Google Responds To Net Neutrality Reviews 265
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Google has written a defense of their joint Net Neutrality proposal with Verizon, responding to criticism like the EFF's recent review. Google presents its arguments as a list of myths and facts, but too many of them look like this one: 'MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless. FACT: It's true that Google previously has advocated for certain openness safeguards to be applied in a similar fashion to what would be applied to wireline services. However, in the spirit of compromise, we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye. Why? First, the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from. Second, because wireless networks employ airwaves, rather than wires, and share constrained capacity among many users, these carriers need to manage their networks more actively. Third, network and device openness is now beginning to take off as a significant business model in this space.'"
Strange rebuttal (Score:5, Insightful)
That FACT looks like a plain confirmation of the alleged MYTH.
Re: (Score:2)
For the plan to eliminate net neutrality over wireless, there would have to BE net neutrality over wireless. There is not. They've failed to negotiate net neutrality for wireless with Verizon, but that in no way prevents futures deals from being sticken, or of course, for the government to step in and regulate it. In case you forgot, Google is not the government, and is not responsible for forcing every ISP to obey net neutrality.
Read the rest of it. (Score:3, Insightful)
It might look like confirmation of the myth if you read only two of the four paragraphs. The rest of it was:
In our proposal, we agreed that the best first step is for wireless providers to be fully transparent with users about how network traffic is managed to avoid congestion, or prioritized for certain applications and content. Our proposal also asks the Federal government to monitor and report regularly on the state of the wireless broadband market. Importantly, Congress would always have the ability to
I see the meme but not the evidence (Score:2)
Where is the evil?
Re:I see the meme but not the evidence (Score:5, Funny)
MYTH: Google has gone evil. FACT: It's true that Google has previously advocated for less evil. However in the spirit of unbridled greed, we have agreed to a proposal that is, in fact, quite evil, while Congress gives us tips on how to do it. Why? First, being good is pretty darn expensive. Second, because we have found that most people simply didn't know or care that we were being good. And third, because being evil is beginning to take off as a business model in this space.
Re:I see the meme but not the evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
You failed to answer the question.
Why is it evil to try a path to enshrine net neutrality into law for wireline traffic? The only argument I've seen - that they should also try (and fail) to get consensus for net neutrality for wireless networks _now_, seems naive to me.
I don't see anything in the proposal which would prevent future legislation for wireless networks.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought I was illustrating the answer: dishonesty is evil. A FACT that confirms your MYTH section, but confusingly, is dishonest. Advocating for wireline net neutrality is not evil, but Google is now advocating for NO net neutrality for wireless, reversing their previous position.
Re:I see the meme but not the evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you mean this?
I don't see dishonesty. If there is no net neutrality for wireless now, how can it be eliminated?
Re:I see the meme but not the evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
Your response is exactly the kind of dishonesty I'm talking about. There is no net neutrality anywhere, yet. So nothing could 'eliminate' net neutrality. But Google apparently wants less careful readers to come away from that paragraph with the idea that Google still supports wireless net neutrality, which they do not.
Get it? Google used to support wireless net neutrality. Now they don't Their Myth/Fact section is designed to obscure this issue.
Basically, you are saying that this section actually parses to this: MYTH: this proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless. FACT: there is no network neutrality to eliminate, so stop whining already!
That is also dishonest and evil.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're reading too much into it. They've been accused of "trying to eliminate net neutrality" over wireless, and they're responding to the rumour mill, using the same language. If that was a conspiracy to confuse, then yes - I agree that would be evil.
You seem to be saying that I can't logically support issue X if I also agree to a compromise that X only be applied to Y now and defer the decision on Z. I don't understand this all-or-nothing attitude, as it does not seem to hold any realistic chan
Re: (Score:2)
The evil part is that the FACT does not negate the MYTH, it confirms it. Plain and simple: Google is backtracking on it's previous stance.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so it's an ideological purity issue -- compromise is evil!
