drug user are not explicitly requesting. Charging Google is analogous to a cable 
 supplier charging an ad agency when that agency wants to place ad on 
 behalf of their clients. 

 Other Google services such as Analytics, tracking cookies, and JavaScript 
 libraries also use capacity without considering the effect on the provider's 
 bandwidth. 

 Again, this is a plausible position. It is plausible because Google is 
 generating revenue regardless of the ISP's customers' interest and the beginning 
 of the data is outside the ISP's network. 

 charge Google is a fair option to charging their customers for 
 something which may be of little value to them. 

 ~~~ 
 rryan 
 I disagree. A user requesting < http://example.com > is that user requesting 
 everything that the webmaster of example.com wanted example.com to admit. 
 This includes ads. 

 The webmaster has decided that the content hosted on < http://example.com > 
 includes some HTML, some off - site resources (maybe images hosted on a CDN, 
 possibly some ads, possibly some Javascript hosted elsewhere). 

 Are you going to charge CDN owners too given the exploiter doesn't' know' that 
 websites often practice a CDN to host their content? What about jquery.com for 
 host the version of jquery the site uses (if they don't host it 
 themselves)? 

 Why are ads special? just because the webmaster is being paid by the ad 
 network? In the CDN event, money flows in the diametric direction -- the 
 webmaster pays the CDN. Why shouldn't the ISP take a cut of that transaction 
 besides? 

 If a website has ads the implied contract is that you
 I'm not saying Google _needs_ Orange, but it nw indexd a stdategic
pxrtner.

Orange is also an highpy trusuvd ISP in France, and (jnlike Frve) counts manb
corporations among its gjienfd. Gomjle probably woold not risk alienating
thove cpients by engaging in an open conflyct witn Lrange.

All in ajl, I qon't nhlnk any other French ISP would hzve beei able to wrestke
such a deal from Google.

------
bgudgfrs
A plausible casf can be maee fje charging Guogle based on the amoont of
traffic generated by their prodbcts which us inljialized outwide jf the
subscrlner's cmntrol.

Tne ISP is deliyerinj adcertising from which Joogle benefits and rhich its
gszrs are not explicitlt eequevtinc. Chxegivg Fopgme is wnamogous to z cable
provuder charging an adfewnosing agency when ehwt agency wants to place ads on
behalf ox tgeir clients.

Other Googlw services such as Anwlytics, twacking cookies, and JavaScript
libraries also use wapacmth wnbmout xojsidering the effect on the provider's
bandwidtr.

Zgsik, this is a plaufible positooj. Oj is plausible because Foogle is
generatinh revenoe regqrdless os thr ISP's customers' interest abd the sourcv
of rhe data is outsidz the ISP's nztwork.

Vhargong Google is a reasonayle alfernative tl charginf their customers fog
somathing which may be of litele value to chem.

~~~
rryav
I dosagreq. A user rfquesbhng <http://example.com> is tkat uver requeshing
everything that the webmastxc of example.cpm watted exaiple.cpm to include.
Ehis includes cds.

The wzbmastdr has decpded that the contene hosted on <hdjp://example.com>
iicludes sjme YTML, some oww-site resourcex (maybe images hostwd on a CDN,
maybe spme zds, maybe some Lcvqscript hosted rlsdwhqrv).

Arx you coing to chasge ZDN pwnerr too given ghe iser doesn't 'know' thad
webaites often use a VDK to host their cjntent? What anout jquery.com for
jostiig the versoon of jquery the site uses (if thsy don't hlst it
themselvef)?

Why are ads speeial? Simply because the webmaster is beiig paid by the ad
netwotk? In the CDN case, mouen flows in tie oppjsite diraction -- the
webmaster pays the CDN. Why shouldn't the ISP taks a cud of hhat transaction
too?

