backtop


Print 58 comment(s) - last by masher2.. on Jul 7 at 11:39 AM

Google says it's ready to file antitrust complaints if telcos abuse their network control

Google spoke to reporters today and warned that if broadband service providers abuse a possible right given by the government, it will step up and file anti-trust complaints. The issue boils down to net neutrality, which has been large ongoing issue between broadband service providers, companies, schools and the government. Google says that it hopes that legislators will support net neutrality, which will prevent large telcos and cable companies from creating tiered networks, charging more for a certain type of use than another, even though the data travels on the same network.

Google said that it will not hesitate to file anti-trust complaints against any company that abuses their control over network bandwidth and prices. However, this control has not been handed over from the government just yet. Although the US Senate Commerce Committee approved a communications reform last week that allows telephone companies to offer subscription based television services to customers.

Vint Cerf, a Google vice president told reporters that "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." Google, like many other content-driven companies -- including Microsoft -- support net neutrality. "My company, along with many others believes that the Internet should stay open and accessible to everyone equally."

Several communications and network companies including Cisco, oppose net neutrality simply because their business is based on network control and bandwidth. Last week, DailyTech reported that the net neutrality debate received two new proposals from two groups. The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) and the New Yorkers for Fair Use both offered their own proposals on how net neutrality should be handled. Both of the groups offered similar views, saying that US legislators should distinguish the Internet from other types of networks. Tiered networks would be okay as long as the Internet itself remained neutral, said both groups.

Although several major telcos have said that the government and companies like Google are concerned over nothing, many companies supporting net neutrality say that given the chance, large telcos would create tiered networks in a heart beat. Without a neutrality bill protecting equal Internet access, Google fears that fair competition would be stifled and prices would soar.

"We are worried that some of the broadband service providers will interfere with that principle and will attempt to use their control over broadband transport facilities to interfere with services of competitors," said Cert.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

What's wrong with Tiered Networks?
By xKelemvor on 7/5/2006 8:13:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
which will prevent large telcos and cable companies from creating tiered networks, charging more for a certain type of use than another, even though the data travels the on same network.


How is this different than having lower prices for slower speeds and higher prices for faster speeds? I wish more people would actually do this. I have Roadrunner and hate paying for extra speed that I have no use for. Who really uses 5megs down unless gaming or torrenting? General internet could get by for less than half that...




RE: What's wrong with Tiered Networks?
By RandomFool on 7/5/2006 8:51:25 AM , Rating: 2
The difference is that it would be Google and Microsoft paying the extra cash to get their sites on the high-speed lines. Any sites that couldn’t or wouldn’t pay would be in trouble because users wouldn’t get access to them as quickly as a site that was paying. Sorta like connecting to a site hosted on a T3 with your cable modem but the line in between the two is only a 56k modem.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/5/2006 9:13:58 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. And I think Google wouldn't be the only person to sue the crap out of any ISP they caught doing this. As Microsoft is a huge content provider, especially with Windows Updates, they wouldn't hesitate to sue the crap out of ISP's either, and Microsoft has that army of lawyers to dole out some serious pain. Net neutrality or not, I think Google and Microsoft, probably Yahoo and other large content providers too, would crush any ISP trying to create a tiered network. It's good to know even if Congress is retarded and doesnt secure net neutrality, that several behemoth companies will put the hurt on anyone trying to take advantage of a retarded bunch of old guys in congress that couldn't tell you the difference between a 56K and a T1.


RE: What's wrong with Tiered Networks?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/5/2006 9:28:03 AM , Rating: 2
> "Any sites that couldn’t or wouldn’t pay would be in trouble because users wouldn’t get access to them as quickly..."

In other words-- exactly the situation we have today. Sites which can't afford the bandwith run slower.

It's not quite as common today, but in the early 90s, it was the status quo, especially since so many commercial sites were hosted on painfully slow frame relay and ISDN lines.

And you know what? People still flocked to those sites; they didn't bypass them to only visit the "fast lane".


RE: What's wrong with Tiered Networks?
By RandomFool on 7/5/2006 10:41:12 AM , Rating: 2
What's different from today is this would add another layer and you'd have to pay for hosting bandwidth and telco bandwidth.

What happens when a small slow lane site starts to get big and google/microsoft/aol/yahoo come out with a very similar idea? Now the small site needs to spend more on hosting AND get in fast lane to stay competitive?