Now I understand.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, you don't understand, even though I have clearly stated the problem: dishonesty is evil.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, to summarize for anyone else reading this thread, this is what just happened:
Google: "Lets force all data carriers to treat all internet traffic equally. It will greatly benefit consumers and, therefore, out business model. If we could get Verizon to back our plan, it would greatly further our cause. What say you Verizon?"
Verizon: "Well, that's gonna completely hose our wireless networks, but we'll support you on the wired front and get some PR brownie points."
Google: "Alright, fine. We'll take what w
Re:I see the meme but not the evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
Dishonesty is evil. Google is backtracking from it's previous support of wireless network neutrality and attempting to obfuscate that decision with weasel wording.
Re:I see the meme but not the evidence (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree with you about the spin Google's putting on their decision.
But it seems to me that Google has seen the political forces arrayed against neutrality, have concluded they can't get everything they want given the current balance of power, and are thus proposing a compromise.
It may be a genuine offer of compromise, under the theory that half a loaf is better than none.
Or it may be a scheme to divide and conquer the telcos by differentiating between wired and wireless ISPs. It removes significant wireless players from opposing wired neutrality now. And if neutrality gets imposed on wired ISPs, and a couple years later everyone can see no catastrophe has occurred, that will make it far easier to then eliminate the "loophole" for wireless providers.
But either way, this doesn't seem "evil" so much as Google recognizing the reality that they have been unable to persuade enough legislators that net neutrality regulations are a good thing.
And that's all assuming that the net neutrality regulations will actually ensure neutrality. Given the history of the FCC - protecting incumbents from innovation or competition - I wouldn't bet on it. The guys with the expensive lobbyists tend to win even when they "lose".
Re:I see the meme but not the evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
We already saw what happened when they gave cable companies special exceptions to the law by classifying them as an Information Service [fcc.gov]. Look where it's gotten us. Now the FCC has to try to get them re-classified under the original rules just to enforce fairness.
Although I would expect to see Joe Plumber bilked into rejecting Net Neutrality, I never expected to see such on Slashdot. If a Telecom provider must throttle traffic on their network in order to keep things running, then they should either throttle all traffic evenly, or they should stop overselling their capacity to try to wring every last penny out for their CEO's to the detriment of any customers foolish enough to use their service.
If the US was competitive in the broadband market rather then forced into sponsored monopolies, we would have far more options for providers, better pricing, 100+ Mb lines would be common, and these discussions about lack of available bandwidth would be far less worrisome.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Google couldn't convince Verizon to obey net neutrality on Verizon's wireless network, this makes Google "more evil"? What?
Re: (Score:2)
Because Google presented a MYTH/FACT pairing where the FACT actually confirmed the MYTH, which is the opposite of how the MYTH/FACT pairing is supposed to work. MYTH: we do not want wireless network neutrality. FACT: No really, we don't want it!
The weasel wording and disingenuous use of the MYTH/FACT trope are dishonest, and dishonesty, especially regarding proposed legislation, is evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the MYTH is explaining why they had to give in to Verizon on wireless, for now. At worst it's poorly written. Trying to ascribe evil intent to it is not supportable by the statements nor by Google's actions.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Good luck getting that meme going.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it evil to recognize the reality that wireless networks have different capacity constraints than wired ones?
It isn't. It is evil to lie or dissimulate. When you present a MYTH that is the confirmed (but confusingly) in your FACT section, that is dishonest and dishonesty is evil
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Strange rebuttal (Score:5, Insightful)
That is utter bullshit. Free from regulation does mean no network neutrality. Network neutrality is only enforceable through regulation. Without regulation, service providers can easily lie about whether they are actually providing a neutral network. You are not saying we will have neutral wireless networks, you are saying we don't need neutrality on wireless networks because we have competition. Although I disagree, that is still a clear cut position. Google is NOT presenting their walk-back from wireless net neutrality in the same clear fashion, they are obscuring it deliberately.
There is little or no competition in wireless, anyhow.
Re: (Score:2)
There is little or no competition in wireless, anyhow.
