Google Uses 21 Times More Bandwidth Than it Pays For

17

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

ghot

...for explaining the merely obvious.  This does nothing to change the point I made though....more people have internet connections and use them, than ever before.....many use them to stream video and voice....this is whats causing the congestion.

avatar

AndyYankee17

oh yeah, and anyone know who google's isp?

 

I'm pretty sure it's level3, the owner of over 99% of the internet backbone. if you want to pay little ($/gbps) for your internet talk to them, packages start out at gigabit, which I'm guessing is atleast 5 digits a month 

avatar

ghot

The problem is video and voice streaming....THATS whats usin up all the bandwidth...whoevers payin for it!

The silly part is....its not necessary  and the internet infrastructure can't handle it.........yet.  We have a perfectly good cellular system in place, as well as the normal landline.  VOIP is a major mistake.  We also have perfectly good staellite and cable television...there is no NEED for YouTube.  

No matter how you slice it, we are in a recesssion/depression, and we only have so much bandwidth available.....Various companies are rolling out fiber as fast as they can, until they are finished, using what bandwidth we have now for VOIP and sites like YouTube is just stupid.  It took AT&T YEARS to cover the U.S. with copper, fortunately fiber is being done much faster.  But until it approcahes the quantity of the copper that already exists we will continue to have bandwidth problems.  P2P is not a bandwidth hog like video and voice streaming, not even close.  Sure it amy account for a large percentage of internet usage, but one YouTube video uses much more bandwidth than downloaded a program or game via P2P.

I think the problem is that people need to understand that there are different kinds of data. and realize that the two largest bandwidth types of data are video and voice.  Its the same as on your personal computer.....numbers  then text then programs then voice then video (in order of sheer size).  Sure Google uses a ton of bandwidth, but as mentioned, mostly for their search engine.  10,000 Google searches doesnt come close to the amount of bandwidth a streaming video uses

What we need to do, until the infrastructure can handle it is simply not stream video and voice; at least not over the internet.  We have noone to blame but ourselves for this.  We already HAVE perfectly acceptable means to stream video and voice over OTHER infrastructures.  Sure I'd like it to be 20 years from now, but it isn't...its 2008 and in 2008 the internet can't handle video and voice streaming.  It WILL be able to.....but until that day comes...trying to force the internet to swallow millions of f*cking useless videos it just silly.  While VOIP isn't useless, it still is too large of a bandwidth hog for 2008.

Who is paying how much for what...is NOT the issue....the issue is: using the bandwidth we DO have...wisely.

 

avatar

mitpatterson

"I think the problem is that people need to understand that there are different kinds of data."

 

 Like you didn't understand about packets on the internet! There are two main types, TCP/IP packets, and UDP Packets. TCP always establishes a connection to the other host before sending any data, while UDP just sends it to the address and hopes it gets there. And while TCP has Acknowledgements to let the sender know that it recieved the packet, UDP doesn't. And if a packet is lost, TCP will send a new packet, while UDP will not. 

 

TCP is used mainly for Webbrowsing and other common tasks were speed is not as important as reliability. While UDP is used in places that speed is what matters, and if you lose a packet or two, oh well Such as video streaming(YouTube) and Voice Streaming(VOIP). 

As you could guess that UDP uses a lot less bandwidth for each packet, while TCP uses a lot more for FIN, ACK, SYN, and other commands that each go in a seprate packet back to the host

Now please take note that this is a rather simplified version, but you get the basic idea.

It would take a long time to explain everything in great detail, but this is about as simplified as i could be while still proving a point

 

mitpatterson

avatar

Wareagle

I can get DSLExtrme for $15 a month, unlimited.  Not unlimited asterisk.  I actually pay $45 for Time Warner (which is 6m/512k instead of the aformentioned plan's 1.5m).  Compared to, say, Austrailia, I'd say we've got it pretty good (for now).

The summary makes it sound like Google is stealing bandwidth, but all they've done is negotiate with ISPs for the best rate they can get.