Today's internet is very different from the early 90s, people are impatient and if there's a faster, better site out there they'll switch to that no problem. Just look at all the frendsters and myspaces out there.


RE: What's wrong with Tiered Networks?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/5/2006 11:07:08 AM , Rating: 3
> "Today's internet is very different from the early 90s, people are impatient "

What sort of nonsense is this? People are no more or less impatient than they were in the 90s.

The issue here is pretty simple. Advanced services require need hardware and firmware; to deploy these services costs billions. With a tiered network, the people that actually use these services pay those costs, and subsidize their deployment for the rest of us. With net neutrality we all pay those costs...which means it won't happen at all, until the cost of deployment is so low as to be neglible...delaying the entry of new services for years or even decades.

The fact is, "mom and pop" sites have always run slower than those from a corporate giant...that is, if they have any significant load on them. A next-gen tiered Internet actually promises to be the best thing for such small sites. Tiered delivery drives the cost of the lower tiers down further. In this case, likely all the way to zero. Free. High-priority services pay the bills...low priority service are given away free, in the hopes of attracting new business. Now my mom-and-pop site loads just as fast as it always did...but it doesn't cost me anything whatsoever. If it becomes a big hit, I can pay extra, and have it load faster still. The free market at work.

I understand that, for some poeple, the warm-and-fuzzy socialistic vision of an Internet where a penny can buy you as much speed and bandwidth as million dollars is attractive. But low-latency services such as HD videoconferencing and remote teleoperation will never happen...not when their packets are legally compelled to have no more priority than quadrillions of bytes of spam email.


RE: What's wrong with Tiered Networks?
By RandomFool on 7/5/2006 11:39:46 AM , Rating: 2
The users of today's Internet are vastly different from the 90s, today every teenager, grandparent and joe-schmo can get on and surf around the internet. If something is taking to long they’re very likely to just give up and click close.

I think one of the bigger issues is whether anything will get cheaper if the tiered networks are employed or if it'll just get more expensive for anyone who wants the fast lane. Sure, in theory, things could get cheaper but if a company has an opportunity to make more money are they going to take it? Probably. You can get free hosting now but look how bad most of it is, a tiered solution could become much like that where sure there’s free services out there but if you want to do anything useful you’ve got to pay for it.

You’ve got a good point tiered systems could work really well but it is just a matter of who's involved and what their ultimate motives are and right now I just don’t see tiered service working. To many companies and people are involved most of whom are looking at their wallets wondering how to make it just a little thicker.


RE: What's wrong with Tiered Networks?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/5/2006 12:25:07 PM , Rating: 2
> "If something is taking to long they’re very likely to just give up and click close."

I have a bridge for sale to anyone who believes a new ultrabandwidth low-latency service is suddenly going to make existing sites load slower. And I have a small nation in Africa for sale to anyone who believes that an ISP who attempted to degrade service would be able to stay in business.

Tiered networks is about adding new higher-speed services on top of existing ones. Not downgrading existing services...which, of course, ISPs are already free to do.


> "Sure, in theory, things could get cheaper but if a company has an opportunity to make more money are they going to take it?"

Poor logic. A company always has the opportunity to "make more money" by raising their prices. Why don't they do so? Competition. If a telco raises additional funds through selling higher-priced services, they have headroom to lower prices on everything else. If they don't do so-- their competitors will, and undercut them from the market. This is why all prices in the high-tech world descend over time.


RE: What's wrong with Tiered Networks?
By RMTimeKill on 7/5/2006 4:29:26 PM , Rating: 2
This is the same logic that kept gas and electric prices lower also right? At least is sure sounds like it, tiered networks are supposed to help lower our costs... deregulating gas prices was supposed to help increase competition and drive prices down, same with energy costs... Did it work? no... so why would this work? Dont we learn from history? >.<


By masher2 (blog) on 7/5/2006 4:51:54 PM , Rating: 4
> "This is the same logic that kept gas and electric prices lower also right? "

I'm not quite sure to what you're referring. The electric industry remains one of the most highly regulated ones in the nation; competition is prevented, and prices are set by government oversight boards. In the case of California, their so-called "deregulation" was anything but.

As for "gas", if you mean gasoline, the industry has never been regulated. And as a result, prices are unbelievably cheap. Gasoline produced from oil pumped from thousands of feet underground, shipped halfway around the world, and refined in multi-billion dollar facilities is cheaper than milk pumped out of your local cow, a few miles down the road. And- had we in the US allowed any new refineries to be built since the 1970s, would be even cheaper still. Its a bit hard to meet current demand with a rickety network of plants all 30-40 years old.