Wha?!!? [wikipedia.org]
Sprint. Verizon. AT&T. T-Mobile. TracFone. MetroPCS. Alltel. U.S. Cellular. Cricket. Clearwire. Qwest. I'm willing to bet 90% of Americans have a choice of at least 4 of these.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is evil to recognize that they have less capacity, yet continue to sell to new customers who will continue to use more capacity. The telecom's are not the victims here. They made this mess of their own choosing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your argument only holds water if you believe that they should promise limitless access to the network to each individual user. If you read the terms of service that go with their broadband plans they've actually been quite upfront about the whole thing.
Re:Strange rebuttal (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't have to 'believe' it. They DID promise 'unlimited' access. Even now, they continue to offer 'unlimited access' with restrictions in small print. You consider that transparent?
Your idea of 'quite upfront' and mine apparently differ somewhat.
The very idea of Net Neutrality would force competition into the telecom space because it would force more business to compete in that space. By allowing people like AT&T and Verizon to take an unlimited number of customers, while continuously lowering the bar, they stifle competition just as effectively as a monopoly.
Were they not allowed to take unlimited numbers of customers, sheer need would promote new entries into that space.
They abuse the digital medium simply because it's less noticeable. An airline can't overbook as it would be immediately obvious to it's customers if they did so. It is not so obvious for a telecom provider, and fighting net neutrality will just keep that as the status quo.
Re:Strange rebuttal (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually I do know what I'm talking about. Airlines can overbook, but only very small amounts to account for cancellations, late passengers, and typical overhead. If they exceed that, and bump too many customers, they get heavy fines.
http://www.startribune.com/business/99267109.html [startribune.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the same contract that one party can modify the terms of at any time?
I agree they are not a monopoly, BUT, getting into this business is not a simple as you seem to believe. If these companies can continue to take in an unlimited number of customers, and then modify the terms of the co
Re: (Score:2)
Because they all offer the same contract? They all reserve the right to change the terms at any time. I essentially have no choice if I wish to use wireless service.
My solution? I would require that all telecom's comply with a 'nominal use' policy, which would force them to maintain available bandwidth. If they exceed it regularly, they would be fined. This would force them to either upgrade their pipes to add more customers, or they would simply have to limit their customer base to a reasonable amount more
Re: (Score:2)
Then why do they still whine about the likes of Youtube clogging up all their bandwidth? Why do they still want to prioritize traffic based on "traffic type" or whatever? If there is an upper limit after which everything gets slower, they don't need to look into packets to treat video and HTML differently. The user will notice that if he watches videos all day, his connection wi
Re: (Score:2)
It's not. Those capacity constraints have nothing to do with content providers though, or very little with types of traffic(some protocols are more aggressive on wireless networks than others).
The net neutrality position google was espousing earlier was meant to protect google's position, in wired land, as a content provider(think youtube google mail and google docs, not necessarily search)
In wireless land, most carriers act as if "we just give you bytes" would sign their own death warrant. Google's new p
Re: (Score:2)
Lets see.. what he said was that if you're hiding something, then telling a third party about it that can be served with a warrant is a really risky thing to do.
Google picked up data from people broadcasting in the clear. This is not evil. If people gave a damn about it, they wouldn't be broadcasting in the clear.
Android phones bundled with required carrier software.. is the fault of carriers, not Google. This is perfectly permissible when using an open source bit of kit.
Google sent Cyanogen a C&D for i
In other words (Score:5, Informative)
Pretty unreasonable. (Score:2)
With wired connections, people can and have argued that we should wait till there's actual abuse. The wireless networks have been far more tightly controlled than the wired networks, with actual tiered pricing schemes, and as Google says, with that limited spectrum, there's that much more incentive to control them -- so it seems like there's already abuse (so forget wait-and-see) and potential for more abuse.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Growing competition? Today the US has 3 wireless carriers: Sprint, AT&T, Verizon. A few years ago, there were 4: Cingular. All that is happening now is that the wireless carriers are selling service to subsidiaries who rebrand the service and resell it (Boost, Virgin, Net10, Tracfone...) so that it *appears* that there is more competition while the same 3 companies retain control.
