Google Warns Incumbents Will be quick to file antitrust complaints Google warned on Tuesday it will not hesitate to file anti-trust complaints in the United States if high-speed Internet providers abuse the market power they will receive in a new round of broadband laws. "If the legislators insist on neutrality, we will be happy. If they do not put it in, we will be less happy but then we will have to wait and see whether or not there actually is any abuse," says Google's Vint Cerf, co-creator of the TCP/IP protocol.
|
 | | They should Personally, I'd like the see the Bells go down in flames on it.
Go ahead Death Star: Make Google richer! ...and the rest will follow and file massive lawsuits.
-Rach | |
|  | | | Re: They should "Death Star"how appropriate.
ATT will eventually merge with google anyway creating a google version of jar jar binks! | |
| | | | | Re: They should Google would cost them $100 billion to buy.
Funny, they are only paying $67 billion for BellSouth.
Google might eventually be the ones buying AT&T.
Let's buy AT&T.
Really?
Sure, a few million shares ought to buy it.
What are we going to do with it?
Eliminate the POTS lines and just give everyone naked DSL for $25.
Okay! | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: They should But first we gotta fire that pauper stooge Whiteacre. Hmmm, no lets keep him arround. I've always wanted a pet monkey. | |
| | | | | | | Not to me -- I have no desire to use VOIP. | |
|
| | |  phxmarkWhat Country Are We Living In?
join:2000-12-27
Glendale, AZ | Can't wait for the GoogleBit DSL Line..;) | |
|
 spewakR.I.P DadkinsPremium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:1 | Time will tell It won't be IF, it will be a matter of WHEN the high-speed interntet providers abuse their market power. 
--
The weekend is here, grab a can of beer! | |
| | RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN | Re: Time will tell 1. Wait until laws are broken.
2. Take action.
What a novel new concept! Probably never catch on though. | |
| | |  tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Re: Time will tell 1. Wait until laws are broken.
2. Take action.
3. Pay off "Lobby" Congress
4. Continue abuse
Sadly, it's something abit more like this these days. | |
| | | | Reviews:
 ·Charter
| Re: Time will tell 1. Wait until laws are broken.
2. Take action.
3. Pay off "Lobby" Congress Be the gov's bi%#@! and give the NSA everything it wants.
4. Guys in black suits show up at google and 'encourage' them to 'get with the program'
5. Continue abuse
Sadly, I think as long as AT&T is being a good puppet as far as handing over your personal information, there will be little done at the federal level to oppose them....
--
Fed Up With Stupidity?
Patentlystupid.com | |
| | | | RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN | said by tsu9:1. Wait until laws are broken.
2. Take action.3. Pay off "Lobby" Congress 4. Continue abuse Sadly, it's something abit more like this these days. Here's an interesting thought. If Google is threating to take the ISPs to court for potential anti net-neutrality actions in the future...does that mean that there are already laws they can use against anti net-neutrality behavior?
If so, why do we need more laws?
If not, how in the world are they going to take anyone to court?
RJ | |
|
| |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by RJ44:1. Wait until laws are broken. 2. Take action. What a novel new concept! Probably never catch on though. Even assuming the government would actualy "take action" how many years of abuse would customers have to endure? Do you think the first day after at&t screws you over the government is going to stop it? It would take YEARS to stop the abuse. That's like saying you should put your seat belt on AFTER you crash. | |
| | |  JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Except when it's the government. | |
|
| | 800 Pound Google Anybody who thinks Goggle is being altruistic to advocate Net Neutrality I go some prime swamp land I want to sell you. This is big corporate politics at its worst. Instead of competing in on the free market, Google was to get a free ride to cram pay per view content on the networks. The problem the internet protocol was never design for streaming video so the telcos want to provide a new streamline service to handel large video streams. This service would be paid by the content provider and would provide additional bandwidth to what is available. I never heard once that the telcos planed to slow down any Internet traffic.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If Google wants to live by the sword, it can die by the sword. Perhaps Google it self need to be investigated for “anti-trust” * actions include dominance in the search engines and its Ad Works program.
