Slashdot Mirror
Google Fires Off Warning to US Telcos
mytrip writes "The US Senate Commerce Committee last week approved reforms in communications legislation that will make it easier for Internet providers to offer IP-based television.
The resultant perceived threat of telecommunications companies muscling in on the Web has stirred search giant Google into firing off warnings.
A spokesman said it would not hesitate to file anti-trust complaints if Internet-providing telcos abuse powers that could come from U.S. legislators in further reforms - some of which, Google argues, could threaten 'Net Neutrality'.
Pretty badass. Can we get the EFF to go public, too?
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
From Reuters (linked in Article), More Info Here in yesterday's article
BALLMER: We're going to fucking kill Google!!
GOOGLE: We're going to fucking kill giant telcos!!
(both start throwing chairs; chaos ensues)
Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
I thought they were going to carpet bomb the telcos from the Google plane
Google is a big, juicy target for greedy ISPs wanting to cash in by dipping into other ISPs' customers' pockets. It's genuinely beneficial to Google and their users that Net Neutrality is implemented and protected. I hope Google does everything they can to protect it, too.
Google's partially right to make these threats -- they're mad because companies that continue to receive monopoly powers, preferential treatment, restrictive licensing rules and even public subsidies should not be given even more power over the media distribution system. Yet the end result of Google's threats will only be MORE government control of the media, not less.
Net Neutrality is bunk -- it means ZERO. We don't need net neutrality, we don't want it, and we won't get it. What we need is a realistic free market playing field of open competition for anyone who wants to jump into the business. Let's stop all the regulations, taxes, tariffs, fees and restrictions on media companies and let them compete openly. IPTV is probably the future -- who cares about airwaves when everything is going digital and coming over a landline? Yet the phone companies still get preferential treatment from the national, state and local governments, and giving them both preferential treatment and the right to control their pipeline's access is tipping the system towards the cronies, not the consumers.
The consumers want one thing -- competition. Competition happens when government stays away from the market. The more we let government "regulate" net neutrality or attempt to create a level playing field, the more we'll see our prices go up, our service levels go down, and competition get wiped out of the market.
Google shouldn't be clamoring against the cronies, they should be threatening the government. Nothing would please me more than Google taking on a pro-independence role the day after an anniversary of the last time our citizens kicked the government in the teeth and sent them packing.
As long as they don't interfere with me sending an internet, more power to 'em.
google may be raking in the big bucks, but that net neutrality thing can potentially cut their revenue to a small trickle.
greedy telcos simply want a slice of the google pie.
for the love of god can some one please fucking kill (tm) those assholes.
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
The cable companies have had almost no competition for a long time now. Making it easier for telcos to get into TV and bring us IPTV is a good thing for consumers.
Net neutrality will work itself out on its own without regulation. It has been for years now. Let it be.
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
google is just just trying to keep their monopoly on the internets tubes. imho, they're being pretty greedy and its hurting the consumers. i mean, come on! it took me 5 days for the internets to download at my office!
Just MHO.. but.. if this were them really fighting for the freedom and neutrality of the Internet then I would be all for it. But this looks more like they know they won't be able to be the big dog in on line media if other companies can restrict them because of controlling the transport.
They're threatening to do this to protect their profitability and potential market for on demand video and TV just as much, and maybe more-so , than trying to protect some pristine concept of a neutral Internet from what I see.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
This is an interesting approach in one respect -- Google actually has the money to be able to pursue anti-trust claims. Think about it. Every other group, personal or entitty that usually pursues an anti-trust claim is usually too small to do anything about it. If the Telcos decide on doing discriminating against Google, then Google can make a case and probably win some of them. If I was a Telco, I might think about playing nice.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
I've always been leery of net neutrality legislation, not because I'm opposed to the concept but because I don't expect Congress to define it correctly. I'd actually rather see it as an RFP amending the IP standard. And there are perhaps things to be accomplished by violating neutrality that would make life better rather than worse.
But the nightmare scenario has always been there: since the number of ISPs available to most consumers are limited, that monopoly power could be used to force choices on consumers. The market could be used to reward innovative ideas that require breaking net neutrality, but monopolies break markets.
I've never really understood what the telcos expect to get from Google on this. When Google starts getting a thousand extortion bills from a thousand separate carriers, there's no way they can track which ones are valid. (Am I going to start Bob's ISP and send Google a bill for it?) I expect Google to toss them all into the trash.
