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'.
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.
You can get all that you want the moment you can get the tax for paying for the Spanish american war off of the phone bill.
Yes, there is a tax STILL on the phone bills and being paid that was enacted for paying for the Spanish American War.
BTW, getting that removed is harder than building a 4 lane bridge from New York to Spain.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I've got a deal for you: First we achieve *all* of those goals, then we can oppose net neutrality legislation.
Given the current reality (a free market in low-latency broadband Internet access simply does not exist), opposing net neutrality legislation with the usual libertarian arguments is putting the cart before the horse.
Sure, government regulation of the telcos has in the past couple decades been weighted in favor of said telcos (IMO) -- but the knife cuts both ways.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
If you want what the telcos and Cable companies think that IPTV should be then you will not like it in any way.
I currently have IPTV and live it. No CATV and no DISH. I watch content from RSS feeds from dltv and other sources. The shows that the networks will not allow in a decent resolution and format I pull from a mythtv box at work on the Cable tv line. I could get the content from bittorrent but not automatically.
What the networks, telcos and cable tv companies want you to have as IPTV really sucks. no way to skip commercials, no way to watch content on anything but approved hardware (guess who's hardware) which will limit your content selection from other sources, and other restrictions.
IPTV needs 100% freedom, if the content is good people will watch it. if the commercials are good they will be watched as well. It's a major change in how to do business and the big companies refuse to change anything without being forced to.
you do NOT want IPTV as defined by the telcos and other companies.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I have no problem with Google not getting net neutrality.
But I damn well expect if Verizon is charging the sites I go to, that they're not charging me.
The problem is, they want to charge everyone.
1) At least they try.
2) Fear of lawsuits, even winnable ones, can worry companies.
3) They have had some successes, but more importantly, they're making news and bringing bad things to light.
If the telcos are not regulated they either coalesce into a Ma Bell or cartel the market. The bigger they are, the higher the barrier to entry for any newcomer to the point where there are no newcomers. The US internet is already 90% of the way in this direction through the Tier 1 ISP peering arrangements which are very effective cartel (as anyone working in an ISP can testify).
This has not happen to such an extent Europe due to the prevalence of public peering which provides a very effective countermeasure to such tendencies.
If Google has any objections to the way the US Internet is going, it should go after the peering. He who controls the peering controls the Internet.
Google has the economical resources to perform an intervention and it should stop moaning and put its money where its mouth is. It should either initiate "Google Peering" or provide financial seeding for a foundation that will run a distributed equivalent of the Linx (or Amsix) across multiple locations in the US.
Once a large enough proportion of the traffic is off the Tier 1 private peering links and transit connections to them they no longer have a weapon to hold the rest of the Internet hostage.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
"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.
I totally agree with you -- but it's important to note that in an ideal market, this does not hold true. In an ideal market no regulation will result in the best situation. The problem is that no market is ideal -- we've got barriers to entry, non-commodity goods (these two are core issues with telco deregulation), etc.
GP seems to think that all markets behave like ideal markets. They don't -- which is why government regulation is necessary to prevent monopolies from abusing their market status.
But, in the end, it doesn't make much difference -- nothing is going to help him change his mind, we'll continue to posts like this one of his on Slashdot for years to come. The free-market idealists have a pretty unshakeable belief in their dogma, and we'll continue to refute their arguments til kingdom come.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Rockefeller's oil "monopoly" was good for the consumers. Read DiLorenzo's How Capitalism Saved America for amazing insight in what Rockefeller did to create the most amazing market in existence. He lowered the price of oil dozens of times over what competitors were charging, and created new industries out of his vertical marketing of previously inefficient businesses. Rockefeller should have been praised, not sued.
Land line service was so heavily subsidized for GENERATIONS that there was never a push to wireless communications, which was the big "push" to get land line providers to up the ante on their bandwidth. We had so many preferential subsidies of the local telcos that they didn't want to give more than the law required -- namely cheap and basic 9.6k service. It was slight de-regulation of other industries that caused the Internet boom, but we'd have been there much sooner had the market allowed for competition, which we didn't have for generations.
Free markets don't implode, there has never been proof of a monopoly in a free market or a market that has fallen apart because government stayed out of it. There are thousands of market proofs that the opposite is true.
Ah, yes.
And now that localities will loose control over the cable providers, the TV companies (teleco&cable) will no longer be forced to do stupid things like carry community (city) TV, meet local council requirements, or have regulated low-income pricing.
An important part to capitalism is that barriers to entry be fair. If Comcast has to overcome a certain set of legislation to enter a community, so should AT&T. And personally, I'm all for localization of law, not federalization. The more of our legislation that occurs in smaller and smaller governments, the better.
A federalist system is always better at serving constituents than a centralized system. The telecos are huge companies with significant presences (including personnel and offices) in each of these communities. There's nothing wrong with forcing them to go community by community in order to get their licensing.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
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
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?????
Yeah, but this time they're trying (and I wouldn't be surprised to see succeeding) to get the government to do the dirty work for them. Instead of being underhanded about it, they are blatant about it.
The internet and the TV are on entirely separate frequencies. (The cable modem data IS on a specific channel or channels, though; your head end connects into an up-converter.)
I'm going to use an automotive analogy now, so hang onto your seats, in case it sucks. Think of the system like a toll bridge, for example the golden gate. Over on the far right they have the high occupancy no-toll lane, to allow buses to pass by unpaid. This is television traffic. You can be on the bus, receiving TV, or not.
Otherwise, you pass through the toll gate, and you pay a fee per axle, which correlates loosely to weight, and thus the damage done to the bridge by use. This is like paying per-byte. This is, if not an appealing model, at least a fair one. Those receiving the content pay, just as those crossing the bridge pay. Those taking another route don't - just like the current internet. If you send your packets on a private network, you don't pay for the traffic, just the connection (in this analogy, like owning the car and keeping it up, and paying the road taxes - infrastructure maintenance.)
A lack of net neutrality would impose an additional fee schedule. Let's say that you could buy a fastpass, and you'd get across the bridge cheaper. (for all I know, this is true already in the real world, but forget about it for now.) However, the fastpass costs (in this mythical example) more than a minor content provider can afford. Meanwhile, unless you're in a bus you can't use the HOV lane, and they close down all but one lane for non-fastpass traffic. Now, it's utterly impossible for you to commute and get where you want to go, because it takes all day for the non-fastpass traffic to get across the bridge.
Loss of net neutrality will destroy all non-commercial content on the internet.
If this is what you want, by all means, don't back net neutrality.
And, on the subject of the state cable franchising, that means they will simply be able to ignore any area with low population density completely. I live in the boonies, and if my local city council actually cared about the local residents (they don't - I live in Lake County, CA, by the way. Come check out our roads - you can off-road through the middle of town!) then they could have mandated that my area would be connected. I live maybe half a mile from where the cable network stops.
State cable licensing is just another way to ignore the needs of the people in pursuit of profit. Why should we grant these companies a right of way if they're not going to serve us? All of the laws that allow corporations to exist and operate, and to own "intellectual property" which is an entirely abstract concept, are created by the government, which is ostensibly of the people. If it's not serving the people...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"