Google's Net Neutrality Fiasco

A

atticus

http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html

My wife is a telecom exec and she's been in meetings all week regarding Google's push for this ill-termed Net-Neutrality.

ATT will shortly be offering "U-verse" digital content over their fiber. Google perceives this as their biggest threat going forward, as large-scale "tunneled" services will be offered by the backbone providers, leaving youtube in the slow-lane. Schmidt is lobbying to deny the backbone providers the ability to offer premium IP services -- under the guise of fair-practice. In reality, they're attempting to abolish "pay for priority" traffic; in effect limiting fee-for-service priority bandwidth offered by the backbone providers as a premium service, but impossible for google to provide due to their business model.

My brother in law is connected in DC and states this could be the death-knell for google's valuation. There is legislation to be voted in the House in May. He feels it's 5:1 against the bill getting out of committee.

Thoughts?
 
I think you are totally off-track. The Internet was originally formed on the concept of Net Neutrality where preference is not given to traffic going to any particular location.

"Big phone and cable companies are trying to get rid of Network Neutrality, the fundamental principle that prevents them from discriminating against your favorite Web sites and services."

All these Bell carriers and cable companies which have already abused customers with their monopoly status for years. Now want to charge content providers a premium if people want high speed access to their sites. For example, if I want to search on Google then my search will only be quick if my phone (or cable) provider for Internet services is paid a large sum of money from Google each month, otherwise my search (or video display) will proceed at a crawl.

I have already paid a fee each any every month for high speed access. The concept that I will only have high speed access to Internet sites that pay a carrier "green-mail" is absurd. I expect equal access to every site.

The Bell companies and Cable carriers do not really have any intent to "further build out their network" if they get to charge a premium. This statement is a red-herring, and historically it is nonsense. The carriers simply want to use this leverage to:
1) Put Google, and VoIP providers out of business and offer their own equivalent services instead.
2) Have an additional revenue stream which will not be used to improve your Internet service.

I would urge everyone to support Google's position on Net Neutrality. Also take a look at: http://www.SavetheInternet.com/
and provide your support in calling your government representatives to protect Net Neutrality. The only possible fiasco here is if Net Neutrality is eliminated; demand that the industry and government protects it.

- Greg
 
Free for service wants to maintain their current "quality of service" and force the backbone providers to essentially guarantee performance. That's the issue. Google is one monolithic end user who only pays for the "on ramp" which is simply access to the backbone.

Newsflash: The backbone is not PUBLIC DOMAIN. ATT and MCI are within their rights to prioritize traffic on a network they own.

Why would any for-profit entity pump billions into a network simply to subsidize free use monoliths such as google?

The model simply doesn't support an "on ramp" end-user price increase. You'd have to charge each DSL user $600/month to cover the billions invested in the backbone over the last few years.

Google is attempting to force the RBOCs to subsidize their business model. They've become acutely-aware that the 'net doesn't scale to their biz-model, and they're scared sh!tless that it's NOT public domain. It ain't altruism.
 
Quote from atticus:

Newsflash: The backbone is not PUBLIC DOMAIN. ATT and MCI are within their rights to prioritize traffic on a network they own.

Why would any for-profit entity pump billions into a network simply to subsidize free use monoliths such as google?

The model simply doesn't support an "on ramp" end-user price increase. You'd have to charge each DSL user $600/month to cover the billions invested in the backbone over the last few years.
More...

1. Is there not a huge glut of fibre optic capacity after the tech bubble build-out? I don't really care if bad business decisions were made which caused telcos to incur big costs for their fibre. What is the market value of fibre today and what would it cost for a company to get access to capacity and provide high-speed access to willing buyers?

2. How 'high speed' is the internet connectivity that the household A/C (electrical) lines can provide? A few weeks ago I saw an ad for this here in Toronto - it is apparently available now.

3. Doesn't the deregulation of telcos mean that the capacity in their lines, built as a result of their monopoly status, must be made available to businesses which seek to provide services which are now deregulated? Someone can correct me on this if I am wrong - I think this is the case in Canada.

4. So let's see... the telcos are going to say the following to any website that seeks to provide high-speed service - 'Pay us or we will not allow those who access the 'net through us to take advantage of your full delivery capabilities'.

The question is - are they going to say this to every website on the planet that seeks to provide a wide tunnel to their services? Do they expect websites to pay every telco and every ISP in every state in every country in the world?
 
Quote from traderNik:

4. So let's see... the telcos are going to say the following to any website that seeks to provide high-speed service - 'Pay us or we will not allow those who access the 'net through us to take advantage of your full delivery capabilities'.

The question is - are they going to say this to every website on the planet that seeks to provide a wide tunnel to their services? Do they expect websites to pay every telco and every ISP in every state in every country in the world?
More...

Your first three points are tangential, and it's currently not an issue of capacity.

No, the FCC and RBOCs are in agreement that would never happen. The FCC would regulate the RBOCs into oblivion for even thinking it.

There are huge amounts of traffic offered priority on the private 'net; i.e., frame-relay services.