And if they find that consumers are unable to reach them, I sure hope their lawyers can convince the courts that this is antitrust behavior. I trust the courts very slightly more than I trust Congress.
The GOOGLE's lunch is threatened. It will be interesting to watch GOOGLE springs into action going up against good ol' telcos. Keep in mind that the telcos OWN the internet roads and byways. I guess telcos are 'mad' realizing how much goods and $ are passing through those roads on a daily basis. Now, the telcos want a cut. Well, telcos may not be right, but that does not mean they will not end up on the right side of a verdict though.
http://buddytrace.com/
At least Google built their monopoly by being the best and satisfying the customer -- I can't think of one thing Google's done to piss me off. No flashy banner ads, no sign-ups that fill my inbox with spam, nothing! Furthermore, they don't conduct unethical business practices to drive competitors out of business and then turn around to screw the customer. The telecoms are only a monopoly (okay, an oligopoly) because they were put in place as such by the government and were empowered with the taxpayers' hard-earned money. There is nothing wrong with monopolies -- only ill-gotten dastardly monopolies (such as the teleocoms). Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Google power corrupts... with googley eyes?
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
Something tells me that Yahoo and MSN would disagree.
All monopolies are inherently wrong. As long as there is only one supplier, whether it be private or government, then they, not the customer, control the market. As such the market is controlled by the wishes or share holders (private) or Government ministers (public) who do not have your best interests at heart.
If you really want to see what is wrong with monopolies look at the old Soviet Russia. Look how well they worked there.
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
You may want Google to only have noble intentions, but really thats silly. Why is it bad if a company is doing the right thing because it is in its own self interest. Isn't that an ideal situation? The whole idea of our economy is that wealth is created, so here Google is just protecting the public's wealth because it is also protecting its own pockets.
I favor a system where the participants do the right thing because it is benificial to them. Big telco are definately not doing the right things, putting their profits in front of their customers and not pursuing the longterm. Well, I guess they figure their long term is just more government subsidies...
"how can they call it a MINE if everything here is THEIRS?!?!" -Straight Jacket
"If you come after us with a 'bandwidth invoice', we're coming after you with a federal law suit."
I'm all in favor of Google on this one -- if it works. We all know that Google is a big target of these greedy telcos, which I find interesting due to how lightweight Google really is compared to most graphics/HTML-intensive web sites. Hopefully, other organizations will jump on-board with Google in telling the telcos where they can stick their plans for a tiered Internet.
I know that several Slashdotters are pissed at Google for activities in China and elsewhere that seem to go against the "Do No Evil" mantra, but frankly what the telcos have in mind is just as evil - if not more - than whatever Google has done.
As far as I am concerned Google is hitting two birds with one stone here. Sure they are protecting their profits to some extent though look at it in a bigger picture...If they wanted they could be crushing every one in a race for profits (Microsoft style) yet they are holding back and asking for the minimum they need to continue working. I see it as calling in some respect which I for one think they have earnt. On top of it they are using it as a commercial charge against those who wish to destroy the neutrality of the net.
It's chicken and the egg in my opinion and Google is giving both at the same time to save a bit of stuffing around. And for this we should give them some space and kudos remembering of course that if legislation fails it really comes down to Google standing up and taking the beatings from telco's to show that the net wont stand for lack of neutrality. (I'm generalising, don't shoot me, and feel free to go into more detail in replies - just don't assume I don't understand the deeper issues.)
I ate your fish.
Paying software providers to bundle their BS? Arguably, the software maker is more at fault but Google's complicity is sufficient to lump them in with the other bad guys. No, I never did respect them. This is SOP not disillusionment.
"What we need is a realistic free market playing field of open competition for anyone who wants to jump into the business."
The problem is that the phone industry isinherantly a monopolistic market. It takes a huge capitol investment it get into the market, which pretty much shuts out any small company entries. One of the things that scares me the most about the industry is that since the MaBell break up (which introduced some competition and reduced prices) the companies have slowly been re-merging to the point now where there are what, 3 primary land line phone carriers?
