 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | reply to openbox9
Re: lol jaw flapping and little follow through? it's like you're in your own world there.
The only ones that may view google as a teenager are the old farts at telco. They're used to setting the market pace and price -- they've never quite shook the entitlement they feel they deserve back when they were the monopoly. And who can blame them, really? It's difficult to give up total power. Anyways, here comes a new player that is playing according the rules and the old farts start their belly aching trying to CHANGE the rules, saying it's not fair. That the new guy isn't playing the game according to THEIR rules.
It's great fun to watch the old guys get mad at the new guy. I do feel sorry for them though. They don't have the talent to be anything other than a dumb pipe. Deep down, they know it. Which is why they are fighting so hard against net neutrality and waging the smear campaign against google. |
|
 jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Wait.... is it 1997 again? I swear I've heard all this before. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to morbo
So what was your perception of Google as an ISP? My point is that Google is great at trying to tell other ISPs how to run their networks, but doesn't do anything to back their argument. Google's antics would be akin to the ISPs demanding that Google open their advertising system so that others' ads can glow freely their their advertising network.
Don't get me wrong, Google does some good and innovative things and has a lot of talent, I just don't believe they've done anything overly productive on the ISP front for consumers. They're great at spelling out what others should do, but that's about it.... |
|
morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Apparently you are unable to make accurate comparisons. ISPs don't need to demand that Google open up their advertising system. ISPs are free to sign up and create their own ad campaigns within the existing system Google provides. That's just what Google has done: create products people use under the existing internet framework. AT&T hates this because they want a cut of the truckloads of money so now they claim that Google is getting a free ride and kills babies and supports al qaeda. Really ridiculous claims that anyone in the technology field knows is bullshit. But, they are used to getting their way so they fund astroturf organizations and pr campaigns against Google. They also continue the legislative lobbying. Thy are really good at that part.
Google isn't an ISP. They marked their territory in the city where their headquarters is by offering free wifi. It was a slap in the face to AT&T/PacBell (I believe), but that's about it. |
|
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to morbo
said by morbo:Anyways, here comes a new player that is playing according the rules and the old farts start their belly aching trying to CHANGE the rules, saying it's not fair. That the new guy isn't playing the game according to THEIR rules. What planet are you posting from? It's Google that wants to change the rules (in fact impose a whole set of new rules), namely the imposition of "network neutrality" via new government regulations.
Their motive (as another poster pointed out) is simply to have as wide open, cheap, and unfettered a landscape as possible for their ads to be seen. But that's not how they frame their message, to say the least. AT&T, whatever you think of them, is at least up front about their business goals. |
|
 kmb40
join:2004-08-02
Fort Washington, MD | reply to morbo
As someone working from the belly of a Telco today, I think you are making some valid points about Google and Telco's.
Maybe Google is trialling the Mountain View wifi service so they can learn how to do it properly before going national. True its been a a while but maybe they are willing to spend the time to do it right!
I know this is a foreign concept to telco bell heads because they remember a time they had unlimited budget, unlimited resources and no competition. That day is dead. Time to play ball and put customer experience before profit OR collapse and die.
Cough = GM. Lol. |
|
 sivranBack to Opera againPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to MyDogHsFleas
Yeah -- AT&T wants content and application service providers to pay them to reach their ISP subscribers, as does anyone else who is anti-neutrality (mainly broadband ISPs, and people like openbox9  who either have a stake in the ISPs, or have drunk the kool-aid). We call this "double dipping."
Google, as a content and application provider, does not want to do this, for obvious reasons, as does anyone else who is pro-neutrality. (mainly, companies who aren't broadband ISPs)
--
In dadkins' memory, Think outside the Fox... |
|
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas:said by morbo:Anyways, here comes a new player that is playing according the rules and the old farts start their belly aching trying to CHANGE the rules, saying it's not fair. That the new guy isn't playing the game according to THEIR rules. What planet are you posting from? It's Google that wants to change the rules (in fact impose a whole set of new rules), namely the imposition of "network neutrality" via new government regulations. Their motive (as another poster pointed out) is simply to have as wide open, cheap, and unfettered a landscape as possible for their ads to be seen. But that's not how they frame their message, to say the least. AT&T, whatever you think of them, is at least up front about their business goals. WTH? Network neutrality has been the norm since the beginning days of the internet. All companies that tried to subvert network neutrality were either forced to open up by competition (AOL), or simply went down under.
The only reason it's become such a contentious topic these days is that ISPs with little to no competition again want to attempt to impose their own, selfish controls on how people access the internet.
