Google: Time To Fight

9 thoughts on “Google: Time To Fight”

  1. An interesting angle to the Net Neutrality discussion that I haven’t seen much discussion on is that nearly all politicians now fall into the content side of the equation.

    Thorne could just as well have been talking about politicians instead of Google. It’s pretty easy to imagine him saying something like: “The network builders are spending a fortune constructing and maintaining the networks that politicians intend to ride on with nothing but cheap servers, raking in untold thousands of dollars of contributions and volunteers.”

    With this in mind, I wrote up a little 3 step strategy to make anyone care about Net Neutrality.

    This isn’t some telecom/google discussion, it’s about the future of publishing and free (as in freedom) communications.

  2. This doesn’t indicate a “no-holds barred legal mess”. Rather, Cerf suggesting potential future DOJ involvement if “something bad happens” is very much of a moderate, realistic statement that will likely be supported by some on both sides of the NN debate.

  3. Google & Yahoo need to get serious and begin paying for that part of others networks (big pipes) they use to maximize their AD revenues.
    The RBOC are not stupid and will not create any type Network Pricing structure or restrict any access that will drive consumers away from them.
    They (RBOC) need to contend with both the MSO and the new Wireless Muni Networks being deployed in the last mile. Competition will again set the boundaries here and the Broadband consumer will decide what they want to pay for.

    Jacomo

  4. A lot of people have missed the critical part of the picture here. The proposed Net Neutrality bill includes a section outlining how anyone can challenge an application.

    This kind of legislation was used in the 1970s by large media owners and broadcast networks to systematically challenge and permanently table all applications by individuals and small organizations (including many community groups) for licenses to set up low-wattage television stations that would have had broadcast ranges of only a few miles.

    The major media entities were barred by the same law from owning or operating such little stations. The law’s intent was to empower the people to create truly independent television broadcasting, but the application objection clause rendered the whole process unusable.

    Google and other major bandwidth users can use the challenge clause to stop or delay any Telco’s building up a new network. The Telcos say they need to move the major users to new infrastructure that would be used only by them and therefore should only be paid for by them.

    Ultimately, we the consumers will have to pay for any new infrastructure, but clearly Google, eBay, Yahoo!, and the other large entities don’t have any plans in place for monetizing a new high-bandwidth infrastructure. So they have no interest in paying for the construction (and use of) any such networks.

  5. Personally we think Google may be biting off more then it can chew if it became a major telco. There is so much more to be done in the arena of being the worlds largest and most trusted search engine. To diversify more then they already are doing may water down the very thing that made them so successful in the first place.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.