Slashdot Mirror
Eric Schmidt on Net Neutrality
GillBates0 writes "Google's CEO Eric Schmidt has written an open letter to the Google user community asking them to speak out on the issue of net neutrality. The official Google Blog has a blurb on this as well. From the letter: 'In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet ... Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight.'"
Either way, it's still a crap piece of legislation.
Creativity, innovation, a couple billion dollars in Google stock and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight.
Now if only they linked this to the front page. Google should leverage its net presence to spread the word to the ignorant masses.
If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
Tell me, if there's any difference between the Chinese and the US government, or any other government? It's all about control and money isn't it?
I am not for breaking up net neutrality, but his statement "Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight." is sort of hypocritical to what he is fighting for. If he were truely for a free market, then the cable companies could do whatever they wanted with their product. (But then again, local gov'ts have created monopolies for cable/internet providers by only leasing the public right away to certain groups, limiting competition).
Google is nothing more than a moden-day telco. Between GMail and GTalk and google "dark fiber" they are becoming the modern day telco.
Wow, you still haven't figured it out. Or maybe you're just one of those really worthwhile people who just pretend to not get it so you can troll on Slashdot.
The Chinese government wants things censored. Google wants to offer their services to the sixth of the world's population that is China. If Google at any time does not comply with the Chinese government's censorship, they'll simply be removed from China, and those billion people will have no access to Google, save by tunneling through the government's firewalls to other nations' Google servers.
However, Google chose to comply so that most of Google is still open to China. Additionally, things that are censored are very notably pointed out to those who use Google - if "democracy" is censored by the government, Google will tell the user that it is. This allows a great flow of information, and importantly, it can show the Chinese what their government doesn't want them to see - or at least point them in the right direction.
If it really bothers you that much that Google is helping in the struggle to save your eroding rights, why don't you just move to a country where people are not granted those freedoms?
Taxis and Limousines both drive on public roads; their owners can charge whatever they wish, whoever they wish, as long as the person who is charged agrees to pay.
The argument that network neutrality is fundamental becuase cables are on public property does not hold water.
To take the analogy further, there is _nothing wrong_ for a limo company refusing to take you somewhere because the destination hasn't entered into a deal with it -- it is the limo company's vehicle, the limo company's rules. Yes, the destination gets the short end of the stick, tough luck. This however becomes a problem when that limo company is the only limo company (i.e. has a monopoly) and can dictate whatever terms they wish on the destination.
Network neutrality isn't what we should be fearing IMHO -- their network, their rules. What we should be afraid of is the cable/phone companies banding together, colluding, establishing a monopoly, and holding the destination hostage. Where were you when they pulled the exact same play on television channels? Why are you not concerns that independent TV channels cannot get viewers because of cable providers? Why are you so interested in saving Google and Microsoft a coupld of billion dollars in contract agreements and not your local high-school TV channel?
Taxis and Limousines both drive on public roads; their owners can charge whatever they wish, whoever they wish, as long as the person who is charged agrees to pay.
Bad analogy, because taxi and limo fares are for the use of the car and driver, not for the use of the road. The better analogy would be if a private company wanted to put up toll booths on public roads and start charging tolls.
Taxis and Limousines both drive on public roads; their owners can charge whatever they wish, whoever they wish, as long as the person who is charged agrees to pay.
Bad analogy, because taxi and limo fares are for the use of the car and driver, not for the use of the road. The better analogy would be if a private company wanted to put up toll booths on public roads and start charging tolls.
I agree, except that I would say its an awful analogy, since my car, your car, a taxi, and a limo all have to obey the same SPEED LIMITS, and that what a tiered internet is all about. Charging more for changing speed limits.
Also, its really amazing to watch how the tiered iternet has gone from the ramblings of a Telco CEO, to being voted on as a law. Its also staggerlingly disturbing that it even happens, much more so that it happens all of the time. It appears that a government of, for and by the people has actually already perished.
Thanks for posting that! I admit I was confused myself until I saw the letter - now I know to be firmly in opposition to this legislation. What convinced me? He had to pull out all the old cliches:
1. This is to keep your prices low. Of course. That's always the first concern of any big business.
2. Your prices are high, and America is lagging behind, because of Clinton. Of course. Everything's Clinton's fault. The fact that Clinton vetoed the 1996 Telecommunications Act and the Republican-controlled congress over-rode his veto certainly doesn't absolve him of responsibility!