* Frankly, I do not believe such anti-trust regulations are needed. Monopolies are not created just by corporate action. There are due to government regulations. Example Standard Oil AT&T and the Airlines were monopolies because of government regulation kept out competition. The only true Monopoly is government monopoly on the use of force. | |
| | jagged
join:2003-07-01
Boynton Beach, FL
1 edit | Re: 800 Pound Google what are you? crony working for the telcos? Sounds like it.
I pay for my hosting (using the pipes), I pay for my internet access. There's no reason why my friends anywhere in the US should have to pay more to download the videos off my blog that is why I paid the hosting company, to use their pipes up to a certain capacity.
Google won't pay twice, neither will I
It's idiotic, but then it's the telcos that come up with this shit. Hope it comes down to Google destroying the cable and dsl monopolies.
Google dominance in the search engines? "Ad Works"?
Google is dominant in the search engine business because most people CHOOSE to use them.
Google is #1 with AD WORDS because I and others CHOOSE to use them because they are the best.
I use Comcast or BellSouth because I CAN'T CHOOSE they are the only two with high speed internet here.
I CAN CHOOSE my search engine from several available and nobody is telling me who to use.
Get your facts right before posting bullshit | |
| | | | | Re: 800 Pound Google So I guess you could say the same thing about MICROSOFT too, huh? I mean people CHOOSE them, right...so we should let them do what the f**k they want??
--
mdlt | |
| | | | | | Re: 800 Pound Google No you can't, don't even go there. | |
|
| | | What are you talking about? Come out from the rock you are living under and buy a clue will ya!
Streaming video are IP packets. Streaming music are IP packets. Sending email are IP packets. Surfing webpages are IP packets. Do you see a trend here? That's right... EVERYTHING that crosses the internet is an IP PACKET and that is exactly what the internet was built for. Don't come here preaching anything else because it makes you look stupid.
Google gets a free ride? Do you have any clue how much they spend a month to have the bandwidth needed to accommadate their offerings? Google pays 100% for the bandwidth they use whether it is just web surfing, video playback, or downloads. And it isnt some $14.95 a month DSL special they are paying for. They aren't competing with these network carriers and won't be until they start running fiber to homes. It are the carriers that are trying to use their control over the transport to compete with the Googles and Yahoos. They can't compete on a level field by providing a service people want, so they are trying to extort it from those that do. And if you are honestly proposing that Google should have to run fiber to the homes of people that want to get their goods and then Yahoo should have to run fiber to the homes of people that want their goods, and BBR should have to run fiber to the homes of all of us so we can view their forum, then you should be in the market for a few clues. | |
| | Reviews:
·Charter
| said by richardpor:Anybody who thinks Goggle is being altruistic to advocate Net Neutrality I go some prime swamp land I want to sell you. This is big corporate politics at its worst. Instead of competing in on the free market, Google was to get a free ride to cram pay per view content on the networks. The problem the internet protocol was never design for streaming video so the telcos want to provide a new streamline service to handel large video streams. This service would be paid by the content provider and would provide additional bandwidth to what is available. I never heard once that the telcos planed to slow down any Internet traffic. Perhaps you should read more often here. (and example is here »www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···109.html )
As for the protocol, its true, even hard drives were not originally built to handle the massive amounts of steady raw data feed needed to handle a steady video stream (hence for a while we had A/V rated hard drives), the technology has improved however. The problem with the Internet and the Telcos is they are based on the business model of building a network that not every one will use to 100% of capacity 100% of the time. I believe at the time of the Loma Prieta earthquake that Pacific Bell stated that they couldnt handle more that 13 or 27% of their subscribers at one time, hence all the circuits are busy messages. The telcos want to continue with this model, its cheap and from a business perspective it make sense. They want to build the least amount of capacity needed while selling you the world. They want to sell 100 subscribers 6Mbps DSL out of an RT that can only do 40Mbps of traffic, why? Because it costs them less. They do not ever under any circumstance want to build a network thats 100% capable of meeting sustained demands because its too costly. So their current answer is to try to charge on both ends of the pipe, this would have two effects overall.
1. Web sites would have to pay them and would probably limit content or increase their cont/ad ratio to compensate.
2. End users ticked at paying for the content or being forced to view more ads would use less bandwidth.
Sounds like a double win for the telcos it would effectively slow the current explosive growth and demand for broadband use in joe average(I am not talking about the kid down the street doownloading 500gigs of p0rn on bit torrent).
