dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Google Building a Lobbying Beast
After network neutrality efforts were derailed...
by Karl Bode 06:26PM Thursday Jun 21 2007
In 2005, when the network neutrality battle began, Google was spending just a few hundred thousand dollars on lobbying and had a skeleton policy crew. This was compared to the tens of millions being spent by companies like AT&T and Verizon, who've over decades developed a vast and very effective (if sometimes ethically dubious) public policy machine.

The results were pretty clear. Now it's Google's turn to build a lobbying beast, that's suddenly (and much more loudly than before) tackling everything from network neutrality (they don't want to be charged to access incumbent customers) to anti-community broadband bills (they want to be able to sell local search tools to cities and towns that deploy Wi-Fi).

view:
topics flat nest 
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

1 recommendation

Cry Cry Cry

Everyone is crying Net Neutrality and Anti-Broadband bills that aren't really even affecting anything. There is nothing wrong with the Internet to even need a Network Neutrality bill/law. When something doesnt go some one's way on the Internet they post it on here or some where else and everyone starts saying "we need Net Neutrality" when nothing is wrong! Don't fix something when its not broke. And as far as Google even doing anything with broadband thats just in 1 city! Get over it Google!
Cogdis

join:2007-03-26
Floral Park, NY

Re: Cry Cry Cry

said by hottboiinnc:

Everyone is crying Net Neutrality and Anti-Broadband bills that aren't really even affecting anything. There is nothing wrong with the Internet to even need a Network Neutrality bill/law. When something doesnt go some one's way on the Internet they post it on here or some where else and everyone starts saying "we need Net Neutrality" when nothing is wrong! Don't fix something when its not broke. And as far as Google even doing anything with broadband thats just in 1 city! Get over it Google!
The idea is to stop it before it becomes rampant. I hope you realize the anti-competitive possibilities that can arise from lack of regulation.

I'm a road runner customer and as of right now, RR has reserved the right to de-prioritize competing VoIP. If the government isn't going to stop them, they WILL do it.

And why wouldn't they? It means more money...
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: Cry Cry Cry

I'm a RR customer as well and have never been sent anything from RR regarding the network being de-prioritize anything on their network. Nothing by email and nothing in the mail.
Seems Mid-Ohio doesnt care what you use your connection for.

But why make a law for something that doesnt need it? just more regulation that we don't need. OT- just like the group of people who want a Airline Customer Bill of Rights; If you don't like the way the airlines work- don't use them. Its that simple. One problem with JetBlue and everyone wants a law.

People need to stop bitching for new laws all the damn time. If people don't like the way companies run their networks; those people should build their own.
Cogdis

join:2007-03-26
Floral Park, NY

Re: Cry Cry Cry

The difference between an airline and an ISP is that you can choose the airline you want to fly. I can't choose anything but Time Warner because they're the only ISP available.

Your argument is that since ISP's aren't taking advantage, there's no need for a law to stop them. That's like saying "since there are very few murders, there's no need to make it illigal".

ISP's cannot be allowed to CONTINUE shaping the traffic that they choose, because it is anti-competitive.
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: Cry Cry Cry

There is always another ISP- Dial-up, WildBlue, and at times a WSIP. So just because AT&T made the comment of charging content providers to access their network we need a law you think?

You always have a choice. And if you don't like whats available to you; start your own ISP.

yoyoyo

@pdf.com

Re: Cry Cry Cry

Your argument is fairly illogical. Regulation that is pro competition should be welcome. I don't like regulation, but I can certainly support it if it improves competition. How can one be against competition? And the network neutrality regulation is not onerous at all. It just says that you can't do something that the telcos and cablecos say they don't do. So, it really should be no big deal.
Ahrenl

join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
The government provides the wireline monopolies that these ISP's provide their service over. The law in question would ensure that the services provided over that network remain neutral. If it weren't necessary for the government to provide a wireline monoploy (and it is) then we could use the "start your own ISP" or "switch to anther choice" argument, but since there is a wireline monoploy because of government regulation, there must be full regulation ensuring as much of an "open-market" like reality as possible.
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: Cry Cry Cry

There is no wireline monopoly. You are free to star your own ISP weather it by Wireless or wired.