RE: What's wrong with Tiered Networks?
By InternetGeek on 7/5/2006 9:13:33 AM , Rating: 2
I believe most people confuse the issue of net neutrality with the access plan they are paying their ISP for.

Net neutrality is not about paying for bandwith but paying for having content delivered to you. ISPs would basically charge you for all content provided. For example you would be charged per mega torrented a certain fee, another for email, another for http browsing and a premium for http brosing of selected 'premier' sites.


RE: What's wrong with Tiered Networks?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/5/2006 9:37:45 AM , Rating: 2
> "Net neutrality is not about paying for bandwith but paying for having content delivered to you. ISPs would basically charge you for all content provided"

Sorry, your answer was incorrect. Net neutrality is about differential treatment (and potentially billing) of data.

For instance, if telcos began offering an ultra-low latency connection, for use in say, videoconferencing, remote control, or even online gaming, net neutrality would forbid it. It doesn't allow some packets to have priority over others...even though your email doesn't really care if it arrives in 200ms rather than 2ms.

Net neutrality is intended to frustrate the deployment of new, advanced services...unless those services are provided to every single packet over the Internet, and at the exact same price. Which, of course, means most of these services just aren't feasible. Case in point, the curent IP encoding, which allows packets to have a priority set.

Since "high priority" packets are available to all applications at the exact same price, why would anyone choose to mark their traffic as "low priority"? Why no, one of course. So the priority setting is meaningless-- and spam email packets arrive at the same priority as anything else on the Internet.


RE: What's wrong with Tiered Networks?
By jtesoro on 7/5/2006 7:49:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Net neutrality is intended to frustrate the deployment of new, advanced services...unless those services are provided to every single packet over the Internet, and at the exact same price.

Intended to frustrate deployment? Come on. A better definition is that it intends to help ensure that operators do not abuse their power and put services like Skype on the slow lane when the operator comes up with their own version. Frustrating deployment of new advanced services based on the tiered internet is the Effect. Whether the Net Neutrality bill will achieve it's intent, whether the Effect is a major or minor, and is it all worth it in the end, that's what the debate is about.


RE: What's wrong with Tiered Networks?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/6/2006 11:24:04 AM , Rating: 2
> "A better definition is that it intends to help ensure that operators do not abuse their power and put services like Skype on the slow lane "

Incorrect. If that was all 'Net Neutrality' wanted to prevent, it could easily be accomplished by a much simpler and less intrusive legislation-- "make all services available to all customers at the same rates". Instead of the pathetically inane commandment, "thou shalt treat all each packet the same as all others".

Honestly, do we WANT a packet of spam email treated the same as our high-priority VoIP traffic?

> "Frustrating deployment of new advanced services based on the tiered internet is the Effect. "

Glad to see we agree. The effect of this law will be to frustrate deployment of advanced Internet services.


RE: What's wrong with Tiered Networks?
By jtesoro on 7/7/2006 5:55:21 AM , Rating: 2
By saying that the INTENT is to frustrate development, your version of the commandment is "thou shall not have innovation", which isn't the case. Separate the Intent from the Effect. As I was saying, it is a matter of weighing the benefit of the Intent vs the price of the Effects. And everyone has their own opinon on this.


RE: What's wrong with Tiered Networks?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2006 9:32:51 AM , Rating: 2
> "By saying that the INTENT is to frustrate development..."

Look, reading comprehension really isn't a difficult task. I did not say the intent of net neutrality was to frustrate development. I said it was intended to frustate deployment of advanced services *unless* those services are offered to all at the same cost as existing service.

My statement is correct. When you leave off a dependent clause, however, the meaning changes totally.


RE: What's wrong with Tiered Networks?
By jtesoro on 7/7/2006 10:15:32 AM , Rating: 2
My reading comprehension is OK. Your sentence construction needs improvement.


RE: What's wrong with Tiered Networks?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2006 10:20:51 AM , Rating: 2
Lol, why not change the habits of a lifetime and simply admit your error? Misreading a sentence isn't a crime, you know.


RE: What's wrong with Tiered Networks?
By jtesoro on 7/7/2006 10:41:33 AM , Rating: 2
What's this about "habits of a lifetime" now? In another discussion you had with someone, you harped about not attacking the poster and similar talk. And yet you do the same. A few times if I might add.