Now the bells want to offer video themselves and that bandwidth they sold you is suddenly more valuable to them and so they are going to do anything in their power to limit how you use it.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If Google wants to live by the sword, it can die by the sword. Perhaps Google it self need to be investigated for “anti-trust” * actions include dominance in the search engines and its Ad Works program.
And can you show me one thing google has done in this manner? Trying to be a monopoly? All I have seen is them trying to be the best at what they do.
Granted Google has its own intrests at heart they dont want to pay to deliver their content to you. But then again why should they?
--
Fed Up With Stupidity?
Patentlystupid.com | |
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | You know, I ALWAYS try to find the "other side" to everything in what I read.. I just can't see it in richardpor's post.
Google? Part of the problem? You must not know google very well. People LOVE to work for this company. People love to do business with this company. Why? They treat people right! They are actually innovative.. they try to bring things out that people want and they try to do it in a non-intrusive way. Google started out by doing things right and still do to this day.
And you talk about the internet not being able to handle video? Never designed for it? I got news for you... Telephone lines were never designed to hande high speed internet either. As for that, neither was cable or powerlines, but they are. Ever heard of evolution? Try it sometime. 
We need to evolve. If you can't see what's happening on the last mile pipe carriers (mostly phone at this point spouting up) it's not all about building a better network. They've upgraded it a few times becuase their customers demand better service. They are pissing adn moaning becuase they are NOT innovative. They haven't had a unique idea of their own in 20 years so much to make another dime on their own with the exception of finding new ways to package the same old crap up in another box and stick a difference price on it.
So, what's happeneing here? While everyone else was out inventing the internet (as in what draws people to want to use it AND to give people a reason to want or need to buy the last mile pipes, aka, access) the incumbatns sat on their as*es and did exactly that.. sold access. NOW, they see how lucrative the internet in a whole has become and they want thier piece. However, because they know they can't compete on the same level, their way to enter the market is to repackage the same crap in a different box and this time put new rules on it instead of price.
Here we will now sit with the new improved internet only THEY will want to see you the news, THEY will want to sell you the phone, movie downlaods, music, etc. They come up with "it's my pipes and they are getting rich off the pipes I paid for" crap.. Incumbants don't want to stop the other guys.. they want to charge them another time for something they already pay for so that they will have to raise their own prices. Instead of a $1.99 movie, they will have to charge $2.99 or $3.99 and look at that.. it's about what phone wants to sell their restrictive crap for.. funny how that works, huh?
Innovative?
Internet phone service - Vonage took the first major stab. However sells it too low for what Ma Bell would want to sell theirs for.
Streaming video services - MANY on the internet offering this. Again, not at a price that phone wants to sell theirs for, so what......? They would force everyone else up to a point where phone wants to be.
MP3 music stores - Napster brought it to us. Napster got shut down, but it was NAPSTER that brought it to us in the first place. Now everyone else wants a piece of it. I can't say that what napster did was right, but it took THEM to bring it to us.
Let's not forget how phone handled 3rd party DSL orders and service calls when they were told to open their networks. Remember ordering DSL from your own ISP only to have to wait 3 to 4 weeks for the same thing that they incumbant would call you on the phone about and offer it to you for less money in only a few days? Yea... you don't trust laws that protect people becuase (and I can't beleive I am about to say this) becuase it threatens your own industries survival. You can't compete and survive like everyone else, so you have to manipulate the system in your favor. It really smells like you work for phone richardpor, very much stinks like Ma Bell around here.
There are more examples, but all of this while the phone companies sat back at 256k and 1.5 meg while everyone else 'developed' the internet to what it is today.
These incumbants are greedy! They are underhanded! and remind me of nothing more than a kid wanting mommy and daddy (the feds) to make everything alright for them.
