Google Fires Off Warning to US Telcos 283
mytrip writes "The US Senate Commerce Committee last week approved reforms in communications legislation that will make it easier for Internet providers to offer IP-based television.
The resultant perceived threat of telecommunications companies muscling in on the Web has stirred search giant Google into firing off warnings.
A spokesman said it would not hesitate to file anti-trust complaints if Internet-providing telcos abuse powers that could come from U.S. legislators in further reforms - some of which, Google argues, could threaten 'Net Neutrality'.
More Here (Score:5, Informative)
Re:More Here (Score:2, Informative)
Right now Adelphia is going bankrupt [orlandosentinel.com] and being gobbled up by Comcast and Time Warner Cable. Before that, I've seen merger after merger just in my area. There's less competition than before, and the sooner and easier it is for additional companies like AT&T and Verizon to roll out competing services, the better.
Re:Chicken and egg and chicken and egg and (Score:5, Informative)
So can the gf poster get all he wants now?
Re:Chicken and egg and chicken and egg and (Score:3, Informative)
Re:More Here (Score:3, Informative)
There's less competition than before, and the sooner and easier it is for additional companies like AT&T and Verizon to roll out competing services, the better.
You do understand that in order to do so they have to hijack the internet, right? That's the whole point on network neutrality. It no longer becomes a neutral internet that anyone can use the same, it becomes a dedicated pipe for AT&T/Verizon services.
Re:pretty unfair... (Score:2, Informative)
I guess the mods are on crack. The OP is making fun of Ted Stevens. Funny, yes, but not informative.
Re:Translation (Score:3, Informative)
Russia failed because planned economies do not work (among other reasons); monopolies in inappropriate places was just one aspect of that.
Re:Chicken and egg and chicken and egg and (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So that's what $425 a share buys (Score:2, Informative)
Wasn't this already decided by that case that orginally caused the breakup of AT&T into the Baby Bells --- the lawsuits brought by Carterfone and MCI after AT&T tried to muscle them out of the industry by pulling their longlines?????
Re:So that's what $425 a share buys (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Obligatory Ballmer joke (Score:3, Informative)
Pissing, moaning, bitching and complaining about jokes never improves a discussion.
There's a reason slashdot allows you to set your own weights on moderation. Of course, this is an inherently flawed system, since moderation is abused more than Michael Jackson's young house guests. Still, if you don't want to see the humor, set a big fat negative weight on funny mods, and piss off.
Re:Chicken and egg and chicken and egg and (Score:2, Informative)
Wrong in too many ways to count. I'll lay out the most obvious for you. Ma Bell did not get that way due to lack of regulation. In fact, just the opposite is true. It was government regulation that protected their monopoly. It is impossible for any one corporation to monopolize any market without government protection of some form. One form is outright regulation, as in Ma Bell's case, and in the case of broadcast media, or many other widely used method of mass communications. Another is is IP law, as in the case of Microsoft, the biggest pharmaceutical companies, the content distributors(note, that does not necessarily include the content creators), and a certain seed supplier. In a truly free market, it is up to us to weed out the wheat from the chaff. We can use the government to help us make an informed decision, but the decision should be ours to make. At the same time, you are right that the public can and should use the government to enforce their decision, provided there is a widely accepted consensus. A simple majority would leave 49% out in the cold.
Re:So that's what $425 a share buys (Score:3, Informative)
To answer my own question: holy shit! [yahoo.com]
I wish I had invested, instead of just getting angry, when I first heard about the connection. That was right around the low point; I'd have almost a 1000% profit in four years.
Wow. I wonder how many accounts that currently have Halliburton in them should be investigated by the SEC. And how many actually will be...
Re:Arguably, the right response (Score:3, Informative)
In fact the government created the problem here in the first place. The telcos and backbone providers are all government-granted monopolies. In a free market, this wouldn't even be an issue because there would be enough true competition where everyone would play fair.
Re:More Here (Score:3, Informative)
There used to be a ton of ISP providers where I live because there was a law stating that the Telcos had to share the "last mile" at rates that they would also charge themselves. A little crying along with some hefty cash to the government with promisses of fiber and all that in exchange for an unrestricted monopoly. Government told us all how great it would be and passed some new laws and look! Not only do we NOT get the cool new fiber (they changed their minds dontcha know) but now There is no competition. The competing ISP's were charged exhorbadent, extravegant, oh hell.. BIG FUCKING MONEY to use the last mile and viola. They took off knowing that when your competition controlls your pricing, you cant win. And this occured because of Telco sponsored laws.
Telcos keep bribing politicians into passing these self serving laws and we keep getting the shaft. If telcos are engendering laws against "net-neutrality", then you can bet grandmas farm that it won't be good for us in the long term. So I say "GO GOOGLE!!"