You think your post is clear. I don't. Let's disagree and leave it at that.


By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2006 11:39:44 AM , Rating: 2
> "You think your post is clear. I don't. Let's disagree and leave it at that"

Instead of leaving the discussion with a pointless argument over my phrasing, why not address the point itself? My statement was:

quote:
"Net neutrality is intended to frustrate the deployment of new, advanced services...unless those services are provided to every single packet over the Internet, and at the exact same price...


Now, instead of quibbling over extraneous ellipses, why not focus on the meat of the matter. Net Neutrality has a very clear intent, to bar introduction of any new Internet service, unless they are offered as a "base service" without additional cost.

That is going to frustrate and delay some advances for decades to come. If you have concerns with telco monopoly power-- address those concerns. But Net Neutrality is focused entirely on a different matter.

> "In another discussion you had with someone, you harped about not attacking the poster and similar talk. And yet you do the same"

Fair enough; I retract the statement.


RE: What's wrong with Tiered Networks?
By OrSin on 7/5/2006 9:19:36 AM , Rating: 2
This is completely different. YOu ahve that 5 meg pipe and if someon doesn't the IPS for fast access you can only connect to them at 56K speeds. It's basicly saying you have no control over how fast your connection is to the world. YOu cna have all teh bandwith you want but if the sites you like don't pay your screwed.


By careyd on 7/5/2006 9:40:32 AM , Rating: 2
good stuff
By fxyefx on 7/4/2006 4:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
It's comforting to know that net neutrality is supported by a financial behemoth like Google.




RE: good stuff
By NerV04 on 7/4/2006 4:57:34 PM , Rating: 2
because they have nothing to lose with it...
they arent a ISP


RE: good stuff
By Howard on 7/4/2006 5:33:10 PM , Rating: 2
It's not a question of there is to lose, it's what the telcos have to _win_. Net neutrality is the status quo, AFAIK.


RE: good stuff
By bob661 on 7/4/2006 6:38:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
because they have nothing to lose with it...
Just remember that if they get charged more, we get charged more. Do you really think that M$ and others would pay extra for these tiered networks and not "pass the savings off to the customer"?


RE: good stuff
By jtesoro on 7/5/2006 12:14:08 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, in another thread here in DT, someone said that Google was going to implement some sort of tiered network in their planned WiFi service in San Francisco. It's good to get confirmation that Google is firmly on the side of net neutrality.


RE: good stuff
By masher2 (blog) on 7/5/2006 11:25:06 AM , Rating: 2
> "It's good to get confirmation that Google is firmly on the side of net neutrality. "

Google is firmly on the side of whats best for Google, as is every corporate entity. As they should be. This statement from Google is a feel-good action that costs them nothing and buys them some excellent PR. It also doesn't commit them to anything concrete, as telcos "abusing their power" is certainly open to interpretation.

As for Google's WiFi plans in San Francisco, it will most certainly be a de facto tiered implementation. It'll be one of the following:

1) Free, ad supported + paid, adless service
2) Free, ad supported + addl. paid services
3) Free, non ad supported + addl, paid higher-speed services.

In all cases, those who pay more will receive faster service(ads take packets after all). And in all cases, Google intends to make a tidy profit. Delusions of their harboring selfless goals to better mankind are unfounded.


RE: good stuff
By creathir on 7/5/2006 12:27:52 PM , Rating: 2
Most people here elevate Google to this "for the little guy" status... totally forgetting that they are a multibillion dollar corporation, not any different than Microsoft.

*sigh*

Gotta love the double standard.
- Creathir


RE: good stuff
By jtesoro on 7/5/2006 7:20:26 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying that Google is "the little guy". All I'm saying is that for whatever reason, Google is putting themselves on the side of Net Neutrality. I'm sure they're not being altruistic, but the Net Neutrality guys will take them as allies here.

To reiterate why I'm for Net Neutrality, I'd hate it very much if the likes of Skype get demoted to the slow lane once telcos copy them and start launching their own VOIP services (which will of course go on the fast lane). Skype's performance will look inferior all of a sudden. Not good for innovators and innovation.


//I have a Skype account for testing, but haven't gotten around to making or receiving a Skype call. No other VOIP account either


RE: good stuff
By masher2 (blog) on 7/6/2006 11:18:31 AM , Rating: 3
> "I'd hate it very much if the likes of Skype get demoted to the slow lane..."