How do you figure the government provides a monopoly for wireline carriers?
grandpinaple

join:2006-01-03
New York, NY

Re: Cry Cry Cry

There is a wireline monopoly because the freakin government helped the isps to start with favorable laws (you must have heard of these little things called franchise agreements). Tax breaks to telcos etc... Sorry the government is already involved, so really all it's doing is correcting a previous mistake (which unfortunately is the best course of action even though it is ultimately doomed to fail).
Ahrenl

join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
Go start climbing up public utility poles and hanging wires.. I won't pay your bail..

Wireless is a different story, but is also not a viable alternative yet. If it were, we'd all have a high speed wireless option instead of the wireline regional MONOPOLIES that are in place.

DaSneaky1D
what's up
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
Reviews:
·Charter
said by hottboiinnc:

I'm a RR customer as well and have never been sent anything from RR regarding the network being de-prioritize anything on their network.
And why would RR contact you? You wouldn't be the one charged. What you don't seem to understand, though, is that (for the sake of arguement)...in RR's eyes, they own you as a customer. They own where you visit on line and the right to control your enjoyment of the services you use via the Internet.

You say "they" should just go and build their own networks...But, what that translates in to is "Google" should go and build their own network. And Microsoft, and Youtube, and Flickr, and DSL Reports.

Net Neutrality is about your ISP saying, "if you want to reach my customers, then pay me". This isn't like a toll booth on a highway or turn pike. Companies pay huge amounts to not only build their network, but also peering and access charges to upstream providers so others can reach them.

You have a 1and1 review under your name tag. How would you feel about their "fast servers" if RR decided to tell them, "if you want your hosting services to reach my customers with any sort of reliable quality...pay me!"

Net neutrality protection is about making what is already working, stay working. It's never been about you...but you'll benefit from these efforts.
--
:: my trivial ramblings ::
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: Cry Cry Cry

I would be contacted if they're de-prioritizing the customer side of the network like some customers of RR's has said. And i clearly understand what is going on; simply a bunch of people complaining about what a company can and can not do. They built it and own it. If you don't like it don't use it and build your own. I mean they as in the customers; at least on here. If you don't like your ISP build a network to compete. MSN already has their own of Dial-up and are partnered with Qwest for DSL.

Well as with 1and1 and their reliable quality its the Internet. Nothing has quality its only best of effort now.

I don't see the point of making a law that is not needed. When it's needed then make the law otherwise its just wasting time being bitched about in DC when other bills that are needed just sit there.

and for the Record TWC, Comcast and every other cable company already does prioritize their network with their Digital Phone- it has priority access on their network on a different channel then anything else.
Cogdis

join:2007-03-26
Floral Park, NY

Re: Cry Cry Cry

said by hottboiinnc:

...I don't see the point of making a law that is not needed. When it's needed then make the law ...

...and for the Record TWC, Comcast and every other cable company already does prioritize their network...
Dude...
In many areas cable companies have exclusive rights to have infrastructure. Therefore they are the ONLY HSI available.

We both have Road runner who has already de-prioritized certain kinds of traffic (call them and ask- I did).

Many of these companies have already made their intentions clear, that they will prioritize their own internet traffic, or that of companies that will pay them for it (meaning competition- won't be competition at all if it can't get to you reliably).
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: Cry Cry Cry

AT&T has exclusive use of their backbone as well. TWC/Comcast on the other hand has built their entire network with their own money. I mean the entire back bone is what i meant by network.

But like i said- It's only the NYC people saying they're not giving fair access. Thats where the "letters" were email from to their customers.
satellite68

join:2007-04-11
Louisville, KY
quote:
I would be contacted if they're de-prioritizing
Oh my, don't we feel important?

Net Neutrality is about keeping the status quo: best effort delivery and all. Double dipping the parties who already pay for access is ludicrous.

quote:
They built it and own it. If you don't like it don't use it and build your own.
This argument gets used here an awful lot. Applied to any other commerce arrangement, it would seem illogical and ill advised at best. I suppose if you don't like WalMart, you should build your own store? That's hardly feasible. Luckily, most other commerce arrangements have other choices in the marketplace-there are competitors to WalMart. Building ones own ISP is hardly a feasible proposition for a majority of people. Possible? Yes, but so is building my own doctor's office, or football stadium, or ocean liner. None of those things are feasible from a cost/skill/time/effort/energy perspective for just about anyone. I don't see how an ISP is any different than those examples. Sure, a one man, one location, two pipes for redundancy ISP is possible, but who amongst the peasants of the world could afford/want to do so, when there are clearly behemoth giants already squatting on that space? Could a one man ISP compete with say Time Warner, pricewise? Absolutely not.
Ahrenl

join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA

Re: Cry Cry Cry

There is an important difference. The ISP's network is sitting on public land in public ROW's. Therefore the government (supposedly the people) does get a say, especially since they won't let unlimited competing networks be built on the same ROW's. The government provides the wireline monopoly that creates their billion dollar profits. What are ISP's? Maintenance companies. They don't create content (any good content), they don't provide any reason for a customer to want to connect to the internet except for the fact that they own the lease on the last link between you, and what you want. The government has a responsibility to ensure that the network wireline monopoly on public land remains neutral.
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: Cry Cry Cry

Actually now the state PUCs are taking over the ROWs and they get to say who builds and who doesn't. Will that eliminate over-builders, most likely not. But most people won't over build, instead they'd just rather complain about something.
xsiddalx

join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL

Re: Cry Cry Cry - major error

said by Ahrenl:

There is an important difference. The ISP's network is sitting on public land in public ROW's.
ISPs do not generally build infrastructure. The last time I checked, albeit a year ago at least, earthlink does not have ROWs. Telcos, CableCos, Wireless and SatCos use ROWs.

said by Ahrenl:

Therefore the government (supposedly the people) does get a say, especially since they won't let unlimited competing networks be built on the same ROW's. The government provides the wireline monopoly that creates their billion dollar profits. What are ISP's? Maintenance companies. They don't create content (any good content), they don't provide any reason for a customer to want to connect to the internet except for the fact that they own the lease on the last link between you, and what you want. The government has a responsibility to ensure that the network wireline monopoly on public land remains neutral.
My only point is that you seem to be confused about what an internet service provider and an infrastructure provider is.

(not that the lines didn't get blurred once the real ISPs were either bankrupted or absorbed into existing regulated entities)

It ain't much different than the wal-mart model. We all complain about local jobs lost, yet we shop there because of low prices, which are caused by labor that is less than local jobs provide.

We sorta killed the ISP industry and handed it to the telcos and cablecos. It reminds me of that original small check we all received from Bush when he was first elected...face it, us americans are whores...

Just food for thought.
jc100

join:2002-04-10
Funny. You apparently didn't have roadrunner around 4 years ago when they got on their 15 GB tirade and 5 dollars for every 5 gigs afterwards. The next wonderful 2 letters, were 40 GB and we'll knock you up to business class if you don't comply.. Those letters died off though after that. I guess enough people got pissed off in Midwestern Ohio.
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: Cry Cry Cry

When TWC-Western Ohio took over my area from the local cable company 4 years ago they didn't have any caps like that on RoadRunner.

en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
Yup...eventually, everything that isn't 'subsidized' through the ISP will be have low priority, if there's nothing to stop it.
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: Cry Cry Cry

Like I said. The law is only needed when this is an issue. Other wise there is nothing to stop. Just a bunch of major companies shooting the breeze.

RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1

Re: Cry Cry Cry

said by hottboiinnc:

Like I said. The law is only needed when this is an issue. Other wise there is nothing to stop. Just a bunch of major companies shooting the breeze.
Is your name Edward Whitacre, Jr. or does he sign your paycheck?

See
»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···211.html

for what the head of SBC seems to have said he wants to do.

You are right, it is not a KNOWN issue at this time, however the people (providers) who *own* the customers do currently have the right to screw with or charge extra for data streams that we are paying for if they do not come from the best money making (for the provider) location (read the article, I have summarized drastically). So says the Boss of SBC.

As I read what the Golden Boy of Telecom had to say in 2005, the fact that Google (example) pays whomever for internet access and that I pay SBC (assuming I have SBC as an ISP/connection) for Internet access does not mean that SBC has to allow me to access Google without Google paying SBC extra for data from Google to traverse SBC into my house.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time.
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: Cry Cry Cry

Actually no I don't have anything to do with AT&T I don't even use their services. I use Time Warner and Sprint. And someone from Lowe's Companies, Inc signs my paycheck since you asked

But what Ed had to say back when he said this does not have anything to do with now. It did not happen. Nobody is charging content providers anything extra to access the end-user and Ed is not even working for AT&T any longer so whats the big deal?

And again why create a law when one is not needed? When this changes, if it ever does, then we may need a bill/law protecting the customers.

RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1

Re: Cry Cry Cry

said by hottboiinnc:

Actually no I don't have anything to do with AT&T I don't even use their services. I use Time Warner and Sprint. And someone from Lowe's Companies, Inc signs my paycheck since you asked

But what Ed had to say back when he said this does not have anything to do with now. It did not happen. Nobody is charging content providers anything extra to access the end-user and Ed is not even working for AT&T any longer so whats the big deal?

And again why create a law when one is not needed? When this changes, if it ever does, then we may need a bill/law protecting the customers.
Did not happen. Wonder what would have happened if the fuss did not occur? And from what I have read in various trade journals, I doubt if the thought of more money into the coffers will go away unless something is done. History has proven that corporations, especially big ones that many people depend on, do not care about anything except the executive bonus levels.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
oddly ehough wouldnt this be akin to Comcast charging ABC to reach its viewers on Comcast?
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
Ahrenl

join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA

Re: Cry Cry Cry

Yes, except it works backwards in the TV industry. Mostly because the "competing" product solutions, are actually comparable. (as opposed to satelite or dial-up internet). Also you can always go to free OTA as a last resort. If there were free internet (at the official min of broadband standards ~200kbps) then I bet we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Can the 700mhz band provide that?
Cogdis

join:2007-03-26
Floral Park, NY

Awsome

At least google is doing something...

bmfan
Premium
join:2005-03-15
Saint Helen, MI

1 edit

Google Building a Lobbying Beast

I guess great that google is doing something positive, but sad that this is how our political system works
--
Trust is the condition necessary for betrayal

Mactron
el Camino Real
Premium
join:2001-12-16
PRK

Go Google !!!

"This was compared to the tens of millions being spent by companies like AT&T and Verizon, who've over decades developed a vast and very effective (if sometimes ethically dubious) public policy machine."

Oh, and I trust the Telco's soooo much to protect me.
You go Google !
--
If only the Verizon CSRs worked this well.

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 recommendation

Re: Go Google !!!

said by Mactron:

"This was compared to the tens of millions being spent by companies like AT&T and Verizon, who've over decades developed a vast and very effective (if sometimes ethically dubious) public policy machine."

Oh, and I trust the Telco's soooo much to protect me.
You go Google !
Are you as happy that Google is also lobbying to bring more immigrants in to the US to take high tech jobs from U.S. citizens?
»googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/···ion.html
Lobbying power is a 2 edged sword, and "Google the Good" is a very misleading phrase to apply to the new huge Google ad machine that plans on merging with Doubleclick and aggregating and selling your private info.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page

••••••

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Google Learned From Microsoft

For most of the 1990s, Microsoft actively stayed away from politics. They would not hire lobbyists, they would not fund political campaigns or the like. But unfortunately, politics is not like trouble, in the sense that if you avoid trouble, it usually avoids you.

Apple, IBM, Sun Whinersystems and Oracle successfully lobbied the US Government to set its sights on Microsoft in the mid-1990s. We had all sorts of anti-trust lawsuits come of it, and Microsoft ended up spending a lot of money to defend itself from these lawsuits. By the time the 2000 presidential election came, they had learned the hard way that unless you pump sufficient "protection money" into a politician's pocket, you become a target. What did they do? Dumped a ton of money into the Bush campaign... and upon Bush's victory, the government actions against Microsoft came to an end.

Anyone who thinks Google's influence purchasing is somehow for the "greater good" is going to be sadly mistaken. Google only cares to protect its own interests. "Lobbying up" as it is, is merely a means by which Google protects itself from hostile actions that could be taken against it by the US Government.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.

•••••••
steelyken

join:2002-03-04
Plainfield, IN

Corporate Rollerball

I say let the corporations field teams and settle all of our political issues with rollerball tournaments.
Cogdis

join:2007-03-26
Floral Park, NY

Re: Corporate Rollerball

Rollerball! yes!
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25

Google won't save you now!

"...tackling everything from network neutrality (they don't want to be charged to access incumbent customers) to anti-community broadband bills (they want to be able to sell local search tools to cities and towns that deploy Wi-Fi)."

I believe the stuff in parenthesises is Karl's analysis, and would have to say he is spot on. Google is looking out for it's own self interest. Don't think Google is going to save you, either.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

A billion dollar beast?

I'm sure the beast is pissing away billions so the great unwashed can have freedom and not have to pay back teh billions back with interest.