Myth: We sold somethings out to get compromise (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Fact: Yes we sold out, but we didn't sell that much...
Hah. Yeah, the first MYTH about principles is that they can be compromised and retain their status as principles. The (polite) term for this is situational ethics.
Re: (Score:2)
Fact: Yes we sold out, but we didn't sell that much...
Credit Google for Being Open (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll give credit to Google for at least responding directly to their detractors and explaining their position in what seems like an honest and open way (you'd think if they were trying to sell us on swampland that they wouldn't use the word "compromise"). In spite of everyone's criticisms I still think Google adheres to the "don't be evil" mantra as well as they possibly can.
That said they should've stuck to their guns. Their new Net Neutrality position sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually when dealing with businessmen and politicians the word "compromise" is one of the key warning signs. When they use it, it's designed to dispel opposition without actually removing the causes of opposition. It sounds so good and reasonable.... until ...
Until it's no longer so good and reasonable.
Re:Credit Google for Being Open (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Credit Google for Being Open (Score:4, Insightful)
This means, by way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file sharing services, redirecting television signals for viewing on Personal Computers, web broadcasting, and/or for the operation of servers, telemetry devices and/or Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition devices is prohibited.
You guys act like Google is opening the flood gates to ISP abuse, when they are really just not touching the wireless ones. And they have decent reason for it too considering wireless infrastructure limitations.
Re: (Score:2)
what seems like an honest and open way
TFS includes a "MYTH" which is directly confirmed by the quoted "FACT", which is misleading at best. It certainly doesn't seem honest -- honest would've been to come out and say, "Yes, this proposal would eliminate net neutrality over wireless."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now
Who is responsible for limiting my cable choices? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
...these contracts usually come with nice amenities for the people who negotiate them (read "free unlimited everything packages for the city counsel.")
Would this be something that can be fought? Would it be considered corruption, bribery, or some similar offense? If the benefits were for the city as a whole, like free services for the fire/police depts. (not the fire/police personnel), then that would obviously not be a crime.
Re:Who is responsible for limiting my cable choice (Score:4, Informative)
Most places have a cable franchise agreement. Depending on where you live, this could be done at the town, region, city, or even state level. There's likely a "cable advisory board" or something similar... I served on one when living in Connecticut. If you're a cable customer your bill should include information about that group. If not, maybe just browse your local government website looking for that sort of information.
Be aware, though, that even when you contact them there's probably nothing they can do. Franchise agreements only come up for renewal every so often. If you're still in that area when it's up for renewal you'll have more luck, but that might just mean you'll be dealing with a new provider, not an additional one.
Still has the important part (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Still has the important part (Score:4, Insightful)
If no company ever wants to offer a neutral wireless network to play on
I would call such a situation a massive policy failure, especially considering how many people now use wireless broadband and how the market is expected to grow over the next few years. Right now is the time to act on wireless network neutrality, not 5 years from now when the wireless carriers have established non-neutral networks.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say getting the wired internet neutral is the biggest priority now. Think about it, who provides wired internet service? Cable companies. Its becoming more commonplace to get television shows and movies over the internet. What happens when people realize they don't need cable tv anymore? The cable companies lose their core business. People don't have to pay for a bundle of dozen channels they don't want just to get the one they do want. They simply pay for each show they want indvidually, either by cas
Re: (Score:2)
They could do something radical, extreme, and utterly crazy. Like pricing their Internet access in such a way that it realistically reflects the price of providing it, rather than hoping to subsidize it with anoth
Compromise (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
See how well that worked out for them in China?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They've thrown their clout around for a while. The new 4G networks that will be coming on will use the C block, which had network neutrality provisions put in because of Google's clout.
they picked ONE partner (Score:3, Insightful)
this says it all:
With that in mind, we decided to partner with a major broadband provider on the best policy solution we could devise together.
if they wanted to do this right, they'd partner with MORE than just 1 carrier.
that would, at least, give the appearance of impartiality.
bzzzt. sorry google, but you lost the PR war on this one. we can see thru your agenda, here. had you put together ALL the carriers, that would have been different; but you chose ONE of them.
sorry, but you don't deserve any 'credit' for being, well, just a business with busniness level self-interests and sweetheart deals with 'our select partners'.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually I would view this proposal much worse if it did involve more than 1 carrier. It would signal that Google was openly and blatantly moving toward a monopoly position as a internet media producer, where Google would have negotiated a bandwidth advantage over any of its competitors. This is a huge red flag that signals that Google sees it acquired enough market and influence covertly that it now can make bolder moves to strengthen its market position.