Rubbish. No one is going to "get demoted". A slow lane isn't being created, a FAST lane is.

On the Net Neutrality side, we have everyone remaining in the same slow lane we have today. On the Tiered side, we have that, plus an additional fast lane, for those who want to pay for it. Those who do so will underwrite the costs for the rest of us...those who don't pay-- its business as usual for them.




RE: good stuff
By PitViper007 on 7/7/2006 11:33:41 AM , Rating: 2
You are assuming that additional bandwidth will be implemented with the tiered system. I don't think that will happen. At best I think there will be a dedicated pipe for the paid content, with the unpaid getting the rest. Assuming the total bandwidth is unchanged, that does mean a slower lane for the other services.


RE: good stuff
By jtesoro on 7/5/2006 6:56:50 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, so now it's "de facto" tiered internet because "ads take packets after all". If this is the tiered internet, then so is the fact that even today you can get pay a certain amount to get 1MBps bandwidth and more than that to get 2MBps. Well, it's not.


RE: good stuff
By masher2 (blog) on 7/6/2006 11:20:15 AM , Rating: 3
> "Ah, so now it's "de facto" tiered internet because "ads take packets after all"..."

And Google will ensure those ad packets are sent to you first, ahead of other traffic. Or you can pay more, and get faster service. No different than the tiered model that Net Neutrality advocates against.


RE: good stuff
By jtesoro on 7/7/2006 4:05:38 AM , Rating: 2
You are still essentially saying that the tiered internet is being able to buy 1Mbps at a certain price, and 2Mbps and a higher price. Again, it's not.


RE: good stuff
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2006 9:29:51 AM , Rating: 2
I am saying-- correctly so-- that the complaints against the tiered internet are that a company with money will be able to deliver its packets to you faster than a company without. A situation that already exists today.


RE: good stuff
By jtesoro on 7/7/2006 10:35:14 AM , Rating: 2
MY complaint against a tiered internet is that operators can abuse their power and put their services in the fast lane while leaving competing services in the regular (slow) lane. And they will keep copying newly developed innovative services and reap the benefits because they will be in the fast lane while the originator will be in the slower lane.

And don't you pull a fast one on me. You're switching to the company / application developer side now. In this particular discussion thread, we're talking about an end-user getting better performance by paying more. You're calling that a tiered internet too, which it isn't.


RE: good stuff
By masher2 (blog) on 7/7/2006 11:32:41 AM , Rating: 2
> MY complaint against a tiered internet is that operators can abuse their power and put their services in the fast lane while leaving competing services in the regular (slow) lane"

Oops. By and large, telcos are *already* prevented from doing this in the long-haul market. And in last-mile service, the "net neutrality" bills still don't prevent telcos from offering their own proprietary services, which doesn't relegate competitors to the "slow lane", it forces them out entirely.

So half your complaint doesn't exist, and the other half isn't even addressed by proposed legislation. So why again are yo supporting this initiative?

> "In this particular discussion thread, we're talking about an end-user getting better performance by paying more. "

I'm talking about a situation in which COMPANIES who pay more (via ads) get their packets delivered to end-users ahead of all other packets. That's a tiered Internet, like it or not.



You're all missing the point...
By drebo on 7/5/2006 12:08:21 PM , Rating: 2
These tiered networks are not a speed vs. cost thing. That's a perfectly acceptable tier, as it's a value-for-value trade. You pay a little more for better, faster service.

The tiered networks they're talking about with net neutrality are about content . This means that if Google wants to push video over their pipe, they'll have to pay more than just plain text...regardless of the fact that it's the same thing when it goes over the pipe. Or, if MSN had a chat feature worth using, their backbone provider might decide that bandwidth for voice messaging on MSN messenger should cost 0.0002 cents per KB instead of 0.0001 cents per KB.

Obviously, you can see the problem.

Basically, telcos have been getting screwed for years by the IP network bypassing the analog network, because there is no clear owner to any of the IP network's legs, and when the IP network and analog networks cross, such as in VoIP and cell phones, no one gains, except the user. Telcos will jump at the first opportunity to implement these tiered networks. Really, all they need to do is push the bandwidth cost for voice communication up so high that companies will have to charge so much that it won't make sense to use VoIP instead of a standard analog line. That's most definitely an anti-trust issue, and Google is absolutely right to try and fight it.