You honestly think AT&T is up front about their business goals? Really??? What about the various "reeducation" schemes they've employed, such as "focus groups" whose purpose is to convince people overage caps and metered internet billing is a way of "saving money" for Grandma? |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by sonicmerlin:WTH? Network neutrality has been the norm since the beginning days of the internet. All companies that tried to subvert network neutrality were either forced to open up by competition (AOL), or simply went down under. The only reason it's become such a contentious topic these days is that ISPs with little to no competition again want to attempt to impose their own, selfish controls on how people access the internet. You've constructed your own reality. Unfortunately it does not correspond with actual reality.
There is no network neutrality regulation. There's a bill in Congress that wants to direct the executive branch to craft a whole new set of regulations. The bill explicitly favors the content creators over the carriers, without blushing. Go look at it if you don't believe me. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to morbo
said by morbo:AT&T/PacBell (I believe) ... Never heard of them. SBC bought PacBell (The Pacific Telesis Group, actually) well before AT&T sold off their cable enterprise to Comcast (ATTBI). There hasn't been a connection between AT&T and PacBell since 1984. SBC absorbed the PacBell brand in 2002, well before SBC bought AT&T. By the time SBC rebranded as AT&T, PacBell (and Ameritech, and SNET, and Prodigy) were mere memories of past services).
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
sivranBack to Opera againPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
That's uh, kinda the point.
It's a bill to protect content providers from anti-competitive measures taken by carriers.
In short (names here used just for example) it forbids Comcast from demanding money from Google when a Comcast subscriber uses GMail or any other Google product. It forbids TWC from exempting their own (hypothetical, I don't think they have one--yet) internet video service from their usage meter, while letting YouTube, Hulu, and others languish under their stingy caps. It forbids AT&T from deliberately dropping Skype packets while letting their own (or a partner's) VOIP product run free.
Or did you really want, say, dslr to become a pay-only site, because Comcast, TWC, AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest all demand that Justin pay not only his own ISP (nac.net), but them as well? That's what you're advocating when you spout anti-neutrality rhetoric.
--
In dadkins' memory, Think outside the Fox... |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to morbo
You need to abide by Google's rules to use their ad network....not much different than following the ISPs' rules to use their networks. FWIW, I didn't support the belief that Google has a "free ride" and that they need to share their profits with the network providers any more than they already do.
I realize Google isn't an ISP, but that idea that it would or could be was a genesis for this thread. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to sivran
said by sivran:That's uh, kinda the point. It's a bill to protect content providers from anti-competitive measures taken by carriers. Right. I think you missed the larger context. The poster that I was replying to was living in some non-Earth reality where network neutrality was already being enforced by government regulation. I was simply pointing out that there was a bill that had not yet been enacted.
In short (names here used just for example) it forbids Comcast from demanding money from Google when a Comcast subscriber uses GMail or any other Google product. It forbids TWC from exempting their own (hypothetical, I don't think they have one--yet) internet video service from their usage meter, while letting YouTube, Hulu, and others languish under their stingy caps. It forbids AT&T from deliberately dropping Skype packets while letting their own (or a partner's) VOIP product run free.
Or did you really want, say, dslr to become a pay-only site, because Comcast, TWC, AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest all demand that Justin pay not only his own ISP (nac.net), but them as well? That's what you're advocating when you spout anti-neutrality rhetoric.
These are all hypothetical problems that do not exist today.
To me it's foolish in the extreme to build up a big new government bureaucracy, write a whole new set of regulations, and burden the court system with the inevitable flood of lawsuits, to solve a non-problem.
If this ever becomes an issue, and normal competition doesn't take care of it, then existing laws such as antitrust can be applied. Don't be spun into urgent action by those trying to gain business advantage from regulations (*coff* Google *coff*).
This reminds me so much of the "There's trouble in River City! With a capital T!" scene from The Music Man. Whipping the crowd into a frenzy over a problem they didn't know they had, to make a few more bucks.
The last thing I'll say is: be careful what you wish for. It's really easy to have a whole raft of unintended consequences when you toss well-meaning but ill-defined legislation out there to a government bureaucracy. |
|
sivranBack to Opera againPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| The problem with the whole "competition will solve it" idea is the lack of competition in many, many areas. When your only choice is between nothing, and a provider who violates neutrality principles, whatcha gonna do? With excessively low usage caps looming, the environment's ripe for abuses. Give it a few years and even Comcast's reasonable-today 250GB cap will seem stifling.
--
In dadkins' memory, Think outside the Fox... |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by sivran:The problem with the whole "competition will solve it" idea is the lack of competition in many, many areas. I didn't say "competition will solve it". I said "if competition doesn't solve it, existing law (such as antitrust) can be applied."
Besides, do you really think the big national ISPs will have different terms&conditions for different locations? I don't. |
|