Wide-tunnel? We're all end-users simply paying for the on-ramp. "Wide-tunnel" infers some level of increased performance, or a guarantee of some level of quality. WHO PAYS? WTF is google to dictate? The have OC-48 on-ramps to the net, but pay nothing for use of the backbone... fine and dandy. Force the owners of the network to increase throughput to support Google's internal growth?

It's analogous to wealthy Free Rangers in the 19th Century. My poor herd of 2000 cattle need free grazing land.
 
Quote from atticus:

Your first three points are tangential, and it's currently not an issue of capacity.
More...

I appreciate your comments. IMO, it is not 'tangential' at all if the current laws state that former monopolies must allow businesses to use their lines if they have a model that requires the use of the telco's lines, like long distance resellers here. Again, I am thinking of Canada - I do not know if the same situation exists in the US, or in any particular state in the US.

It is also not 'tangential' if there is significant capacity in the power lines, which are not owned by the telcos. Here, the power lines are owned by the government. That would change things, wouldn't it?

It is also not 'tangential' if a businessman can look at the telcos demands and say 'Hmmm... I can put together a business plan which involves buying capacity, which is easy, and offering websites the opportunity to service their customers in any way they want without having to worry about whether or not the middleman is sticking his nose in and saying "Website, if you want to service your customers, you will have to pay me as well" '.

I will try to do some more reading about this as the material posted here is basically all I have read about it. I am not saying that you are not more informed about this than I - these are just questions that are occurring to me.
 
Let me say it again.... You are totally off-track.

The carriers appear to totally ignore that they were allowed to get into the Internet game and provide service with the concept of neutrality agreed to from day 1. This requirement is written into all the peering and inter-carrier agreements for the Internet; maybe the carriers should re-read the contract small print instead of ignoring it.

The carriers such as AT&T and MCI are not within their rights to prioritize public internet traffic based on the destination. They can not drop VoIP traffic to outside carriers that do not pay them fees. They can not drop video traffic from news sites. This type of behavior is anti-competitive and violates their signed agreements to be part of the Internet.

The reason these carriers are spending millions lobbying Congressmen and Senators is that they want to get this changed so they can drive Google and other companies out of business, and collect huge fees from firms that will "partner" with them to be in the "fast lane". They want all the websites to subsidize the carriers business model.

From a business model perspective, the standard broadband customer fees ($40 average in the US) have clearly covered the broadband buildout in the US. The Internet divisions of all these carriers are profit centers; there is no need to allow carriers to take in additional fees from web hosting firms to subsidize broadband build-out.

I would urge everyone to go to the site that I posted earlier and write their representatives in Washington to support Net Neutrality as intended by the people who designed the Internet. Tell these carriers that despite the millions they spent to lobby your public officials the answer is "No" The Net must remain neutral.

- Greg
 
I appreciate your comments. IMO, it is not 'tangential' at all if the current laws state that former monopolies must allow businesses to use their lines if they have a model that requires the use of the telco's lines. Again, I am thinking of Canada - I do not know if the same situation exists in the US, or in any particular state in the US.

The issue is not rights of use. They use the networks free and freely. Google wants to dictate infrastructure without a thought given to how the bill is paid. All they are certain of is that they won't contribute a dime. US LD companies pay access charges for network use, so a poor analog.

It is also not 'tangential' if there is significant capacity in the power lines, which are not owned by the telcos. Here, the power lines are owned by the government. That would change things, wouldn't it?

It is also not 'tangential' if a businessman can look at the telcos demands and say 'Hmmm... I can put together a business plan which involves buying capacity, which is easy, and offering websites the opportunity to service their customers in any way they want without having to worry about whether or not the middleman is sticking his nose in and saying "Website, if you want to service your customers, you will have to pay me as well" '.

Sure, the operative word is buying. They don't expect it to be given away. As it stands, the telcos have no issue with google's use of the backbone. Google wants a guarantee that they will have unlimited and unfettered bandwidth. What do they offer? Nothing. More insidious, the true motivation is to stifle competition for their youtube product. Schmidt realized too late that the demand is for LICENSED VOD, not low-rez home movies.

I will try to do some more reading about this as the material posted here is about all I have read about it. I am not saying that you are not more informed about this than I - these are just questions that are occurring to me.

Regardless, thanks for your comments.
 
Quote from gwb-trading:

The carriers such as AT&T and MCI are not within their rights to prioritize public internet traffic based on the destination. They can not drop VoIP traffic to outside carriers that do not pay them fees. They can not drop video traffic from news sites. This type of behavior is anti-competitive and violates their signed agreements to be part of the Internet.
- Greg
More...

Your comprehension needs a lot of work. Private and public are antonyms. Re-read what I wrote w.r.t. prioritized traffic.

There are huge amounts of traffic offered priority on the private 'net; i.e., frame-relay services.

As I've stated, the FCC would regulate them into bankruptcy. Why would they drop VOIP traffic in the future if they're not doing it today? Beyond the FCC-regulation argument. I stated they're within their rights to prioritize their public traffic, although they have yet to do so.

Save your breath. You're regurgitating the same hippie manifesto.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top