dslreports logo
 story category
Google, AT&T Get Last Words In On Network Neutrality
How have the arguments evolved over the better part of a decade?

In 2005, AT&T (now GM) CEO Ed Whitacre made his strange (and wrong) comments that Google was getting a "free ride," and hinted that AT&T would like to charge Google an extra toll (just because). The comments set off the modern network neutrality debate as we know it, and by 2006, Google CEO Eric Schmidt was calling users to action and proclaiming that "the Internet as we know it is facing a serious threat." Half a decade later (as the FCC considers crafting new network neutrality rules) finds Google plunking down their final two cents in the matter:

quote:
We've said all along that what's important to us is promoting an open Internet, and providing access for Americans to the best broadband possible. In comments filed today with the FCC, we say that "we continue to believe that the FCC has ample legal authority to adopt broadband openness rules" and that we support whatever jurisdictional fix is "most sustainable legally."

To us this has never been about regulatory rigidity but about protecting consumers and keeping the Internet open for innovators. So while we're not wed to any particular legal theory to justify the FCC's jurisdiction, we do believe some minimal oversight over broadband networks is essential.


Of course Google wants the FCC to stop AT&T from double dipping, and they don't really care about how the FCC does it as long as they're on legal footing. But in their comments to the FCC they make it clear they don't want the FCC expanding its power so far that it covers Google products like Google Voice. In other words: regulate our enemies, but don't regulate us.

AT&T and Verizon, meanwhile, repeated their well-tread arguments that network neutrality rules would hurt puppies would stifle network investment and harm consumers. AT&T's top lobbyist Jim Cicconi insists the facts (as AT&T sees them) are squarely on AT&T's side in terms of whether net neutrality rules are even necessary:
quote:
As the FCC’s record in this proceeding clearly shows, the facts and evidence are overwhelmingly on the side of those who oppose extreme Internet regulation. The resulting record even seems lopsided. The other side, despite their bombast, has simply failed at the most basic thing they must do if they want government to intervene—they were unable to marshal any persuasive facts or evidence to justify their alarmist rhetoric or their even more breathless demands.
Of course we've all heard these arguments countless times before from both sides of the equation, and none of the last-minute filings ahead of the FCC comment deadline really tread any new ground. Everybody's still busily staring at the FCC and waiting for them to make one of three possible decisions: turn to Congress in order to get new legal authority, reclassify ISPs in order to expand their authority over ISPs, or do nothing (but with a lot of showmanship to make said inactivity look good).
view:
topics flat nest 

tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium Member
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO

1 edit

tiger72

Premium Member

A sad mess

Unfortunately for the FCC, they may need to revisit some prior decisions and possibly make large scale changes if anyone's going to be happy.

ATT's pissed off that Google Voice (and the like) aren't regulated nearly as much as they are.

Google's pissed at the prospect of paying for their own peering, and then having to pay transit to ATT on TOP of their peering agreements.

And consumers are pissed off at the prospect of paying more for the services they use, even though costs to provide those services are dropping like a rock.

We don't need the FCC to regulate how much text messages should be, or what caps should be set at, etc... In my opinion, the FCC simply needs to put ATT, Google, Verizon, et al on equal footing.

Not sure exactly what that might be, but as much as I don't like ATT, they do have some valid points too. There's got to be some solutions which make both companies and consumers happy.

Jim Kirk
Premium Member
join:2005-12-09
49985

Jim Kirk

Premium Member

Re: A sad mess

If AT&T, Verizon, etc. were forced to separate their businesses into dumb pipe and content provider, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Google is not an ISP.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: A sad mess

dumb pipe will not happen here. And if it did you can bet everyone would stay with the same services we have now. Why? Because the only way VZ and ATT started building out their FiOS and U-Verse was to be protected from sharing that. Now you turn them into a dumb pipe and guess what? they're shared again. That will stop build out that second!

ATT and VZ know what they're doing. They know if the FCC oversteps the rules/laws their given and if they do they'll sue just like Comcast.

Uncle Paul
join:2003-02-04
USA

1 edit

Uncle Paul

Member

Re: A sad mess

Dumb Pipe =/= Line Sharing
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: A sad mess

and you won't have the sharing. And the reason why has already been covered by not only the RBOCs but besides my post above.

andyb
Premium Member
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario

andyb to tiger72

Premium Member

to tiger72
said by tiger72:

Google's pissed at the prospect of paying for their own peering, and then having to pay transit to ATT on TOP of their peering agreements.

And consumers are pissed off at the prospect of paying more for the services they use, even though costs to provide those services are dropping like a rock.

We don't need the FCC to regulate how much text messages should be, or what caps should be set at, etc... In my opinion, the FCC simply needs to put ATT, Google, Verizon, et al on equal footing.

Not sure exactly what that might be, but as much as I don't like ATT, they do have some valid points too. There's got to be some solutions which make both companies and consumers happy.
Google does pay for peering,bandwidth etc all over the world.They have more coverage than AT&T and it wouldn't surprise me if they had more fibre.

As for your txt,caps etc you mention I hope you like deadly prices.Texts costs them less than half a cent.If not regulated they can become $1 or more easy.Caps? I'm sure AT&T would like 10 or 20 $ per gig overage.Hell lets make it $10..per 100mb.

You give they take and big time.There is no going back once its done.

aztecnology
O Rly?
Premium Member
join:2003-02-12
Murrieta, CA

aztecnology

Premium Member

Re: A sad mess

said by andyb:

They have more coverage than AT&T and it wouldn't surprise me if they had more fibre.
Let's not be silly...

tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium Member
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO

tiger72 to andyb

Premium Member

to andyb
said by andyb:
said by tiger72:

Google's pissed at the prospect of paying for their own peering, and then having to pay transit to ATT on TOP of their peering agreements.