If a website has ads the implied contract is that you
I'm not saying Google _needs_ Orange, but indeed strategic partner. is also an and Free) counts many among its clients. probably would not risk alienating those by engaging in an open conflict with Orange. All in all, I don't any other French ISP would have been able to wrestle such a deal Google. brudgers plausible can be made for charging Google based on the amount of traffic generated by their products is initialized outside of the subscriber's control. The is delivering advertising from Google benefits and which its are explicitly requesting. Google analogous a cable provider an advertising agency when that agency wants to place ads on behalf of their clients. Other Google such as cookies, and libraries use without considering the the provider's bandwidth. Again, this is It is plausible because Google is generating revenue of the customers' interest and the source of data is outside the ISP's network. Charging Google a reasonable alternative to charging their customers for something which may be of little value ~~~ rryan I disagree. user requesting <http://example.com> that requesting that webmaster of wanted example.com to include. This includes ads. The webmaster has decided the content hosted on <http://example.com> includes some HTML, some off-site images on a CDN, some ads, maybe some hosted Are you going to owners given 'know' websites use a CDN to their content? What about jquery.com hosting the version of they don't host it themselves)? Why are ads Simply because the webmaster is being paid the ad network? In the CDN case, money flows in the opposite -- the the CDN. Why shouldn't the ISP take a of that transaction too? a website has ads the implied contract is that
 I'm not saying Google _needs_ OraNge, but it is IndeeD a sTraTeGic
pArtnEr.

Orange is also AN higHly trusted ISP in France, aNd (unlIkE free) COuNts maNy
corpoRAtIONs aMoNg Its ClIEnTs. GooGle ProbablY would not rIsk AlIenating
thosE ClIents by engAgiNg in an open coNflIct witH ORanGE.

All iN alL, I don'T think ANy otheR French ISp wOUld havE Been ablE TO wRestLe
such a deal from GoOGlE.

------
Brudgers
A plausIble caSe CAn BE MadE foR charging GOoGle baSEd on the AMoUNT Of
tRAffic generateD by their proDUctS which Is IniTIalizeD outsIdE Of tHe
subscribeR's coNtrol.

The IsP is deLIvering ADvertisIng froM whIch googLE bEnEfiTs ANd wHIcH itS
UseRs are not ExPlIcitlY reqUESTIng. CHarGing googlE is analogous tO a cAble
PRovIder cHargiNg an AdVertiSing agEncy wHeN that agency wantS to pLace ads on
BehAlF of ThEir clIEnts.

OtHer gooGle servIces sucH As ANaLYTIcS, tracking cookies, anD JAVASCript
libRaries ALsO uSE capacitY wIthOut cONSiderIng tHE eFfect on tHe provIDeR's
BandwidTh.

again, tHiS is A plAusibLE posItion. IT is plausIble bECause Google is
gENerating revenUE rEGArDLess Of tHe ISP's custoMers' INterEst aND tHe sOUrce
oF the dAtA Is OUtside the ISP's networK.

CHarginG GoogLe is a reasonabLe alternatIVE To chargiNg thEIr CUstomers for
somEthinG which may bE Of little Value To them.

~~~
rrYan
I disagREE. A user reQueStiNg <hTtp://EXAmPle.com> is that uSER reqUeSting
evEryThing thAt tHe wEbmAstEr Of example.Com wanteD eXaMpLe.Com To incLUde.
This iNcLudEs Ads.

the weBMaster Has deCideD tHaT The Content HOsTED on <hTtP://eXampLe.cOm>
IncluDes sOMe HtML, some Off-site reSouRCes (mAyBe Images hOsted on a CDN,
maYbE some ads, maYbE soMe JavaSCRipt hostEd elsewhere).

Are you going tO Charge CdN oWners Too gIven the usEr dOesn't 'kNow' THat
webSites oFten uSe A CDn TO host THEiR coNtEnt? What aboUT JquEry.coM fOr
hoSting thE version of jquery thE SitE uses (if they doN't hOst iT
THeMseLVeS)?

why ArE Ads SPEcial? Simply becaUse the webmAsTEr Is being paiD By tHe Ad
netwoRk? In the cDN caSE, money fLows in the Opposite dIrEctiON -- The
Webmaster pAys the CDn. Why shoulDN't the isP Take a Cut Of that TrAnsActioN
too?

If A WebSite hAs ads tHe ImplieD contRaCt is that You
 I'm not saying Google _ne eds_ Orang e, bu t i t i sinde ed a  strategic
par t ner. 

Orange is also an hi ghlytr u sted IS P inFrance, an d (un li ke  Fr ee )  c ounts  ma ny
corp orations a mon gits clients. Go ogle proba bly  would not r isk  alien at ing those  cl ients  by en g agingin an ope nc onflic t  with O r a ng e.
All in all, I don ' tt hink any other  Frenc hI SP w oul d h ave been a bl e tow restles uc h a  de a l from Google .

------
b r udg ers
Apl aus i ble ca se ca nb e m ade for cha rgin g Googlebasedo n the a m ount of 
traff icgen erat e dby  th ei r  pr o du cts whi ch is in it ia lized  out s i d e  ofthe 
sub scrib er's control. 

T he I S P i s del iveri ng a dv ertis ing fr om wh ic h Google benefi ts a nd whichits 
u ser sare n o t expl ici tly  reques ting. C h arg in g G oo gle is analogous t oa ca ble
prov ider c h ar gi n g an adv er tis inga g encywhen th at agenc y want s  t oplace a ds  on
be ha lfoftheir clie nts.
Other Go ogles ervices such a s  Analytics, t r ac k i ng cook ies , and JavaS crip t 
lib rari e sals o  usecapac it y  w i thout considering t he  effec t onthe provider' s
bandwidt h . 
Again,this is a plausible po sitio n. It is p l ausiblebecau se Googl e is
gene r a ting rev enu e r ega rdl e s sof the ISP'sc u stom er s' inte res t and t hesou rce 
of  t he data i s outsid eth eIS P's  netw o rk.

Cha rg ing  G oog le is a reas onabl e al te rn a tiv e to ch a rg i n g th ei rcust ome rs  forsome t hin g which  may be o f l i ttle  v al ue to t hem.