My attitude? If you can't survive on your own, then shut your copper down and go away! There are many others out there that want the space on the poles and in the ground. | |
| |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | A very good summary. This Google news release is just pure BS. Of course, they can complain to the justice dept any time they want. Microsoft's competitors do it all the time. It doesn't matter if the complaints are legitimate or not. It is just another corporate tactic used to harass a competitor and keep all their in-house lawyers busy. Of course the end customer pays for all these lawyers on both sides and prices won't go down no matter who wins. So, Google can continue pretending to be the white hatted cowboy, but only fools will buy the act being put on by Google. But based on a lot of posts in blogs and elsewhere, there are a lot of fools out there who believe Google's propaganda.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
| | | | | Re: 800 Pound Google Hmmm... so I will be paying double to use the google search engine eh? What is 2 times 0. Durrrr..... Really TK your posts are ussually good, but this one is kind of dumb. Yes Google is playing the corporate slaping game, but what do you expect, the telcos do it all the time. I never see you complain about them, although it happens so often it goes without saying by now that the telecommies stink. | |
| | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: 800 Pound Google His posts usually were good. Lately he has sounded more like a bigot, and corporate shill. There's not even an attempt there to see why he's wrong, so don't bother.. | |
| | | | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: 800 Pound Google said by Ahrenl: There's not even an attempt there to see why he's wrong, so don't bother.. That is because I am never wrong.  | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 800 Pound Google LIAR! | |
|
| | | | You know better, Tkjunkmail. Which company has offered innovation in the past 20 years? The telco giants or the content provider? There is no legal, scientific or ethical justification for a two-tiered Internet. That is abundantly clear to anyone who isn't a telco stockholder, which I'm assuming you must be.
Would you to absorb the price that the bells charge the content providers? How about $25 for those Netflix instead of $10? How about extra shipping charges from other large sites?
The telcos are doing their best to throttle innovation so that they can compete in these various markets, markets which they weren't smart enough to invest in on the ground floor. | |
| | | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: 800 Pound Google said by broadbander: That is abundantly clear to anyone who isn't a telco stockholder, which I'm assuming you must be. I have no financial incentive to knock one side or the other. I have a broad-based diversified portfolio where I win no matter which side of the so-called "net neutrality" debate predominates. And there have been plenty of arguments made for separate pipes for video and VOIP by others than the telco industry. It is just that the fanboys of the big content providers don't want to even admit they exist.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
| | | | |
1 edit | Re: 800 Pound Google Possibly because the pipe providers have run a shitty business for the last 20 years. Telcos have chosen to bury their head in the sand while content providers continue to innovate. No one is a fanboy of the conent providers here anyway, I could give a rats ass about google other than having them always there to take care of my mail and searches. I just don't want to see the current dumb pipe model of the internet get trashed. I want a fat pipe, but not if that fat pipe can't be used for any Voip, IPTV, etc service that I desire. It is the Voip I worry the most about. Voip is the thing that finally broke the Telcos tyranical hold on the telephone and the prices you pay for phone calls. Ignore the accusators of you having private interests. Whether you do or don't is irrelevant because it comes out in the soundness of your arguments. It is kind of like Whiteacre talking about project lightspeed. To the informed user he just sounds like an idiot and is easily disposed. | |
| | | | | | | It is just that the fanboys of the big content providers don't want to even admit they exist.
There are indeed some benefits, but they are predominantly investment benefits (at least as far as I can get my head around). | |
| | | | | | | It is just that the fanboys of the big content providers don't want to even admit they exist.
If advantages existed, then point to me where South Korea is at in regards to this? Do their telcos charge content providers for all that video?
Japan? Sweden? Anywhere?
Nope, it would appear this concept of charging extra to deliver content over your pipes is a stupid idea US telcos are trying to adopt. It failed for Prodigy, CompuServe, AOL, and Level 3. Let's hope it stays that way. | |
| | | | | |  marica69Fiber To The FarmPremium
join:2004-07-06
Blooming Prairie, MN
1 edit | Re: 800 Pound Google Ok, I hardly ever post here because everyone has their own opinions and the ones I read in these forums seem pretty set and sometimes rather dearly held. I do not want to get in any ones face and I do not want to start some or inflame some sort of holy war but with that all said...
First, I work for a smaller telco (not a bell) and own a sizable portion of it so when everyone talks about telcos here, you are talking about me as well as all of the people that work for our company.
