I wish we didn’t have to sue people just to ensure net neutrality. After all, your landlord can’t charge rent based on how good he thinks your girlfriend looks, why should a provider charge different companies a different rate based on who they are? (Work with me here, I wanted to use this graphic and needed some kind of tie-in line.)
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 could receive from U.S. legislators.
The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee last week approved sweeping communications reform legislation that would make it easier for telephone companies like AT&T to offer subscription television to consumers.
But it narrowly rejected attempts by some lawmakers to strengthen safeguards on Internet service, which had pitted high-speed Internet, or broadband, providers such as AT&T against Internet content companies like Google.
The battle centred on whether broadband providers can charge more to carry unaffiliated content or to guarantee service quality, an issue called Net neutrality.
If the legislators won’t legislate, any real resolution of the issue will have to rely on the courts.
On one hand, we’re just talking about normal Constitutional checks and balances.
On the other, we all confront the miserable context of Kongress and whichever Administration being held totally in the pockets of incompetent corporate interests — that individuals and businesses seeking to maintain what freedoms we have left — or just trying to drag the playing field into what the 21st Century world offers — have to fight in the courts, again and again.
Which is why reactionary governments will always try to turn back the clock with their judicial appointments.
Sounds like buzz words being tossed back and forth by giant corporations in a war that will begin in the courts, be fought in global legislative forums and ultimately be resolved in the world wide arena of the marketplace.
But the lawyers and their parasitic brethren, politicians, will make billions.
And it doesn’t make any difference whether we’re talking dollars, euros, yen or lira, billions is a lot.
Well, then you can keep the billion Lira and I’ll keep the billion pounds!
😉
I hope Google sues the pants off of them and wins big. Somehow the big corporations are running (ruining) this country again. Teddy Roosevelt must be turning over in his grave.
Mike T
Alix, I’m working with you here.
This is a smart move on Googles part. Just recently at DU, there was a discussion about Net Neutrality and someone brought up “what is Google doing”. Well, now Google can say they have put the oligopolistic communication industry on notice. Because most communication companies hold local monopolies, I can easily see them running afoul of anti trust laws if they introduce tiered content service.
I’m sure very few people will want to see that happen, but if it does, good for Google. While it is difficult to forget China, I feel Google really does want the best for all internet users. With Americans annoyed at AT&T, especially, and the communications industry in general, anyone sticking up for consumers is welcome.
[edit: reference link is here. HF, pls use tinyurl]
From the Senate Commerce Committee:
The bill ensures that all Internet service providers allow subscribers to access and post any lawful content; access any web page; access and run any voice, video, or email application of their choosing; access and run any software or search engine service; and connect any legal device of their choosing.
So there appears to be a little bit of ‘net neutrality’ regulation but not what Google wants. I say let them charge. It’s a 2-way street, and Google can drop service too.
Mr Fusion,
Thanks for not beating me up over that lame comment connecting the real issue with the frivolous panty shot.
Alix, damn, that is what I was hoping to work on with you.
It’s pretty well known that Google has been buying up a fair amount of dark fiber on the internet. How much leverage does this give them in opposing the telcos, in addition to the leverage of threatened anti-trust lawsuits?
I WISH:
That the cabe companies and Wireless/Celphone companies would DROP access to Main telco lines, and setup there OWN main lines, and hubs, and just shot the telcos in the foot.
Make a NEW wireless backbone.
To preface my comment, I am working with the Hands Off the Internet coalition in opposing additional net neutrality legisaltion. However, the notion as someone wrote that Google has our best interests in mind is a joke. They are a large corporation just like the telecos and they want to protect their bottom line and their shareholders just like any other corporation.
The current bill in the Senate does ensure that access to any website won’t be blocked and the ISPs have said all along they have no intetion of doing this. In additon, the treats that Vince Cerf of Google made this week only support the anti net neutrality position by stating their hasn’t been any abuse as of now and there is no need to address a nonexistent problem until it occurs. This makes sense to me.
“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 . . . If we are not successful in our arguments … then we will simply have to wait until something bad happens and then we will make known our case to the Department of Justice’s anti-trust division,”
[edit: reference link is here. Wilson, pls use tinyurl]