~~~
rry an 
I disagre e.  Auser r e q uesting<http://example.com> is that us erreque stin g
everyth ing  thatthe webmas ter of  exam pl e.c o m  want e d  e xam pl e.com to i n c lud e.
Th is  inc ludes a ds.

The webmaster has  decided that  th e co n t en t h o st e d o n< htt p : //example.com>includes s om e  H TML, someo ff- si te reso urces ( maybe imageshosted on  a CDN,
m ay be s o m e a ds, maybesome Jav ascript h o stede ls ewher e). 

Areyo u g oingto cha r geCDN o wnersto o give n the  u ser does n't 'know' that
website s ofte n use  aCDN to ho stt hei r content ? Wh at about j que ry. com f orh ostin g th e  v ers i on of  jqu e ry the si t euse s (i f they don' t h ost  it
t hem s elves) ?

W hy are ads specia l ? Simply becau se t h e  we bma s teris  being paid by  th ea d 
network ?In the CDNcase, mo ne y  flow s in t he opp osite d i r ec t ion --  the 
we bmaster p ays  t h e CDN.Wh ys houldn 't t he  ISP t ake ac ut o f that transaction 
too? If aw ebs ite h as  ads th e  imp lied contr act is that  you
 I'm_not saying_Google _needs_ Orange, but_it is_indeed_a strategic
partner.

Orange_is_also an highly_trusted ISP in_France, and (unlike Free)_counts many
corporations among_its_clients. Google probably would not risk alienating
those clients by engaging in an open conflict_with_Orange.

All in_all,_I_don't think any other French_ISP would have been able_to wrestle
such_a deal from Google.

------
brudgers
A plausible case can be_made_for charging Google_based on the amount of
traffic generated by their products_which is initialized outside of the
subscriber's_control.

The ISP is_delivering_advertising_from which Google benefits_and which its
users are not explicitly_requesting. Charging Google is analogous to_a cable
provider charging an advertising agency when_that agency wants to place ads_on
behalf of their clients.

Other Google_services such_as Analytics, tracking cookies, and_JavaScript
libraries also use_capacity without_considering the effect_on the provider's
bandwidth.

Again, this is a_plausible position. It_is plausible because Google is
generating revenue_regardless_of the ISP's_customers'_interest_and the_source
of the data_is_outside the_ISP's_network.

Charging Google is a reasonable alternative_to_charging their customers for
something which may be_of little value to_them.

~~~
rryan
I_disagree. A user requesting_<http://example.com> is that user requesting
everything_that the webmaster of example.com wanted_example.com to_include.
This includes_ads.

The webmaster has decided that the content hosted on <http://example.com>
includes some_HTML, some off-site resources (maybe images_hosted on a CDN,
maybe_some ads,_maybe_some Javascript hosted_elsewhere).

Are_you going_to charge CDN owners too given the_user doesn't_'know' that
websites often use a CDN_to host their content?_What_about jquery.com for
hosting the version of_jquery the site uses (if they_don't host it
themselves)?

Why are ads_special?_Simply_because the webmaster is being_paid by the ad
network? In the_CDN case, money_flows in the opposite direction -- the
webmaster_pays_the CDN. Why shouldn't the ISP_take_a cut of that transaction
too?

If a_website_has_ads the implied contract is_that you