First, get facts straight, yes Japan, Korea, Sweden etc have much better access at "lower" rates. Why? Well, the first reason is that the telecom companies in Japan and Korea are state owned (not to say there is no competition but it is not in the sense that you would think of here) and they are MANDATED by the government to sell the link to the house in Japan to anybody that wants to provide highspeed for $2 per month. The customer can then get internet for about $22 per month so that is $20 to the DSL provider. Government absorbs the loss on the line subsidizing the broadband. Some of the story is in this link-- »www.foreignaffairs.org/20050501f···ire.html
but there are many more out there about how the "leader" countries have socially engineered the "lead" in broadband. Also, having just gotten back from Germany, France, and Switzerland, Internet access was not easily available, was bout the equivalent of 256K and cost about $2 per hour (which people there pay as it is not all that cheap in their homes either)
Where we live (Rural Minnesota), the line costs in some communities that are completely unsubsidized are over $30. So for $39.95 the DSL provider might get only $10. You say fine, so the phone company is doing great but they are not. The Cost of the line was $30 so when the phone lines were bringing in $30 for local and $20 for LD, they were doing well. BUT, LD now brings in 5 and competition (namely in the form of us) now only brings them in $20 so they are already losing money. Then someone like Vonage comes in to offer local service and they do it for $24.95 and bypass the phone company but still need a pipe. But they can add DSL and get another 20 or so, right? Well, yes they could but when that happens, people who want lower costs, also want to give up the local line, be it for cellular or VoIP or ... so the consumer now wants naked DSL for 25, the same price as their phone was. When this dynamic happens, be it video or voice, the service that paid for or is paying for the upgrades to the network, is removed, creating a vacuum and loss to the telco.
Well, how do you pay for that? There are only 3 ways to do it. The first way actually does not work too well but it is the most common, stick your head in the sand, maybe it will go away, and a golden goose will come down your road. The second way is to increase the price, just what everyone wants to hear, right? Although I have to say, this would make the most sense, it happens in ALL, I repeat ALL other sectors except tech, (Each of you want a raise every year right? So do the guys that work for me) The last way is to find new ways to get revenue form other sources. Network TV is free (except for the billions of dollars paid by advertisers). Cable gets the customer to pay for the content and builds its own network right? But even cable gets some of the channels to pay them for broadcasting their signal, and ads are becoming a way of life on cable too. Now, cable and telco have created networks that people pay to use because they WANT them. The new model of the internet protocol is that someone else pays for the network, and we will just use it with no repercussions. Still ok, but who will build the new pipes, the extra bandwidth, the new gear, who pays? I have never had a customer offer to pay me more but I have had tons who want to pay less and they are very vocal about it.
Oh yeah, a couple of our bonafidas, I got on the net when it was still called ARPA, then DARPA and finally the internet. We put out our first dialup lines in 1994,our first DSL links in 1996, our first Voip in 1997, the first complete MPLS network in 2000, our first 1M plus offering in 2002, our first 10Meg offering in 2004, a five county area where anyone that wants broadband can have it, even if they live 20 miles from the CO in 2005. This year we are just launching 40 meg and 100 meg services on fiber to the prem with complete digital IP video. The only trick to doing this is someone has to pay for the services. If the consumer does not want to, I have to get it somewhere else or the consumer can not have the service. Here, the consumers are willing to pay for it. Many places, they are not, they think it should be provided free, maybe by the government, maybe by the free world fairies, but somebody. Well, the government never pays for anything very long. Look at the price of postage, municipal power and water, sewage and road gas taxes. Oh yeah, all free government provided services. School? Ever look at your property taxes? No one EVER gets a free ride without someone else paying for it.
One last thought as this *rant* got way too long, The internet was NOT designed to carry anybodies IP packets, only government and some educational institutions. There already are two levels of internet, the internet and I2 which is again used by government. education, and research.
I guess I got a bit carried away and put in my .03 worth. Hope someone reads this, any responses will be interesting. | |
|
 Titus PulloI came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
kudos:1
 ·Embarq Now Centu..
| Yanno (off topic) any phrase our current govt uses (or any prior govt, for that matter - but this one is the worst IMO) is an absolute ass-backwards play on words only a stupid-cubed marketing dept could devise.
