The Internet is too slow for Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) and the nation's telecom and cable companies are to blame. At least that's how Google sees it.
In an interview with journalist Tom Foremski at the Fortune Brainstorm conference in Half Moon Bay, Google VP of engineering and chief Internet evangelist Vint Cerf slammed AT&T, Verizon, and the cable companies for failing to invest in network infrastructure.
"It's like little kids in a tantrum," he said. "'I'm not going to build this system unless you give me three scoops of ice cream and a pony.'"
Such behavior, Cerf said, harms the national interest.
Just out of curiosity, how does working for UUNET (which became part of Worldcom) make him all that great? All UUNET/Worldcom did was inflate the telcom bubble even further by making false claims of Internet traffic growth. How does this make him the person to claim the telcos are wrong?
Before you question Vint on his not knowing how carriers work, please remember that he was SVP for architecture and engineering at AS3561 (iMCI), then AS70[123] (MCI/UUNET) (which became the two biggest Internet backbones at the time). He has spent more time designing networks and pushing packets than you have, I would be willing to bet.
Also, since Comcast, VZ, AT&T, etc. pretty much act as a monopoly or duopoly in their service areas, it is fair to ask if they are investing in their service, as they have placed the bar so high for potential competitors (with better, cheaper product), that there is not a commercial driver for them to do so. The natural behavior of a {mon,du}opoly is to maintain the status quo. If they didn't have that commercial position, the question would be potentially specious, but they do, and therefore, it's not.
Therefore, sir, please think more carefully, and check your facts BEFORE you attempt to zing someone in a public forum.
Does anybody else feel that Google acts like a spoiled child, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, who never had to work a day in his life?
Google can afford to make nonsensical business decisions because it has a huge cash-cow called AdWords that finances every crazy idea that comes into its head. The rest of the world has to make rational business choices.
And "...harms the national interest"?!?!? WTF? Did the USA become socialist without my noticing it? (As an aside, I guess that could happen if Obama wins...)
If Google wants to spend some of its gobs of cash to build out a gold-plated national network, then I invite it to do so. I bet you within 10 years it will be completely out of the network operations business, having sold that division for a huge loss to somebody that understands how carrier networks are run.
Either way, put up or shut up. Money talks and everything else walks. If somebody else won't do what you want them to do, instead of whining about their whining, dangle some cash in front of them and see how fast they move.
All that said, I'm not a carrier guy and I don't think the carriers are above criticism for some of the crap they routinely pull (access, neutrality, etc.). But for Google (and Cerf) to spout this bilge water? Sheesh.
The blogs and comments are the opinions only of the writers and do not reflect the views of Light Reading. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
To save this item to your list of favorite Light Reading content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