What is meant by "Reasonable Network management" an
Translation (Score:3, Interesting)
if they wanted to do this right, they'd partner with MORE than just 1 carrier.
Translation: "we bid on the VHF auction, which we need to reach all the homes, but Verizon bid more and we figured it would cost less to work with them than to outbid them".
Programmers Humour (Score:3, Interesting)
I have to wonder if the founders of google have spent most of the last decade having laughing fits over their motto, which makes a promise through negation of a subjective term.
Do no evil.
What does that even mean? Oh, they're going to thump their chests toward China? (admittedly, that's more than most western governments are willing to do these days, but I digress...)
What about the company's mission statement:
To organize the world's information.
Well, it would be difficult to argue the case that this is, in and of itself, evil, but when you consider what "the world's information [23andme.com]" encompases, and what controlling that means, it's hard to think otherwise.
Now, a little more on topic, it's clear that google's amassed an army of lawyers and PR Flacks to rival their army of programmers. Makes me wonder whether their business model / management style is just to ensure they are the employer for all the world's language masters - be it natural or artificial. But, hey - free webmail!
Oh no (Score:2, Insightful)
They must be evil now.
Methinks... (Score:2)
Not too evil (Score:2, Insightful)
First the Communist Party search "compromise", now the carrier traffic shaping "compromise". The road to hell is paved with compromises... Good luck cashing in while you can, Googlies, hustle while you can, get out while the getting is good. You had a good run, about the same as the average young and principled politician, I imagine.
Competitive markets (Score:2)
Competition (Score:3, Interesting)
First, the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from.
This assumes or implies that there's no collusion between providers, which seems to be wishful thinking at best. The fact that mobile rates in the US are substantially more than in many countries around the world, that subscribers are locked into contracts, that text messaging is *still* not a free or virtually free feature. AT&T effectively more than doubled its data plan prices -- from $30/5GB to $62.50/5GB ($25/4GB) -- and competitors are now "examining their pricing structures" as well. None of these appear to be indicators of a market with healthy competition.
Common Carrier (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't understand why common carrier status is not fundamental to this debate. The way I understand it, common carrier status means that a company provides a transportation service to the public and is shielded from liability for the actions of their customers because of the dual facts that the service is essential to modern life and that the company is technically unable to adequately control that customer behavior. That's why airlines aren't liable when terrorists use their planes to destroy skyscrapers.
Telcos have good lawyers and take a strategic view (Score:2)
Anyone who's watched them get creative and wriggle out of any pro-competition regulation over the years can assess the proposal on general principles.
Any ambiguity, wiggle room, or loophole will get exploited to the hilt.
None of those clauses about additional services or network management are there by accident.
Verizon knows exactly what they're doing, and they like this plan. Detail-oriented people will properly study it in detail, but Verizon's endorsement is enough to tell you what conclusions that study
Vendor Lock In + Deep Packet Inspection (Score:2)
The ISP should only be reading the source and destination IPs of the data and forwarding it along.
To prioritize data based on which IP (read Company) that a packet of data is coming from ISPs need only the routing information.
Google and Verizon have stated that this is not what they are talking about doing. They want to allow priority escalation based on content type.
Normal routing frames do not contain a field denoting content type "I'm a web page" or "I'm video" or "this data is voice".
In order to priori
ehhhhh (Score:2)
Anyway, even I have to say that some of these rebuttals are kinda weak. There's a lot of compromise on wireless when, go figure, they're coming together with Verizon, whose mostly a wireless (cellular)
More Google Spin. Fact: Google is deceptive. (Score:4, Interesting)
Its time to switch from Google folks. I already did when this story broke.
You have to remember that the New York Times broke the story and then Google said they were in no such talks with Verizon that would end net neutrality. Then a couple days later, Google and Verizon come out with this plan for net neutrality. It just looks like Google and Verizon got caught and they came out in full spin mode.
So which is it Google? First werent in any talks with verizon... then 2 days later you announce a plan with verizon that you just claimed you never talked about with them?
The New York Times was right. Google and Verizon had to spin it as a pro net neutrality proposal because of the public reponse to the New York Times article.
It is time to switch from Google.
Switch to anything but Google. You make up your mind as to whom.... but Google is not our friend. Google is evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Amen. Even this Google fanboy is having a hard time seeing this as anything but evil.
Re:competitive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um... what? Wireless is MORE competitive? Do they live in the US?
Well, my wired choices are, um, Comcast. With wireless I can pick Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Boost, Net 10, or about a dozen more. Comcast has no competetion, Verizon does. How many wired internet choices do YOU have?
Re:competitive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You can pick amongst half a dozen wireless providers who all somehow have the exact same pricing scheme
You are lying or misinformed. Verizon offers you "friends and family". AT&T offers rollover. Sprint offers 7pm nights and weekends. T-Mobile offers the cheapest plans in town. Those are just the big four carriers and the unique features that I can remember off the top of my head. The regional carriers all have different price plans, depending on what kind of service you need.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, the ENTIRE wireless contract "market" is a huge scam that feeds off the ignorance of the american consumer.
Which is all fine and well if the OP was comparing the wireless contract market specifically - but he wan't. The comparison was between the wireless market and the wired market. The fact you opted out of the wireless contract options and went for a prepaid option is kinda the point Google is making. How many prepaid, no-contract, wired ISP options do you have where you live?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
fairy nuff
Re:competitive? (Score:5, Insightful)
ALL of the US carriers charge for SMS on reception. they all colluded to do this.
in europe, you only pay for messages you SEND.
duh.
clear proof that the carriers can't be trusted. they DO collude and its never to the consumers' benefit.
add to the insult that SMS is basically FREE to the carriers since its just extra overhead on all wireless data packet exchanges. no extra cost to them but they ALL collude to charge us for sending AND receiving.
there is no free market for data in the US. this olig. needs to be totally broken up and redone.
wireless is one thing that has this chance: there is no infrastructure or right of way to have to deal with (other than a few towers here and there). the fact that wireless is a new frontier and can be a 'game changer' is what scares the incumbents!
Re: (Score:2)
No infrastructure? Really? Network building costs billions. Pricing is about percieved value not the cost. For printers or razors, the disposable bit is cheap to make and expensive to buy to cover the prices of the more expensive to make but cheap to buy part. Ditto your cell carrier giving you a phone for free and charging for SMS.
This is no fat and happy oligarchy. Sprint has been struggling to stay in business, Verizon and ATT&T are at each other's throats and smaller / regional players pop up regula
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there is one other option: The only winning move is not to play.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but it does NOT cost them 20 cents per SMS message. Yet somehow ALL of the major players have settled on that for text messages?
I'm not saying it's a giant conspiracy, but don't delude yourself. They have NOT reached the floor on their prices.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the other side of competitive, price are pushed as low as they can go only when people aren't willing to pay more...
Re: (Score:2)
Choices (Score:2)
Like you say, though, there's just Comcast for me. With Verizon moving out of the wired business, I doubt I'll get FIOS anytime soon.
Re: (Score:2)
My wired choices are the incumbent telephone company at $55/mo for 4M/512K or the cable company at $55/mo for 4M/512K.
My wireless choice if I actually want to get a connection is limited to good old 1-penny-equals-one-dollar, customer-service?-what-is-customer-service? Verizon.
Re: (Score:2)
Boost is reselling Sprint service. Net10 is reselling Verizon service. My house gets Verizon service but not AT&T. Sprint might work at my home, but definitely not in the rural area where I work. So my wireless choices are... Verizon.
