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.
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/
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.'"