Free market and little regulation works wonderfully in most markets. I've rallied to the call of the free market many a times. But in industries where monopolies rule and competition, innovation, and low consumer prices are driven out, regulation is needed. A free (as in unregulated) market in the phone/backbone industry would result in a non-free (as in choice) market for the consumer.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Over putting TV on the internet, THAT is what this is really about. The major players want to prioritize traffic so their streaming TV Crap gets through. The net is for the WEB not friggin TV! Gawd, I'm gonna be really pissed when my web connection is degraded to provide a clear path for TV.
Rick B.
This is just another example of why we need more lobbying reform. This should have never made its way to the US Senate.
With the whole debate over Net Neutrality, I really wonder whether or not we have already forgotten the lessons of Enron. Enron, like the big telcos, pushed hard to get the California energy market deregulated, under the banner that deregulation would help the consumer. And the large telcos seem to be parroting that same message. Are you really naive enough to believe that any corporation would push this hard on anything that wouldn't be hugely profitable for them? They aren't concerned about the consumer, they are trying to raise the bottom line!
When businesses get as big as the major telcos, deregulation is a huge risk. If anything, the government should be taking a closer look at their operation. Of course, that assumes that the government isn't corrupt, and lately, that seems like a big assumption.
burrocrisy
and that would be what? Ruling by jackasses? Never has a slashdot misspelling been more apropos
The DOJ for example?
Judging by how they handled Microsoft the political weasels in the DOJ seem to be to busy being corrupt to do anything about monopolies and abusive business practices.
How about the EU?
Seems to be growing a spine but I'm skeptical, after all, these are the EU political weasels we are talking about here. I'll make up my mind when they are done with Microsoft.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
"Look how well they worked there"
In soviet russia, monopolies look how well YOU work.
Google Inc vs Verizon, AT&T, QWest, et al
Dateline San Jose CA July 5, 2011: The Google anti-trust ligitation now in its fifth year, may now come to a conclusion says Pamela Jonesish, chief blogger of CommLaw, the site that's tracking the litigation surrounding anti-trust and the old concept of 'net-neutrality'.
"Who would have ever believed that these nutcases could have gotten this far" said Pamela, also known as PJ-ish. "When HD-IPTV finally clogged the pipes to the point where nothing could get through, even ICMP, we all knew the jig was up. Now that Verizon is in Chapter 11 and AT&T has merged with the remaining remnants of the 'baby bells', market leader Comcast-Time Warner believes that the Google litigation should end"....
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I can't think of one thing Google's done to piss me off.
The censoring of search results in China doesn't piss you off? The bundling of the Google Toolbar in popular applications doesn't piss you off? The spying on users by uploading their documents to Google doesn't piss you off?
Wow. What does it take to piss you off? Video ads?
In Net Neutrality, Google sues you
Big company...expensive vacations/lobbying to be had...consolidation of power for those with too much of it...What more could Congress ask for get to involved?
Ok, perhaps I am reading this situation incorrectly, but didn't this guy just tell us what the internets are like/not like? May I assume that the same argument that is being used to guard against the internet being choked with streamed media is then being applied on the same side of the coin for IPTV?
Please tell me if I am approaching this subject incorrectly.
Google finds some legislators stances on net neutrality unappealing?
Why don't they simply illustrate the value of neutrality to said legislators?
Joe User> Hm, I'd like to look up my congressperson.
Search: "congressman minnesota"
Result: (showing results 1 of 1) Netneutrality.org
Joe User> what? That can't be right. Let me try by their name....
Search: "congressman john smith mn"
result: (showing results 5 of 5) netneutrality.org, anyone_but_john_smith_for_congress.net, getridofjohnsmith.org, johnsmithmolestedmydog.com, adultmalediaperfetish.net
I would imagine they would get the point rather quickly.
-Styopa
Guess I walked right into that one!
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
Google Groups. Deja.com had a good interface, now it is unusable. And then there is the default not quoting part. They threat Usenet as their own personal thing. It is not.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Why even worry about net neutrality and such? We all know that as the greedy corporations tighten their grasp and bring about more legislation and regulation, that consumers generally tend to shy away from those companies and find another company that offers the same service with better terms, therefore creating competition, and eventually creating a working business model that's acceptable to the consumer/government/whomever wishes to use such a specified service. Instead of Google firing off a warning to telcos and such, I'd much rather see them issue a nice ultimatum to every corporation and the government - play fair and play right or we come thru and give you a big reason to worry when we start up our own services. i'd love to see Google, for just one day, drop the "do no evil" veil and just open a big can of Whoop-Ass upon all the corporations and our government. Would I welcome the new overlords? Maybe, maybe not, it depends on how they act and carry themselves.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
So America will teir/toll their internet service. What does that mean for the rest of the world? Will AT&T be knocking on the doors of canadian or european based media providers demanding fees?
