It bothers me that Google did not throw a publication date on this page. While it is certainly still applicable, this letter has been up for at least a few years. (I believe I found it when researching for a paper in late 2006. )
A more appropriate title would have been "A Note on Net Neutrality to Google Users in the United States," but I'm happy to see this nonetheless. Hopefully this will make its rounds and sway public opinion.
Knowing a little about how the process works, you usually do not get to speak to that actual congressman, but instead one of their staff workers who does their best to sound sympathetic without committing to anything.
It's only their business interest because they've chosen so. They could have reached an agreement with large telecom providers if they wanted to that would have effectively made it impossible for a startup to ever challenge them.
The network would the least of a startups problem challenging google. This has been one of the arguments for net neutrality and it doesn't make sense.
1.) No one has this issue now and I don't see much competition from any other than microsoft. Eventually some one will find a way but isn't going to because of or inspite net neutrality.
2.) Google can't act in an any competitive manner using the network just has microsoft found out it couldn't do with the computer manufactures. As soon as some one thought they were using their network contract to impede competition they would be bust quicker than a "Gizmodo Editor with a 'lost' Prototype"
3.) Google would have more problems going this route and it would cost them a lots of time, money and energy to manage, then add the fact they would be held hostage by the network providers. Contract up? Ok, pay us even more, new service even more. It would be road I think they avoid if not then why not. With the proper network deals and content licenses: youtube could become a new cable company. Google voice a new telephone network...
They could more easily expand beyond search into different revenue steams with these deals if there wasn't big issues with them.
It may be their business interests, but it should also be important to everyone else that enjoys the freedoms of the internet. If Cable/ISP's get the ability to favor certain content over others, we'll end up similar to the way that cable tv is setup now. "want access to foxnews.com, nbc.com, bloomberg.com then buy the news and business package.. ohh you also want facebook, myspace and twitter.. then youll also need to buy the social media package".
It would be a disaster and the end of the internet as we know it, McCain tried to pass something similar a while ago called the "internet freedom act", which basically would have taken all the "freedoms" away from the consumers and given them to the ISPs and media companies. Net Neutrality is what gives the internet its power, and the ability to grant freedom of speech.
Nice touching quoting "The inventor of the World Wide Web". People might not know who Berners-Lee or Cerf are but it's hard to argue with the inventor of the Web.
>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
And I could pick and choose my provider. The problem with regulating "monopolies" is that it does more to ensure their monopoly position and stifle competition than it does to "protect" the consumer.
This is a short-term vs. long-term debate. Net neutrality will be good in the short term, but very bad for long term development of the Internet and access to it.
Because it creates a more rules for ISPs. The more regulated a market is, the larger barrier to entry which perpetuates the monopoly.
Eventually, when smaller upstarts come along, the monopoly points at them and says, "Hey, these guys aren't playing by the rules" and then the government makes these upstarts comply with expensive regulations.
For instance, VOIP and 911. When you could get VOIP for nothing (or next to it) the big telecoms pointed to these new providers and said "We have to support 911, why don't they?".
This pattern repeats itself in almost all legislation attempting to regulate monopolies. In the end, it only serves to stifle competition and remove consumer choice from the market.
Yeah but the value of the Internet isn't the carriers, it's the content. Your argument more relevantly applies to small startups stifled by the ISPs in favor of larger websites. There are more of those than small cable companies being stifled by regulation.
Read your econ. Regulation is hardly the only barrier to entry in a market.
The huge barrier to entry for cable, water, electricity, and telecommunications (for now excluding cellular) is building the infrastructure. There are good reasons why most of these are heavily regulated.
It's funny you say ISPs because in the dial-up age there were a ton of them. They were working on top of the highly regulated phone system. Fast forward to the broadband age, which sadly was give a lot of free reign under the regulation-averse Bush administration, and there are very few 'ISPs'. Instead most markets are given a bad choice between oligopolistic cable companies and a baby bell or AT&T itself.
These companies have way too much market power, people routinely get cable tv in order to get a decent internet monthly rate, and regulation could have huge benefits for consumers as well innovative businesses like Google.
Read my post. I never said it was the only barrier. Not sure why you put words in my post that weren't there.
There really isn't a problem right now with good Internet service. NN solves a problem that doesn't exist, yet wil have long term effects on the market in ways we may not fully understand today.
Do you get a discount for biying cable and Internet together, yes, but I also get a discount for buying my life, home owner, and car insurance from the same company. I'm unclear on why a bundled discount is a bad thing for consumers.
Insurance, a heavily regulated industry with many competitors, huh. You suggest that regulation always hurts competition and that is simply not true.
Bundling is an interesting topic and in some cases it not necessarily malicious. However, unlike your insurance company, cable companies have a ton of pricing power.
I don't know why you think NN problems haven't existed. Comcast tried to block bit torrent connections, the FCC shut that practice down, but just recently the courts said the FCC could not stop that from happening.
That's exactly the sort of thing that is fine with me. Bit torrent isn't http traffic. Comcast also blocks port 25... It's their network, and I simply go around it anyway.
If Comcast does end up blocking torrents on their network, perhaps my connection will be faster and/or cheaper for it. Torrent fans can go to another provider, it's called choice.
This isn't a case of favoring one website over another, it's about blocking non-http traffic vs a totally open network. If they blocked youtube, then I'd be looking for another provider, but they're not going to do that.
> That's exactly the sort of thing that is fine with me. Bit torrent isn't http traffic.
Replace "Bit Torrent" with any other video on demand service. Now Comcast is slowing down or blocking people who compete directly with their ondemand video service.
Maybe bit torrent turns out to be a great video delivery system for a would-be competitor, but they'll never get off the ground because their would-be customers can't get decent download speeds when they connect from comcast.
Interesting to hear. I'm sure many people would be interested in certain things not taking place on their network, but do you really think it is appropriate for Comcast to make that call?
Also I'm trying to stress that you can only jump providers maybe once or twice. Not exactly a great situation to be in.
>but do you really think it is appropriate for Comcast to make that call?
I'd rather Comcast make that call than the FCC, who censors the public airwaves now. Some people think that's what NN is really all about anyway.
>Also I'm trying to stress that you can only jump providers maybe once or twice
True. Though I imagine that if all the networks started to enforce draconian traffic rules, there would be an opportunity for smaller, local startups (or a large well funded one) to offer an unrestricted Internet. I'm thinking Sir Richard Branson could start an ISP in that niche, Virgin Internet...
> True. Though I imagine that if all the networks started to enforce draconian traffic rules, there would be an opportunity for smaller, local startups (or a large well funded one) to offer an unrestricted Internet. I'm thinking Sir Richard Branson could start an ISP in that niche, Virgin Internet...
Not if they use the infrastructure of the larger companies to connect to their customers. Then the larger companies end up throttling the smaller company (and hence all of their clients)
