EDITOR'S NOTE: The original headline of this story was changed because it didn't reflect the full context of the remark made by Google's representative. The story itself, however, has not been changed.
SAN JOSE, Calif. -- Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) has more than one reason for coming out against phone company QOS fees, according to sources at the VON show here. (See LR Poll: Net 'Squatters' Should Pay.)
One source close to Google says the company dislikes the thought that phone companies may carry only video from content providers that use a proprietary network protocol prescribed by each individual carrier. (See Are Operators Ready for QOS Fees?)
While the protocols would allow carriers to provide a better consumer experience, it would also add significant cost to the content producers, which would have to strike different QOS deals and embrace different protocols for each major network operator. (See Net Neutrality Debate Wydens.)
But even with that looming, Google general counsel Andrew Mclaughlin says many in Washington would rather not get the FCC involved in the Internet at all. “The FCC sucks,” Mclaughlin says. “Why would you want the FCC to get involved in anything? Its track record is pretty bad when it comes to processes and outcomes.”
After his statements, Mclaughlin made it clear he was expressing the views of others in Washington who are not convinced there is a need for regulating the Internet.
Meanwhile, Verizon's director of technology policy, David Young, says this proprietary protocol fear hasn't come to fruition yet; he knows of no carrier that has charged a QOS fee from a content provider or forced it to use the operator’s proprietary network protocols. (See Google Backlash Builds.)
Both Young and Global Crossing (Nasdaq: GLBC) VP of regulatory affairs Paul Kouroupas say, however, that content providers have in the past made “business arrangements” with network operators to reserve bandwidth for their applications.
Kouroupas says content providers can do other things to help the delivery of their products, like locating their servers inside the operator's network, or using P2P content delivery techniques.
But the network neutrality proponents took a kick to the teeth in various panels here as Internet companies have failed to move legislation in the Capitol.
“Why are the interests of truth, love, and the American way getting our butts kicked in Washington?" Google's Mclaughlin asked.
Many in Washington believe that access networks are changing rapidly, and might soon be dominated by wireless Internet connections, which would again change how QOS is implemented. “There is a belief in Washington that wireless is going to blow this thing wide open anyway, so why legislate now,” Mclaughlin says.
He also believes that lawmakers have come to accept the idea that broadband networks are the property of the operators, and rules shouldn’t be imposed on them. “There is a belief that property rights are always good,” he says.
Dear Seven: If the RBOCs are not interested in filering and blocking, then who do they try so hard to become "information providers" instead of "telecom providers"?
Reality is the FCC is doomed unless it finds a new life regulating the internet. No politician wants to be out of a job. Ergo, the internet as an un-regulated means of communication is doomed.
When companies offer Washington a cut of the deal via special taxes or fees, they get the legislation they want. That kind of comfortable deal between government and industry used to be popular in middle europe in the 30's and 40's.
Of course, the NSA is filtering all US domestic and international communication traffic anyway, so it matters little.
If we keep our guns well oiled, and the ammo dry, we have a chance. Unless the veeper is around.
> Can you name a single thing that AOL has done to improve the Internet?
Yes, actually. When it was new, AOL made it accessible to non-geeky consumers. It was "training wheels for the Internet". Not what you or I would like to be stuck with, but a very good service for its target audience.
But there are, or were, thousands of independent ISPs. They provide many services. Many provide personalized service to their customers, not the "reboot your computer" scripts that the biggies are more likely to have. That alone is valuable. But ISPs also provide different vertical service options -- email servers (Verizon was blocking most mail from Europe, for cripes ache, and blocking outgoing mail that gave the sender's own domain rather than advertising Verizon!), web services, nntp, etc. Some give shell access. Some provide optional content filtering. Spam filter quality varies widely. Etc.
You simply assume that telcos won't do what they're already working on -- DPI filtering. That's foolish or dishonest, and I'm not going to say one or the other. Competition from ISPs has kept it at bay. One single cable competitor, who usually maintains a higher basic price point, is not enough competition to prevent such abuse. And your bringing up all of those other might-use-IP services is irrelevant, because those are totally irrelevant to what I'm talking about. I am talkin about what is now ISP service, but which is more likely to resemble a faster version of Prodigy Classic (which btw Big Ed owns).
Just being there is good enough to keep the rest in check. They have kept the RBOC DSL and Cable access from being priced at $200.
They were one of the first ISPs, way before any RBOC or Cable company. So they are the pioneers.
And just if you were wondering ... I don't like AOL either. But that is beside the point.
-RJS
" .... rjs,
Can you name a single thing that AOL has done to improve the Internet? They are the largest independent ISP. ISPs are like long haul carriers only they aren't. They move bits from point A to point B.
Au Contraire, I believe independent ISPs bring alot of value to internet. Just like the free press. You don't know what you got till its gone ....
-RJS
"" Now, I view you as upset that the independent ISP will lose their business. Yes, they will and I don't really care. They are not bringing any value to the table anyway. Now, if an ISP would roll out an access network then it would have value.
I am not willing to let the RBOCs or the Power companies determine the rate of progress and deployment. If it were so, we would still be using 56Kbps dial-up modem. The attitude of RBOCs and Power companies is METERING. Everything should be scaled linearly.
Think about it,the reason RBOCs are pissed off is the "lost" revenue when they had to offer flat rates.
Also, please do not compare electric power with the broadband internet. In the case of electric power a user has always had the choice to choose an alternate source of energy to generate electricity. If in the past 110 years the electric utilities did not give a fair price, there would be lots of generators installed in every household that can afford it. Case in point India and China. The reason is simple, with electricity the value of grid does not increase with the increase in number of user, as is the case in internet.
Again, you are chasing the red herring. It is not about QoS. It is about the power company charging you a higher rate because they feel that they can since you will be using the electricity for a higher value application ... analogous to deep packet inspection.
-RJS
"""
> I also don't think your analogy of power to bandwidth really flies > as you intended. Allow me to digress a bit. Electricity is also a > scarce resource and if the only goal is to make it a cheap, near unlimited demand
It's not that bad an analogy, but I think you've both kind of missed the mark. To make it match up better, look at it this way. Today, we are spoiled. We get plenty of power, with very few interruptions. 99.999% uptime. We really do NOT have a scarcity.
What if we did not have an infrastructure which supported that? What if we had 95% uptime? On an average day you have about 72 minutes of blackout at random intervals, peaking during prime useage times. Would you be willing to pay more for the 99.999% uptime we have today? I know I would. For the fan, I might not care, but for the computer, I would.
I'd LOVE it if I could get the high-quality service for everything, but the service is scarce (overprovisioned). Until the time at which the service is not scarce it would probably
I see no difference between cable bandwidth that runs non-IP services and running services over IP that do not use the Internet.
Nobody is going to remove Internet as an option. They are adding the option of private IP services. If the telcos remove the Internet, 100% of broadband users will move to cable modem. 65% or so are already there.
Now, lets say cable starts using IPTV for some reason. Does that qualify as walled garden IP services? Its voice over cable using DOCSIS already does right?
I get the idea, it is just so stupid for a minority player to remove services. And I think there is value in walled garden Internet services, if they provide me better access for certain things. I might even pay a little bit for them.
Now, I view you as upset that the independent ISP will lose their business. Yes, they will and I don't really care. They are not bringing any value to the table anyway. Now, if an ISP would roll out an access network then it would have value.
Seven, I am not confusing the Internet with anything. I don't think you're paying attention to what I wrote, actually. Or you're totally ignoring the point.
You're arguing about HFC and FiOS and their non-Internet bandwidth. I'm not. I think it's wonderful that those physical media can carry multiple payloads, of which Internet Access is only one type.
> Perhaps you haven't recognized the walled garden services are BYPASSING the Internet. That is the only effective way to deliver QoS.
You are using the term "walled garden" for services that ride over the cable service bandwidth. That is not what I am talking about! I am talking about removing Internet access as an option, and replacing it with a walled garden of "broadband" services that use IP. Think of the "wireless web" on your cell phone. Just faster.
> These services will share the same access networks with Internet services. This is exactly the same as Cable and FiOS. Because AT&T wants to use packet multiplexing it is somehow different. Why are you not arguing for Comcast to lower there channel count and use more of their spectrum for Internet Access? It is the same thing.
No, I don't care if they use IP or ATM or HFC channels/QAM or PNA or SNA for that matter. I'm not talking about all the other services that these companies also offer, and which I think they have a right to offer. I'm talking about their taking away uncensored access to the Internet, which, after all, competes with some of those other services. Skype competes with dial tone. Podcasting competes with broadcasting. Google Video competes with cable VoD. So they don't want those services on their "broadband" IP services (which I call "Fat Wasteband, Broadband Internet's Evil Twin").
And while they're at it, they don't even want open access to web sites, e-commerce, and other Internet services that we take for granted, because they would rather make deals with sister or partner companies and share their revenues. So no cheap purchases from NewEgg if they can get a kickback from say Tiger. Get the picture? That's what I mean by "walled garden". Not the TV channels. The former Internet service.
Those plans were unthinkable a year ago. Four years ago, DPI boxes were languishing, because the only market was "wireless web", where the ISP-like function was captive. But now common carriage is gone. Independent ISPs are being kicked off of the networks. For about half of consumers, there will be a cable/ILEC duopoly. For most of the others, there will be a monopoly of one or the other. With such little choice, a DPI-based walled garden service becomes possible, because there is no longer a free market for ISP services.
So let's not divert attention to other services sharing the medium, or other offerings by the parent companies, or red herring issues like QoS. I'm talking about being able to access Light Reading without surcharges, or being diverted to a competing site that pays Ivan and Ed their kickbacks.
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