Sounds to me like angry ISPs and anti-net-neutraility zealots are trying to bullshit us once again.  Do you want the US to turn into Austrailia?

avatar

hellomms

So.....

avatar

AndyYankee17

um so what, it's not like google's stealing it. you buy shit in bulk you pay less.

avatar

Digital-Storm

Fuck greed.

avatar

bcweir

It's AT&T's Worldship -- we're just living in it.

avatar

Edahsetin

That story is such BS.  If its a CONSUMER internet bandwidth usage study, why look at business usage?  Businesses use bandwith in different ways then consumers.  They have bigger internet connections, but they have fewer internet connections too.  Because the connections are concentrated they get a different rate.  Not only that, as the connections get bigger that rate change of cost/bandwidth is not linear.  Simply put, you buy enough of something, and your costs per unit go down.  Why do you think Walmart is able to have the prices it has?  They buy a crapload of each item and because of that their cost per unit is a lot better then what yours could ever be just buying one.

Saying that Google gets a subsity is like saying a call center gets a subsity from every telephone customer cause it has more lines going to it.  Just because someone uses a lot of something doesn't mean that its having an inpact on everything else.

Everyone pays their own way, thats how the internet works.  You want to pay the same rates Google does, get internet 'pipes' the size of your head connected to your house.

avatar

D3lt4

Google posted a response to this which was pretty interesting, I have also read that prior to the actual article but they seemed to have a pretty good point.

 

Response to phone companies' "Google bandwidth" report

Thursday, December 4, 2008
at
3:28 PM

Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel

Earlier this week I thought that the announcement
of a broadband access "call to action" was an encouraging sign that the
phone and cable carriers could set aside their differences with
Internet companies and public interest groups over network neutrality,
and focus on solving our nation's broadband challenges. Unfortunately,
a report issued today suggests that some carriers would still rather
point fingers and keep fighting old battles.

Scott Cleland over at Precursor Blog is, of course, not exactly a neutral analyst. He is paid
by the phone and cable companies -- AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner, and
others -- to be a full time Google critic. As a result, most people
here in Washington take his commentary with a heavy dose of salt.

The report
that Mr. Cleland issued today -- alleging that Google is somehow
unfairly consuming network bandwidth -- is just the latest in what one
blogger called his "payola punditry."
Not surprisingly, in his zeal to score points in the net neutrality
debate, he made significant methodological and factual errors that
undermine his report's conclusions.

First and foremost, there's
a huge difference between your own home broadband connection, and the
Internet as a whole. It's the consumers voluntarily choosing to use our
applications who are actually using their own broadband bandwidth --
not Google. To say that Google somehow "uses" consumers' home broadband
connections shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Internet
actually works.

Second, Google already pays billions of dollars
for the bandwidth and server capacity necessary to connect our data
centers together, and then to carry traffic from those data centers to
the Internet backbone. That is the way the Net has always operated:
each side pays for their own connection to the Net.

Third, Mr.
Cleland's cost estimates are overblown. For one, his attempt to
correlate Google's "market share and traffic" to use of petabytes of
bandwidth is misguided. The whole point of a search engine like
Google's is to connect a user to some other website as quickly as
possible. If Mr. Cleland's definition of "market share" includes all
those other sites, and then attributes them to Google's "traffic," that
mistake alone would skew the overall numbers by a huge amount.

Mr.
Cleland's calculations about YouTube's impact are similarly flawed.
Here he confuses "market share" with "traffic share." YouTube's share
of video traffic is decidedly smaller than its market share. And
typical YouTube traffic takes up far less bandwidth than downloading or
streaming a movie.

Finally, the Google search bots that Mr.
Cleland claims are driving bandwidth consumption don't even affect
consumers' broadband connections at all -- they are searching and
indexing only websites.

We don't fault Mr. Cleland for trying to
do his job. But it's unfortunate that the phone and cable companies
funding his work would rather launch poorly researched broadsides than help solve consumers' problems.

 Quick Works cited page :)

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/12/response-to-phone-companies-google.html

avatar

gatorXXX

See, they use all the bandwidth and WE as consumers pay for it either in higher bills or major bandwidth caps. What good is google gonna be when our caps are set so low that just turning on our computer to register that shiney new Windows 7 has used up all our bandwidth for the month??

avatar

nekollx

you realize in thos destopian future of yours that comment probaably cost you half your cap. :P

avatar

gatorXXX

LOL, no kidding!

avatar

nekollx

New from AT&T Pac Bell Metro PCs Corp: The lowest internet Rates Ever. Only $5 per GB per month !

avatar

Wareagle

Well, at least it's cheaper than texting.  Only 20 cents per 144 bytes, or $1.4 million per gigabyte!

avatar

nekollx

"But LCC!" in a whinny female voice

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.