3. "the mistruths that liberal groups are spreading". What mistruths, he never actually says. Does or does not this bill specifically state that companies can pick and choose what traffic goes over their lines?
4. "liberal special interest groups have seized on this opportunity to garner guaranteed access to Internet services" Again with the liberals! And, of course, if liberals have guaranteed access to the internet, there's no telling what might happen!
Letter: High on rhetoric. Low on information. I give it a C for content, but an A+ for spin.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
Riiight... and when your upstream ISP, which is ultimately a large telecom, decides to re-prioritize Google's traffic, or block VOIP because it cuts into their business, what will you do?
This just shows how confusing things are. The bill you linked to is a net neutrality bill, which is a good thing. But the article refers to another Bill, HR 5252 which has nothing to do with net neutrality - they want it added. Then, there are articles by other major news organizations that refer to other bills that would state the opposite of net neutrality.
On a related note, instead of adding a net neutrality provision to another bill, why can't we have a separate net neutrality bill? Too many things get stuffed into one bill, which cascades causing the "Save the Earth Act of 2006" to have nothing to do with the environment.
I don't know why this issue is presented as complicated. Google already pays a huge bundle for its Internet connections. It's invested in its own infrastructure, and has to pay for interconnection at its gateways to the rest of the Net. Those gateway companies are paying for their further connections with Google's money, so on across the Net. Just like everyone else.
That is the distributed magic of the Net that defined its growth and resiliency. Google is already paying AT&T, through a series of proxies. AT&T can't just violate its agreements to carry the traffic of the proxy that's directly connected to it just because it wants to doublecharge Google, just because AT&T thinks Google can afford it.
Unless AT&T changes the laws to let it doublecharge. Which of course it will. After over a century of crooks, why does anyone bother arguing with these telcos about whether their "business innovations" are fair? They're always scams, cons and theft. This latest one is among the most blatant. Why be nice and call it "Net Neutrality" when the telcos call it "Net Doublecharge" in their "marketing" offices?
--
make install -not war
Of course, there's also the fact that the satellite connection is only the first hop. The Satellite ISPs still need to connect to the net backbone via wired links, and that means that somewhere upstream they are connecting to one of the big telcos.
\/\/oobie
I hope and hope that a Neutral Net not controlled by the Telcos will be legislated by Congress, but I am not optimistic. Our government is bought and paid for by mega-corporations who buy bills that benefit them, and hurt us, the citizens/consumers. This is exactly what the Telcos are doing, and I'm afraid they will succeed. Just look at the Bankruptcy Laws that were passed recently for an example of a pro-big business and anti-citizen/consumer bill. The Congressmen and Senators need our votes, but they need BIG campaign money more. The only glimmer of hope that I see is that we've got some mega-corps on our side for once (Google, Microsoft, etc.), and we've got some grassroots opposition, but I feel in my gut that still won't be enough. Monopolies provide BIG Campaign Contributions. I'm guessing the internet has about 6 months to a year of life left before its totally ruined. The internet ... it was nice while it lasted ...
Would be phone service. Say I have a single line from teleco "A", A mail order company I want to do business with has, say, 250 lines with teleco "B". I pay $35/m for my residential service and the company pays $20/m each line($5000/m) for commercial service - with all that "residential service" and "commercial service" entails (QoS). Now I call the company's 800 number and order 5 gizmos (1 for me and 4 for gifts). The phone call goes from my house through teleco "A" via teleco "C" to teleco "B" to the company order taker. Teleco's "A", "B", "C" (and "D", "E", etc.) have agreements in place to equitably manage the traffic and and the associated costs (called "peering"). What the big ISP's (and in this case, teleco "C") want to do is to get a cut of the revenue that the company generated when I placed my order (mostly because the company is very successful and rolling in money). If the company refuses to pay, teleco "C" could block any traffic attempting to connect to the company. In that case all I would get would be a busy signal and the company's buisness would tank. On the street, this is called "extortion", and is generally considered to be a crime (folks who like to break legs and burn things down notwithstanding).
Look Out Above!