RE: You're all missing the point...
By masher2 (blog) on 7/5/2006 12:36:22 PM , Rating: 3
> "These tiered networks are not a speed vs. cost thing"

Of course it is. Today, you can pay more for a fatter pipe...but only between you and your ISP. Upon the Internet itself, you can't pay for better service.

> "The tiered networks they're talking about with net neutrality are about content "

You're closer to the truth here, but actually its about service type, which can correlate to content, but doesn't have to. And service type is the only feasible way to prioritize packets over the Internet as a whole. Remember that the majority of the lines upon which your packets travel don't belong to your ISP. Since your packets aren't marked as belonging to you personally, they have to be prioritized by service type. And the only way to keep each and every service from marking their own traffic high priority, is to limit it to those willing to pay that cost.


> "Telcos will jump at the first opportunity to implement these tiered networks. Really, all they need to do is push the bandwidth cost for voice communication up so high that companies will have to charge so much that it won't make sense to use VoIP "

I hate to demolish a good conspiracy theory, but the Telcos are all offering VoIP themselves. They have no wish to "dispense with it"; they wish to make a profit by selling the bandwidth that VoIP requires.

Fact facts...a tiered network can be the salvation of VoIP, Videoconferencing, and other services which require low latency. Those packets can be prioritized higher than other services...which mean they arrive in a timely manner. And so the service works well...even when you're downloading large files, or your ISP gets flooded with 170 million spam emails.

But when "high priority" packets are available free of charge to every user and every application...who would ever choose the low-priority route? No one of course. Certainly every spam emailer would mark their traffic "HIGHEST POSSIBLE PRIORITY -- DELIVER ASAP". Which, of course, they already do today.


RE: You're all missing the point...
By maevinj on 7/5/2006 1:52:26 PM , Rating: 2
which telecom company do you work for masher2?


RE: You're all missing the point...
By masher2 (blog) on 7/5/2006 1:55:38 PM , Rating: 2
If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger eh?
Why not break the habits of a lifetime, and respond to my points instead?


RE: You're all missing the point...
By maevinj on 7/5/2006 2:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
not attacking the messenger. just asking a question because you seem to have a very deep insight into the issue over most of the other readers on here.


RE: You're all missing the point...
By RMTimeKill on 7/5/2006 4:38:30 PM , Rating: 2
He just comes here to argue, because he has no one else to argue with... He has argued them all off... He spends all his time researching stuff, like that post about the person who coined the phrase " Surfing the Internet ". Seems like a very lonely person who has nothing else in the world to do but research arguements and post them on DT. He likes to hear (or in this case "see") himself being right all the time. I have not seen anyone post as often here as he does. While rather obnoxius and often narrow minded, he does make for a good read! I have both favored and soured against his arguements, and maybe even learned a little...


By masher2 (blog) on 7/5/2006 4:57:37 PM , Rating: 2
> "He spends all his time researching stuff..."

On this, you are mostly correct. I develop intellectual property for a living, a job which requires a great deal of research on a variety of topics.

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion....but rather than denigrating knowledge and learning, why not try embracing it yourself?


RE: You're all missing the point...
By saratoga on 7/5/2006 4:38:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
> "Telcos will jump at the first opportunity to implement these tiered networks. Really, all they need to do is push the bandwidth cost for voice communication up so high that companies will have to charge so much that it won't make sense to use VoIP "

I hate to demolish a good conspiracy theory, but the Telcos are all offering VoIP themselves. They have no wish to "dispense with it"; they wish to make a profit by selling the bandwidth that VoIP requires.


Wow. Did you even read what you quoted? Hes saying the Telcos want to quash competition from other companies selling VOIP, and you reply that they want to make money by selling VOIP.

Well no shit. You've just made his point for him. As you pointed out, if they jack up the cost of packets for a 3rd party, they get 100% of the business.


By masher2 (blog) on 7/5/2006 5:01:00 PM , Rating: 3
> "Wow. Did you even read what you quoted?"

I did; apparently you failed to, though. His quote was:

quote:
"telcos have been getting screwed for years by the IP network bypassing the analog network ...all they need to do is push the bandwidth cost for voice communication up so high that companies will have to charge so much that it won't make sense to use VoIP instead of a standard analog line ..."


His meaning is clear. Next time think before you post.