If the BBC can't reach it's canadian audience because packets have to go through america first, they won't like that. If CBC can't reach its british audience because packets have to go through america first, they won't like that either. Both are crown corporations and thus negativity to them is negativity to government.
Government subsidized extortion isn't exactly playing by the WTO rules, and could be grounds for trade sanctions against the US.
So how does this play out over the international scale?
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
Everyone points to CA for how 'de-regulation' failed (ignoring the fact that Enron was largely behind that, attempting to kill de-regulation. Its amazing that PA was able to do the same thing, and the state didn't collapse. You've been able to pick your electric provider for over 10 years now.
It was a nice ride while it lasted; but we've reached the endgame. The telecos have the resources to both choke google's air supply and then drag them through the court system until they've spent every last cent of their assets.
The telecos have the government on their side, they own the wire and they own the people who write and enforce the law.
I mean, it's nice of google to throw themselves in front of the juggernaut this way, but in the end it's as futile as it is stupid.
Maybe after a third neocon administration you hippies will get it through your heads you've been conquered.
There is such a thing as a natural monopoly, where the balance between cost of operation and potential income mean that only a single supplier can survive in the market.
Russia failed because planned economies do not work (among other reasons); monopolies in inappropriate places was just one aspect of that.
Google Sue(tm) will be in BETA for at least there years.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
If telco's and isp's start examining every packet to apply QOS to it, doesn't that exempt them from being a Common Carrier? The Common Carrier exemption they get is from not examining the traffic and just routing it. If they start looking at packets to apply prefered treatment to traffic, then they are no longer just routing. I would think they would loose their common carrier status and be liable for traffic traversing their networks.
I make 1 little google monopoly joke and get moderated troll.... ---- sad panda.
In Soviet Russia these Soviet Russia jokes aren't considered the least bit amusing...
So what was so bad about Microsoft?
What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
The California retail energy market was never de-regulated, in fact it was OVER-regulated. The California wholesale market was partiall de-regulated, and this is why there was a crisis -- too much government.
Check out this article on the reality behind California. The government let wholesale prices fluctuate but did NOT let retail prices fluctuate. When wholesale prices started to go up based on decreased supply (created by government's mandates!), the companies could not buy energy at a profit since they were forced to sell it at a loss. Hence, rolling blackouts.
Thanks Salzorin - the only problem was my boss wondered what I was laughing at - and I couldn't say /.!
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
welcome my new telco masters and look forward to their new methods of entertaining me.
If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly... MacBeth
But I damn well expect if Verizon is charging the sites I go to, that they're not charging me.
Oh, they probably won't list it directly in your bill. In fact, it probably won't get charged to you at all. So where will it show up?
Well, specifically, it's obvious Google could raise their ad rates a bit to pay for it, so the cost of acquisition gets passed on to advertisers, who in turn raise their product prices a bit, so you'd likely pay more there.
But that's not the really insidious part. The really crappy part is that it will result in a higher barrier to entry for businesses that provide products and services over the net. That is, the charges will show up for you in the resulting lowered competition, the resulting less efficient market. Everywhere the telcos touch with their new arbitrary fees.
And the best part about it is that most suckers won't even realize that it's connected with the new and improved non-neutral net.
Tweet, tweet.
Being able to charge for QoS will bring more (telco) players to the table which will drive down the costs of any bandwidth charges. Remember supply and demand anyone? In the mean time, the Internet TV and movie broadcasters won't be screwing us all by hogging up every available bps. Let's face it folks, the Internet doesn't build itself. We pay for it (ultimately). I do think that any QoS surcharges need to be capped and regulated to prevent abuse.
Just ask the good Jedi how they feel about "Balance" now...
Here in Houston (ex-home of Enron) electricity has been "de-regulated" (I like that word. government comes along and forces companies to share power lines, and it's now "de-regulated") for a while, and pretty much all the choices are the same. Oh, theres commercials about my "power to choose" (get it? power? hahah) that tell me I can choose a company who will let me "lock in" a rate, or a different company whose rates "go up and down with the market". Of course, the companies have all done the math themselves, so the total you pay is pretty much the same over a full year.
c asey/3921787.html
Meanwhile, some other large cities in Texas have public electricity utilities who buy into shares of private power plant output to power their grid, and their average kWh charge is roughly half that of the average Houstonian's charge. Even at peak it's less, even though the utility has to pay extra to pull the extra energy. As a bonus, in San Antonio's case, the utility profits go back into the city, to the point that losing it would mean having to double the property tax to make up for it. I wonder if a company could ever slough off the dead weight they always seem to collect (stockholders, CEOs, middle management, that guy in the corner who nobody knows what he does but he's always been there and the multimillion dollar stadium naming deals) to compete with that? (For that matter, I wonder how the utility operates without the dead weight of unfirable workers and pensioners that cling to government institutions)
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/
This isn't decide yet! It won't be decided till after the November elections! Contact your congress critter, make sure they understand how you feel, make sure you understand their opinion! Register and vote! Listen closely, legislators have consistantly voted themselves pay raises, have consistantly voted against any raise in minimum wage and only do business 1/3 of the year, while making three times more than the average american. If your senator or congressman isn't willing to eat a big mac and fries while discussing the issues, he must go. I'm tired of seeing them after an afternoon of golf, setting down to a repaste of kobe beef gespatcho and a micro green salad with a white truffle dressing, all paid for by lobbyist.
After all both the House and the Senate rejected the idea of enacting regulating to enforce net-neutrality. That at least documents the intention of the law-givers to let telco's charge any which way they want. Net-neutrality supporters (including myself) simply lost that case.
As I understand it (but someone knowledgeable please correct me if needed) anti-trust legislation only applies if you can prove that a market party (a) abuses its market position to stifle competition and that (b) it harms customers in doing so. Afaik it does not protect competitors or cuctomers per se ... it protects competition, but only if you can *prove* that the market isn't functioning. Now that might take some doing.
After all, with the possibility of Telco's introducing a tiered internet by citing overcrowding, then introducing premium service, and "allowing" content suppliers to pick up part of the tab for premium service, where are the hurt customers? Sure ... the Internet got changed aways from a utility to a bottled-water selling operation. But telco's seem to be able to construct their new pricing schemes in ways in which they can argue that in order to deal with burgeoning demand for data-transport they can't be expected to meet demand across the board, so they are letting the market do its work ... by offering premium service. And how are they to blame if this also turns out to be financially interesting for them? Telco's weren't born yesterday.
All in all, I fear that there would be slim legal grounds for objections.
What I do see is (potentially) a little bad publicity for the US laissez-faire approach. After all ... in Europe telcoms seems to be fairly strictly regulated, even if in some places they separated the *infrastructure* suppliers (structured as pure utility companies) from *service* providers (ISP's). Yet they do seem capable of supplying a wide (if not total) broadband coverage at modest prices. Without two-tier nonsense.
Google ISP.
And that is only solveable by creating a limited true monopoly. As I have said since I worked at USWest (late 80's/early 90's), a monopoly needs to be allowed from a CO to the home. And that company can only be allowed to have that piece. Nothing else. Once that happens, than allow true competition by de-regulating/de-monoplizing everything else.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
When a massive hurricane causes thousands of dollars in damage to lines it's not Google that's coming to fix them. Yet this same Google(and Yahoo,Skype MSN etc.)wants to offer "free" phone calls over Telcos networks without any "commercial" rate for pricing. It's hardly fair that a Google can use a Telco network to take Telco business away and then scream "net neutrality" if Telcos seek a higher rate for web giants making looking to make millions without the overhead faced by networks.
I once a "Net Neutality" enthusiast but the more I learn about it the more it "un-neutral" it seems. Kudos to Google and Vin Serf for getting some people to think supporting Net Neutrality is good for the "little guy". To me its just looking more as a way for big Web companies to make money off the network maintainers backs.
Oh I know the Googles etc pay their use fees but they dont pay a commercial rate like most Telcos and power cos get to charge. Just because people pay rent on an apartment doesn't the renter can turn around and sublet the same apartment in a manner that's harmful to original renter. I can't rent a one bedroom apartment then rent it out to a dozen other people. This net neutrality just seems like a way of keeping a lopsided arrangement unfairly beneficial for the Googles.
I would add that Telco services also have a lot of taxes built in to their services that the Googles dont have yet. Governments have their hands pretty deep in Telco pockets. It's unrealistic to think governments and Telcos will just "back-off" for the sake neutrality and let the Googles make millions by providing Telco services without the overhead liabilities.
This Net Neutrality looks pretty lopsided to me. As much as I despise Telcos I can see their points.
GOOG has been asked different times why they bought/need/want so much black fiber. First of all it's cheap now (and it might not always be) so buying in for later might be good. Another possibility is that they bought it for this very reason. Once they start suing telco's, some of them that are evil (like AT&T) might just disconnect them or pressure other telco's to stop giving them the connections they need/want. If they OWN the fiber, they just connect it and they are back in business.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
The responses above make me sad for how predictable /. responses have become - if its Google and China's not mentioned then they must be right, if its telcos, or MS or the Patent Office it must be bad..
/. survives so I can point to the archives and let the inevitable flamee's have a chance to re-consider their views - assuming the then all-pervasive google-bar or google brower doesn't censor it..
A few posters are near the target, there is only one motivation and thats future money. Google has to get some more substance behind its business, as one day its page hits will fall, and the advertising it generates will drop off.
The key, and has been for a long time, is content. If you own / control content that people want then the money will follow. Google has quasi-content in that they rely upon everyone else to generate it, but make it easy to access - as long as you are on the first couple of pages. However they want more - and high quaility video streaming of content is a way to get into really big ticket money - what if Google bought the rights to Premiership football (for the UK) or the Superbowl in US - all exclusivly available on Google Video for the sum of $$$
So Google needs to do a couple of things No 1 - restrict is competitors and No2 protect its access to consumers.
Telcos have a problem that they drove data prices rock bottom, supported by their PSTN revenues, but now are seeing the PSTN revenues disapear as voice just gets shifted to data - so they need to move into the content business as well. If a telco builds data centers at network hubs that already have Gb's of connectivity into them it makes good sense, they don't need to bias traffic - they just charge Google for the Gb's of access they will need - or charge a premium for carrying multicast traffic.
Why? Well, funnily enough to carry that much data costs telcos money - and that money is going to come from one of two places - the content provider, or the consumer - if you restrict the ability of telco's to charge the content providers appropriately for the traffic, then the only place they can get it from is the consumer - you and me. So what happens is we end up paying more for our connections, and the content providers get even richer as we subsidise the bandwidth they should be paying for and we still have to endure the advertising that Google is getting paid to provide - moiney that should be paying for bandwidth.
Earlier in this appalingly written, badly spelt rambling rant I mentioned that content is key, Google have to be very careful how they position the whole neutrality piece lest it come back and bite them. Google is so pervasive that if you have content, you need to rank highly on Google to get people to see it - how do you do that? Well you take your chance on the secret alogrithm, or you pay some money and still take your chance - so how is that different from a telco saying to Google 'sure you can take your chance with everything else or you can pay some extra and be further up the page^H^H^H^H QoS queue?
My predication is that in 5 years time Google will be seen as very bad thing for real freedom and access to information - lets hope
"Get a Life? Where do I FTP one from?"
I don't care if small pieces of software are bundled if I'm not forced to install them. I've installed the software in question, and you can turn off the google toolbar install. I know, because I did it.
ObDisclaimer: I didn't install it, because I already had it installed. I use the autofill and the search components of the google toolbar; I've dragged them into my normal address/navigation toolbar.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Why do we need anti-trust laws? If you think about it, every for-profit company wants to become a monopoly (i.e. to crush their competiton). And the larger the market is, the more likely it is to attract very clever and unscrupulous people. Just look at Bill Gates. Here's a great quote from El Reg (link to full article):
[quote]
And, as Bill said to me at that breakfast chat: "It's important for a corporate leader to know the difference between what is actually illegal, and what people assume should be illegal." Gates got his big break, of course, in exactly such a way.
[end quote]
To me, this seems to indicate that Microsoft got where it is today by doing things that are unethical but not technically illegal. As detestful as that is, Gates gets a few brownie points for being honest about it, and a few more for not blatantly breaking the law (as so many other big companies seem willing to do when they see an advantage).
Google should just deny service to those who compromise the principals of network neutrality. This is easy enough to do by filtering on network address, and Google. Customers will apply the remainder of the pressure required to force those with outdated business models to behave ethically.
Are you friggin kidding me?
Lets start with buying companies just to shut down any possible competition... we will then move on to raping these companies pension funds after firing all the employees and counting it as "profit" on their quarterly report.
I will continue with the fact Microsoft has NEVER innovated or invented anything. NOTHING. They have bought, sued for or outright stolen and then sued to keep the people they stole from quiet, everything they have. Now it could be pointed out companies like Google do not either... they only refine. But they don't CLAIM to be based on innovation and use the need for innovation to fight off law suites levied in return against them.
During their anti-trust case I was also PRESENT (i.e. not anecdotal in any way... I watched this happen) a Microsoft stooge offer a huge campaign contribution to a politician's campaign I was working on if he would agree to help them in their anti-trust case soon as all the elections finished. I mean common, they outright admitted they were stalling till they could buy enough support in the new administration.
Get the picture or should I continue?
how lightweight Google really is compared to most graphics/HTML-intensive web sites
If you're referring to the complexity of the code they send to your browser, it's because the geeks are in charge (at least it seems so) at Google. They know that more code equals more bandwidth, and bandwidth costs money. More code also means more places for things to go wrong, which means more time debugging, and ultimately costing more money.
we're being fed with prophecies like "Google will become a monopoly and will behave so very evil; ph34r." for already two or three years. Yet, I fail to see what's so evil about them. Lots of people are accusing Google of trying to steal their private data via GMail - but they seem to be quite content using Outlook Express, produced by a company famous for deceiving its partners, customers and generally behaving evil. I don't quite catch the logic here.
Better yet, Halliburton got someone else to fight most of the war for them, and then they get the profits of private business from the war! How cool is that?
Almost as cool as understanding why many folks who call for 'privatization' of industry happen to know someone in that industry. It's called a "complex" for a reason.
+&x
So are you saying that "Do No Evil" really means "Do Less Evil Than Than Everybody Else"?
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is probably copied from somebody else's.
YOU'RE A LIAR! You are either too blinded by your hatred for Microsoft or too stupid to know any better but Microsoft has DEFINITELY invented stuff -- it's called Clippy, the happy Office helper!
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
No, only government involvement can create a monopoly! You dare to question Free Market Dogma?
Uh, no. The net is here for the web, email, file transfers (originally in the form of ftp, but now we have P2P formats), IRC (yes, still in use), NET NEWS (also still in use, contrary to popular opinion), VoIP, encrypted interconnections, and a host of other forms of traffic.
As the previous poster pointed out, it's just packets flowing.
It would be a shame if something happened to it."
*That* is the treatment they deserve.
Exactly! And that is the fundamental difference.
Government-granted monopolies stifle free market competition. TRUE monopolies that occur in the free market and are NOT supported by the gov are not very long-lived, nor do they have a very tight grip on the market.
Libertas in infinitum
A monopoly does NOT mean "a single a sole supplier". A monopoly means 85% or more of the market share if I remember correctly from econ101.
And in a free market, competition usually prevents a true monopoly from lasting very long. This assumes that the monopoly is not coercive or predatorial, which in the US is illegal. The true problem causers are the government granted monopolies such as telcos, tv/radio outlets, cable companies, utility providers, oil companies, etc. None of these companies exist in the free market thus can do whatever they please pending the amount of money donated to their congressmen.
Libertas in infinitum
As long as Bush is in office, there is no chance of the anti-trust laws being enforced. Yes, Google, you are absolutely right about what the law says, but that don't matter if the courts are packed with persons opposed to those laws. Any anti-trust lawsuit with Bush in office for anything other than naked price fixing is just doomed.
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
By using that definition, then MS is NOT a monopoly. However, using the definition I was taught, they are (+85% of the market).
Interesting to point out. I am not an economics major, although there are some days I wish I were.
Libertas in infinitum
The only chance for us is when the jackals start disagreeing and fighting each other. Like with piracy: *AA may not be happy about it, but ISP's are happy cos people are buying faster connections.