My Photo

Search Dark Matter Politics with Technorati

  • Technorati
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 03/2006

« Minoriteam - Exaggeration that reveals absurd realities | Main | Symbol of Britain’s Big Brother state »

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The Dark One

The problem with allowing ISP’s to impose an "access tax" for content is that content and ecommerce companies such as Google, Amazon and Yahoo are not going to deduct those costs payments out of their profit margins; they will pass the cost to the consumer. The additional cost will also increase the cost of advertising in the internet – a major funding source for free content in the internet. Finally, the creation of a "tiered internet" will give cash rich companies an unfair advantage over start-ups. This is likely to slow the growth of content start-ups which rely on tight margins and low cash flow to succeed. The biggest question relates to the way this new revenue stream will be used by ISPs. Will the new funding be used to improve customer service, improve their infrastructure or providing additional free services like virus and spam protection? Unlikely.

sagecast

Readers of this comment thread should know that Paulaner01, pkp646 and oldhats are part of a tag-team of industry shills who invade blog comments on net neutrality to argue against any government regulation of the telephone companies. Other names who run with this crowd are John Rice, lessgov and AJ Carey. (Google any of these names in combination and you'll see how their game works. They’ve ganged up on dozens of blogs who oppose the telco position).

By tag-teaming the blogs, this small handful of individuals gives the false impression of broad popular support for an industry-friendly position.

It’s more of the same deception from the likes of AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth that are determined to swoop in and become gatekeepers to Internet content -- in a way that benefits no one except themselves.

I'd like these commenters to tell us how it is that they appear together (usually one after the other) across the blogosphere spouting identical industry talking points.

What gives fellas? Are you being paid to do this? And by whom?

sagecast

Readers of this comment thread should know that Paulaner01, pkp646 and oldhats are part of a tag-team of industry shills who invade blog comments on net neutrality to argue against any government regulation of the telephone companies. Other names who run with this crowd are John Rice, lessgov and AJ Carey. (Google any of these names in combination and you'll see how their game works. They’ve ganged up on dozens of blogs who oppose the telco position).

By tag-teaming the blogs, this small handful of individuals gives the false impression of broad popular support for an industry-friendly position.

It’s more of the same deception from the likes of AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth that are determined to swoop in and become gatekeepers to Internet content -- in a way that benefits no one except themselves.

I'd like these commenters to tell us how it is that they appear together (usually one after the other) across the blogosphere spouting identical industry talking points.

What gives fellas? Are you being paid to do this? And by whom?

The Dark One

Much speculation has airsen over Googles influence in the net netutrality argument. Furthermore, much speculation has arised around Google unveiling a low-cost, Google-branded, networked PC. If history is right, the failure of Larry Ellison’s mid-1990s Net PC and the failue of Free-PC (a company launched by dot-com incubator IdeaLab) in 1999 the “Google Cube” will never come to life. I believe Google has its ambitions in media applications and the creation of a private global internet protocol network.

In late November, Google bought 200,000 square feet of telecom interconnection facilities in New York. It is believed that from here, Google plans to link up and power the dark fibre system it plans to buy. Google will take advantage of the fibre optic cables laid during the 1999 in preparation for high speed internet delivery. When the industry bottomed out, the installation process for many of these networks was left incomplete. This has resulted in a usable network of cables spread across the United States that have never been switched on. By purchasing the dark fibre, Google would in effect be able to acquire a ready made internet network that they could control. The Times Online has a story entitled “Rumours mount over Google's internet plan” http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9075-2023600,00.html which is an interesting read.

Paulaner01

You make quite a jump from an excellent description on what the debate is actually all about - new infrastructure and new services - to your conclusion that suggests everything down to our search engines will suddenly change for the worse. It won't be that bad. These guys are right. As soon as any ISP starts interfering with access, they're going to pay a heavy price. Consumers just won't stand for it.

oldhats

Good point, pkp. Do we really want to encourage Congress to regulate against a hypothetical problem? When will they stop regulating? Is an internet tax next?

noreg

First off, a consumer will never have to deal with a slower version of Yahoo, as Yahoo will gladly pay for the speedier delivery times. Perhaps this explains why Yahoo has been so adamant in its support of net neutrality legislation.

The fact is, the consumer will decide the kind of Internet experience they want. The Internet has thrived because government has kept its regulatory mitts off of it. I, for one, am hoping the trend continues.

pkp646

Oldhats and FreeWire are right to point out what they have already done. And furthermore, what problem is it exactly which people expect Congress to fix? At best a hypothetical one, and if that is the case, do we really want Congress to start guessing at how to fix problems that don't exist? I think not.

oldhats

I'm with Freewire. Since the vast majority of consumers have a choice of more than 2 ISPs, it just makes good sense that a company choosing to limit service would be eliminated by its competition.

FreeWire

"It is a serious case of Dark Matter Politics when access providers, in an attempt to increase profit per subscriber, plan to limit access to content online." Well, yeah! But it's not going to happen. The FCC already has the ability to stem that tide, and the market wouldn't allow it in any case. Nobody is stupid enough to even try it. On the other hand, just as VPN has been a fact of internet life for fifteen years or more without destroying the web, separate provision for sensitive applications like VoIP and IPTV will arrive little noticed and won't change the online experience except for the better.

The comments to this entry are closed.