Ultimately, this is the wrong question. We need multiple providers running over the same wireless towers. The US wireless network has the same fundamental flaw as the wired network . The service provider is the same company providing the bandwidth. That is the singul
Re: (Score:2)
Um... what? Wireless is MORE competitive? Do they live in the US? Where did they get this false info?
While international in scope, Google is a US-based company. Slashdot is the same way, so yes this probably does focus on the USA. Further, I don't think Verizon operates outside of the USA at all, at least not under that name. Still, I had a similar response to a different portion of the summary text:
In other words, the tremendous and completely artificial efforts to prevent network and device o
Re: (Score:2)
> Wireless is MORE competitive?
Pardon my evil, but where I live (Washington, DC) there appears to be a bit of an actual competition heating up for 4G wireless internet services to the home. There's the new "Clear" service, which uses the Sprint network, and Sprint itself, and Verizon is rumored to be gearing up for this as well.
This is in a high-density residential area, mostly 1920s-era apartment buildings, and this is good for us, because (as Verizon has made clear) we are never ever going to get fibe
Re: (Score:2)
fios is only available to what? 10%? of the population in the US.
Most places have a choice between the local cable monopoly, the local telephone/DSL monopoly and dial-up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm fairly pro the "a deal is a deal" view of things, but it's likely that a land line company would be running cables through public land, and the wireless companies route signal through public airspace.
They can, of course, be charged market rate for use of said airspace or land, but part of the price they pay can always be additional legal obligations.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously cable is laid over land, etc., but you can't deny that for the right price it is always possible to just run your cable or to use the airwaves without any extra legal obligations. Of-course if the country decided that no, such thing is unacceptable for everybody and the votes came that way, and the laws were changed that you can't own a cable and buy the right to lay that cable unless that cable somehow carries a signal in a certain way, then yeah, it would be basically impossible to have that ab
Re: (Score:2)
If there is no government money involved in creating the infrastructure for these services, then government cannot force their own vision of contract between the service provider and a customer.
More importantly, if that's true, then it's probably because the barrier to entry in the market is a hell of a lot lower (unlike, say, laying cable, which requires easements, and tons of dough to lay the line). As such, the market is less of a natural monopoly, and so competition is more likely to thrive. Thus regu
Re: (Score:2)
But isn't that true today, that there is much more competition in wireless services than in wired ones exactly because it is so much simpler to enter that market? You still have to buy/rent a tens or hundreds of properties to install your equipment (antennas) and you have to connect your equipment to your servers, but once that is done, you can immediately provide service. Seems that it is a much cheaper way to provide service than by laying cable, so that's why there is more competition. So again, how m
Re: (Score:2)
Wireless spectrum is public property, and FCC is charged with regulating that spectrum.
Re: (Score:2)
Wireless spectrum (especially the portion that gives a large enough range at safe signal levels) is a limited resource.
Yes, but it's not a barrier to entry.
The other more pressing issue is where to place the towers?
But *that* is a legitimate concern, and may very well justify market regulation. The problem is, *we don't really know yet*.
Again, this is Google's point: barrier to entry into the market is clearly lower than in the hard-wired internet space. But is it low enough to allow competition to thrive
Re: (Score:2)
Not only is blocking content illegal
I am not so sure about that one. Considering that T-mobile blocks faxes unless you pay an extra fee, why wouldn't they block all but a handful of websites unless you pay up? Why not then charge those websites that are not blocked as well -- I wouldn't put anything past cell carriers in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it illegal for an ISP to arbitrarily block content? I thought that was exactly the nature of this debate. We wouldn't be talking about ISPs arbitrarily blocking content if ISPs weren't allowed to arbitrarily block content.
As to your second and third sentences, I think the structure of cable television plans is sufficient counterexample to show how wrong that is. Also, it just doesn't make sense. If I want the Playboy channel, I pay extra for it. Why wouldn't an ISP charge me extra to view Wikipedia?
This