Simple deconstruction of the phrase reveals the true intent of the measure, and it's usually just a matter of reversing a word or two:
•Net Neutrality = Net Ownership
•Patriot Act = Subversive Act
•Clear Skies = Filthy Skies
•No Child left behind = Gut K1-K12 education
•Highway Bill = Fast lane for richer lobbyists
and on and on and on it goes
--
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde | |
| Antonlm
join:2004-09-15
Birmingham, AL | Get off Googles jock! Every time a Google thread is started people make the same statements and its really stupid. I really don't have a dog in this fight. But some act as if google is their big brother who's going to fight that bully that's been picking on them or something. Before some put google on the status of defender of all, remember, google is in it to make/save money like any other corporation. They try to make decisions that benefit their stock prices and shareholders, just like the telcos do. some actually feel that Google is looking out for them personally, like google doesn't want you the consumer the have to pay more. Get it through your heads..GOOGLE IS LOOKING OUT FOR ITS OWN BOTTOM LINE NOT YOURS! | |
| |
See 14 replies to this post | |
| | Is this the same google that works with the Chinese gov't To ferret out dissidents? and to limit their searches? | |
| |  AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ | Re: Is this the same google that works with the Chinese gov't said by AnonProxy:To ferret out dissidents? and to limit their searches? Yes,
and so what? | |
| | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Actually they just block the content to Chinese ISP's as demanded by Chinese law. Should they break the law just because it's not ours?
Yes the law is immoral by our judgement, but it's up to the Chinese people (and their supporters) to change it. Not corporations. Or do you want Chinese companies to break American laws in the name of changing our form of government? | |
| | |
1 edit | Re: Is this the same google that works with the Chinese gov't said by Ahrenl:Yes the law is immoral by our judgement, but it's up to the Chinese people (and their supporters) to change it. Not corporations. Or do you want Chinese companies to break American laws in the name of changing our form of government? Believe it, they do what they can.
Besides, we're the good guys.
Google basically bowed down in the name of the almighty dollar to make money on the Chinese Market. To me, it feels wrong to capitalize off something that goes against what our Country stands for. Don't get me wrong, Google probably isn't the only company doing this sort of thing, but they are on topic here.
HJ
**edit
said by Ahrenl:Yes the law is immoral by our judgement, but it's up to the Chinese people (and their supporters) to change it. Good luck with that one. From Democracy in China:
Chinese authorities have sentenced without trial a pro-democracy activist, Liu Xiaobo, to three years in a labor camp after he called on the Communist Party to honor promises to allow freedom of speech and assembly and the right to form political parties.
Liu's wife, Liu Xia, reported her husband's arrest after the couple's Beijing apartment was searched Tuesday and Liu was led away by Public Security policemen. She told Reuters that she was notified of the sentencing early Wednesday.
"I feel he hasn't done anything," she told the news agency. "Citizens have freedom of speech to write articles and say things."
Liu and another dissident, Wang Xizhe of Guangzhou, drafted a protest letter last month that carried harsh criticism of President Jiang Zemin, including an assertion that he should be impeached for asserting that China's military forces are under the authority of the Communist Party, as opposed to the state.
Wang Xizhe, also a veteran democracy campaigner, could not be located Wednesday and it was feared that he too had been sent to a labor camp | |
| | | | | | Re: Is this the same google that works with the Chinese gov't said by highjinx:Besides, we're the good guys. Google basically bowed down in the name of the almighty dollar to make money on the Chinese Market. To me, it feels wrong to capitalize off something that goes against what our Country stands for. Don't get me wrong, Google probably isn't the only company doing this sort of thing, but they are on topic here. HJ "Our country" also censors..... Might wanna go after other US companies such as the Telcos who gave it (customers' usage info) up like a chick on prom night when the US govt came a calling.. | |
|
| | Here's an Analogy I decide to buy something from a shop. I send a letter to them with a cheque. I pay the courier company $x to deliver the letter to the shop. The shop in turn sends the goods to me by paying the courier company on their end to deliver the goods to me.
The courier company meanwhile notices that the shop is making all the money and all they did was deliver the goods. They now want their share and ask the shop owner to either give them a cut off the sale of the goods or arrange their own pickup/drop service. | |
|
| |
|
|
·
·