And consumers are pissed off at the prospect of paying more for the services they use, even though costs to provide those services are dropping like a rock.

We don't need the FCC to regulate how much text messages should be, or what caps should be set at, etc... In my opinion, the FCC simply needs to put ATT, Google, Verizon, et al on equal footing.

Not sure exactly what that might be, but as much as I don't like ATT, they do have some valid points too. There's got to be some solutions which make both companies and consumers happy.
Google does pay for peering,bandwidth etc all over the world.They have more coverage than AT&T and it wouldn't surprise me if they had more fibre.
That's what I said. I said that Google's pissed at having to pay ATT for transit to their customers on TOP of paying for their peering agreements.
As for your txt,caps etc you mention I hope you like deadly prices.Texts costs them less than half a cent.If not regulated they can become $1 or more easy.Caps? I'm sure AT&T would like 10 or 20 $ per gig overage.Hell lets make it $10..per 100mb.
Their overages are closer to $200/gig right NOW. That's unregulated. I actually think that $20/gig overage is a very big step in the right direction.

FLATLINE
join:2007-02-27
Buffalo, NY

FLATLINE

Member

Its about being fair and secure.

Thats it. The Market will take care of the rest.
axiomatic
join:2006-08-23
Tomball, TX

1 recommendation

axiomatic

Member

Re: Its about being fair and secure.

When exactly is "the market" going to start doing this? Because, ya know, it hasn't.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd

Premium Member

seems more about portal profits

my gut feeling is the ISPs are using bandwidth costs as an excuse for something else. they want customers to get their video and search through their own ad laden portals and not from Google.com and youtube and Hulu. most ISP portals have 100x the ads on the front page then google, hulu and Youtube combined. those ads generate money, now if they forced customers through the portal they would make even more money.

or in short, companies like AT&T are thinking with portals.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 edit

Skippy25

Member

Until the line is drawn

The only valid thing AT&T has said is that there is no current reason to justify establishing regulations to establish Net Neutrality.

Which I wouldn't argue with beyond the attempts of P2P throttling they have remained neutral. However, that is not the issue. Once a line is drawn then all these networks (especially those with content of their own) will begin to see how close they can get to the line. Then they will attempt to cloud the line and finally they will begin crossing the line. That is what every single one of them do and they have done it over and over and over with laws and regulations put into place throughout the decades.

There are only 3 ways the Internet will remain neutral, as it should be, without being effected by the hand of greed:
1. Those that want to provide content to be separated from those that want to deliver the content.
2. Establish clear net neutrality laws/regulations that all content providers/ISPs must follow. In essence, take a packet and forward the packet. The rest is none of your business.
3. Have one network nationwide that is the content delivery method and everyone else that provides services is the content provider.

Gbcue
Premium Member
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA

Gbcue

Premium Member

Re: Until the line is drawn

said by Skippy25:

3. Have one network nationwide that is the content delivery method and everyone else that provides services is the content provider.
Like universal healthcare?

The Dv8or
Just call me Dong Suck Oh, M.D.
Premium Member
join:2001-08-09
Denver, CO
ARRIS TG862
Cisco 2811
TP-Link Archer AX10

1 recommendation

The Dv8or to Skippy25

Premium Member

to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:

1. Those that want to provide content to be separated from those that want to deliver the content.
Comcast just bought NBC. The FCC allowed it. NEEEEVAH gonna happen.

OldschoolDSL
Premium Member
join:2006-02-23
Indian Orchard, MA

1 edit

OldschoolDSL

Premium Member

Double dip (bad idea)

As one user has stated, ATT (and other ISP's) want to double dip (other companies want to do this too).

1.) You visit Google.com & your visit uses maybe 150kb
2.) Google pays for that 150kb (less then 1MB) for their ISP (plus all the other fees it takes to run Google.com)

3.) Your ISP also pays for that 150kb (plus all the fees it takes to keep you connected).

4.) YOU pay your ISP

This is how things are NOW (today).

Now the double dip would add the following...

5.) YOUR ISP charges Google.com for YOU visiting their site 150kb (Google.com)

So sites such as Newegg, eBay, Amazon, and many others would have to pay 2x for each 1 visit. Suddenly prices for things go up to make up the difference... So shopping online will now cost YOU more. Many "free services" suddenly will not longer be free (Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo Mail, ect...).

Now imagine if the sites also charged your IPS & adds a step 6...

6.) Google.com (Newegg, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo) charges your ISP for your 1 visit.

This will automatically add a step 7....

7.) YOUR ISP either starts to charge you for each visit (on top of the monthly fees) or suddenly your monthly bill goes UP (much higher).

To prevent cost, some sites or ISP's could also restrict access... If its cheaper to allow user from one ISP or one site over the other... Someone could be filtered out (its possible).

AnonDOG
@kaballero.com

AnonDOG

Anon

The Idea of Network Neutrality

The idea itself implies no regulation.

Anyone who believes otherwise cant define the word neutral.

Not that, that surprises me.
Necronomikro
join:2005-09-01

Necronomikro

Member

Re: The Idea of Network Neutrality

The Neutral in Neutrality doesn't refer to the regulators, but, rather, to the deliverers of the content (ISPs). The only way to enforce said neutrality is through regulations, whether self-regulated or via an external force.

halfblue
@sbc.com

halfblue

Anon

Revenge on Eddy...

Now that Eddy is at GM, it is time to charge him extra coin to allow his cars to ride the "Interstate pipes" that he doesn't own... As taxpayers and owners of those "Interstate pipes", his cars shouldn't ride for free.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: Revenge on Eddy...

gas tax.

but what do you know. You work for ATT. Go back to work.