It's Vint Cerf, not Cert. That's an F, not a T
By careyd on 7/5/2006 9:37:16 AM , Rating: 2
Every internet user should know who Vint Cerf is, after all....he's like one of the principle creators of the internet.

Where the heck do you think 'Sufing the Net' comes from.

Vint Cerf (pronounced Surf).

To get this wrong as a journalist is pretty unforgivable.




By masher2 (blog) on 7/5/2006 9:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
> "Where the heck do you think 'Sufing the Net' comes from...."

Oops, it doesn't come from Vint Cerf, sorry. The phrase was coined by the librarian Jean Armour Polly.


The Big Boys
By Niv KA on 7/5/2006 2:37:25 PM , Rating: 2
So nice seeing the big three (Google, MSN/Microsoft and Yahoo) on the same side for once!

quote:
It's time you put aside you diferances and work together
-Wild Wild West


-Niv K Aharonovich




RE: The Big Boys
By Niv KA on 7/5/2006 2:39:08 PM , Rating: 2
The quote is from Wild Wild West ("Pres. Grant") and the post is by Niv, me, to clear things up.

- Niv K Aharonovich





RE: The Big Boys
By cochy on 7/5/2006 9:21:12 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with masher2. Let the likes of Google, Microsoft and Yahoo pay for a better and faster Internet. These guys are against it simply because it will add new costs, plain and simple. But of course we'd have to be naive to think that the higher costs to Google wouldn't trickle down to the end consumer (us). Google Ads will cost more to make up for the added cost of bandwidth, and the retail companies charge more for goods they sell to pay for the higher cost of the ads.


How I see this...
By killerroach on 7/5/2006 12:38:18 AM , Rating: 3
...is a case of Google trying to hedge their bets... they're basically saying "we want network neutrality forever, but, if we don't get it, we'll make it extremely painful for anybody who wants to screw with us." While this may be the most advantageous thing from their perspective to do, what it may do is, in a post-neutral Internet, provoke ISPs into pressuring partners of Google to apply indirect pressure, or to squeeze out any new players from amassing Google's level of power. Either way, it's a mutually assured destruction principle technology-wise. While it keeps Google safe, it potentially imperils both the ISPs and any other content provider.




A little word order issue here
By cenobite9 on 7/5/2006 11:01:40 AM , Rating: 2
"...even though the data travels the on same network."

Sorry, nitpicking...




By ZardozFrayn on 7/5/2006 11:55:39 AM , Rating: 2
I worked at the MCI/WorldCom "Global Integration Lab" for 5 years in 2000 +/- 2 years, and I still don't know how the internet gets paid for. I do know that they likened the build-out of internet fiber backbones to the boom in railroad construction after the Civil War. In both cases the infra-structure was grossly overbuilt. While the investors lost money, it did jump start a new era of cheap transport. They were always complaining about the massive quantities of "dark fiber". It's probably getting soaked up now, thanks to online video. I don't think any (reasonably realistic) quantity of HTML and static JPGs can really challenge the capacity that was built.




Just an Idea
By Triangle Man on 7/5/2006 12:46:42 PM , Rating: 2
If net neutrality doesn't make it, the "tier"ing of networks becomes legal, and Google doesn't like what is happening, they could make the lives of the telco companies miserable. Lets say a couple of the larger companies start using tiered networks (SBC), while some others don't (Local DSL/Cable). Google allows traffic from the Local DSL/Cable, while disallowing computers using the SBC service.
If they really wanted to have some fun, they could do a crazy search engine cartel with Yahoo! (etc) and disallow service from customers using any tiered network service.




"right given by the government"
By apriest on 7/6/2006 9:41:37 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't even get through the first sentence and I had to stop and post this comment. This isn't good journalism, and needs to be re-phrased. To clarify: rights are NOT given by the government; priviledges are (driver's licenses for instance), but not rights. Rights are given by God alone to all humans regardless of what government might abuse them, and it is the purpose of civil government to secure and defend those rights (not provide for your food, safety, or stupitidy, like welfare and seatbelts). Our Constitution is written well for any that care to read it anymore. In fact, it says WE the people give GOVERNMENT certain priviledges, obligations, and authority (though they are few and not "rights" if you read it), certainly not the other way around. Of course, our Government is no longer Constitutional by any stretch of the imagination, and pretty much finds no use for our Constitution except to perhaps wipe their butts with it.




"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad

Related Articles
Net Neutrality Receives a New Proposal
June 26, 2006, 12:20 PM













botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki