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'.

Comments

More Here

[neonprimetime]

From Reuters (linked in Article), More Info Here in yesterday's article

Re:More Here

[mrxak]

The important thing about all this is the changes in cable franchising law. If other companies can get a single franchise from a state, rather than each and every municipality, it becomes far easier to start providing alternative television services. This is what we call competition. Competition breeds lower prices, better service, and technological innovation in order to differentiate competing services and win more customers.

Right now Adelphia is going bankrupt and being gobbled up by Comcast and Time Warner Cable. Before that, I've seen merger after merger just in my area. There's less competition than before, and the sooner and easier it is for additional companies like AT&T and Verizon to roll out competing services, the better.

Re:More Here

[Wah]

Bah, competition should be from stations and channels, not providers.

There's less competition than before, and the sooner and easier it is for additional companies like AT&T and Verizon to roll out competing services, the better.

You do understand that in order to do so they have to hijack the internet, right? That's the whole point on network neutrality. It no longer becomes a neutral internet that anyone can use the same, it becomes a dedicated pipe for AT&T/Verizon services.

Re:More Here

[duffahtolla]

Except the Telcos have an unrestrained monopoly on the "last mile".

There used to be a ton of ISP providers where I live because there was a law stating that the Telcos had to share the "last mile" at rates that they would also charge themselves. A little crying along with some hefty cash to the government with promisses of fiber and all that in exchange for an unrestricted monopoly. Government told us all how great it would be and passed some new laws and look! Not only do we NOT get the cool new fiber (they changed their minds dontcha know) but now There is no competition. The competing ISP's were charged exhorbadent, extravegant, oh hell.. BIG FUCKING MONEY to use the last mile and viola. They took off knowing that when your competition controlls your pricing, you cant win. And this occured because of Telco sponsored laws.

Telcos keep bribing politicians into passing these self serving laws and we keep getting the shaft. If telcos are engendering laws against "net-neutrality", then you can bet grandmas farm that it won't be good for us in the long term. So I say "GO GOOGLE!!"

Re:Chicken and egg and chicken and egg and

[mkraft]

Actually the Spanish American War (federal excise) tax was finally repealed a few months ago. Not only that but it was retroactive to 3 years ago. It took over a hundred years to do, but it did happen.

So can the gf poster get all he wants now?

Re:Chicken and egg and chicken and egg and

[just_forget_it]

I disagree. Complete "freedom" in either the market or society is never a good thing. John D. Rockerfeller had complete "freedom" to use extortion, threats, and bribery to build an oil monopoly and squash competitors. Government intervention split the company and now using his methods is illegal. It also split the big AT&T telcom monopoly. If it weren't for government intervention, we would still be overpaying for land-line service. The EU is currently leveraging fines against Microsoft for not providing accurate API documentation to third parties. A free market NEEDS regulation, because when left to it's own devices, eventually a shark is going to come along and swallow up the competition, creating a predatory monopoly. Without government to step in and provide a deterrent against this, any free market will eventually implode.

Re:pretty unfair...

[denjin]

LOL.

I guess the mods are on crack. The OP is making fun of Ted Stevens. Funny, yes, but not informative. :)

Re:Translation

[Have Blue]

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.

Re:Chicken and egg and chicken and egg and

[BrynM]

The telcos own the wires - do you propose the government take the wires away and lease them to the lowest bidder?

Um... We citizens used to own those lines as a public utility. The telcos (when they were one telco) were given large subsidies to build out their networks. You should go read this history and then read this old but prescient article. The government still forces Telcos to lease the lines for telephony use at a fixed wholesale price, but I guess the Internet doesn't count for some reason.

Re:So that's what $425 a share buys

[sgt_doom]

While I don't claim to be a legal expert - I do know bits and pieces of the law.

Wasn't this already decided by that case that orginally caused the breakup of AT&T into the Baby Bells --- the lawsuits brought by Carterfone and MCI after AT&T tried to muscle them out of the industry by pulling their longlines?????

Re:So that's what $425 a share buys

[masklinn]

The rest of the world isn't trying to pass laws against neutrality (at least not yet). The issue is with local ISPs, therefore restricted to the US.

Re:Obligatory Ballmer joke

[drinkypoo]

Jokes rarely improve a discussion, the same was modding troll or flamebait doesn't.

Pissing, moaning, bitching and complaining about jokes never improves a discussion.

There's a reason slashdot allows you to set your own weights on moderation. Of course, this is an inherently flawed system, since moderation is abused more than Michael Jackson's young house guests. Still, if you don't want to see the humor, set a big fat negative weight on funny mods, and piss off.

Re:Chicken and egg and chicken and egg and

[iminplaya]

If the telcos are not regulated they either coalesce into a Ma Bell or cartel the market.

Wrong in too many ways to count. I'll lay out the most obvious for you. Ma Bell did not get that way due to lack of regulation. In fact, just the opposite is true. It was government regulation that protected their monopoly. It is impossible for any one corporation to monopolize any market without government protection of some form. One form is outright regulation, as in Ma Bell's case, and in the case of broadcast media, or many other widely used method of mass communications. Another is is IP law, as in the case of Microsoft, the biggest pharmaceutical companies, the content distributors(note, that does not necessarily include the content creators), and a certain seed supplier. In a truly free market, it is up to us to weed out the wheat from the chaff. We can use the government to help us make an informed decision, but the decision should be ours to make. At the same time, you are right that the public can and should use the government to enforce their decision, provided there is a widely accepted consensus. A simple majority would leave 49% out in the cold.

Re:So that's what $425 a share buys

[Thing 1]

To answer my own question: holy shit!

I wish I had invested, instead of just getting angry, when I first heard about the connection. That was right around the low point; I'd have almost a 1000% profit in four years.

Wow. I wonder how many accounts that currently have Halliburton in them should be investigated by the SEC. And how many actually will be...

Re:Arguably, the right response

[SonicSpike]

Yes - Most Congressmen are attorneys and they tend to complicate things. They also tend to complicate things in FAVOR of their largest donors.

In fact the government created the problem here in the first place. The telcos and backbone providers are all government-granted monopolies. In a free market, this wouldn't even be an issue because there would be enough true competition where everyone would play fair.