lifeonthegrid.blogspot.com — A Google Exec told the world today at the Cable Europe Congress that their infrastructure can't "scale" to the bandwidth needs of "TV over the Internet". Google is bluffing, folks. They have more fiber rights than some telcos. They don't want to become a telco and there's a big difference between net neutrality in principle and in application.
Feb 8, 2007 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountFeb 9, 2007
I heard it differently .......... <a class="user" href="http://digg.com/gadgets/Top_40_songs_sing_your_Email">http://digg.com/gadgets/Top_40_songs_sing_your_Email</a>
dreamlayersFeb 9, 2007
Why is multicast not being considered? TV over the net seems like a natural application.
gummialienFeb 9, 2007
The bottleneck is not in the backbone but rather it is at the ISP level. One question that comes up is "why don't ISP's just upgrade" well the reason for this is there is almost no competition for broadband service. Since there is no competition there isn't any reason for ISP's to provide better service to their customers. This problem is exacerbated by the cable companies business model. Currently, broadband companies make just as much money is they serve 100 megs or 100 gigs to you since broadband is a fixed amount for "unlimited" service.
invaderFeb 9, 2007
Three steps:1.) Bury comment2.) Bury spam story3.) Click "Block/Report this User"
dafragstaFeb 9, 2007
Start writing your congresspeople now. I know for a fact that next week the FTC is meeting to get a clearer view of what net neutrality is, so a big surge should make that meeting resonate more with your respective representatives. There will be plenty of people fighting the good fight, but in the end, they are trying to explain complex technology to non technological people. You might as well consider this the follow-up clash to Ted Stevens' initial "tubes" and "big truck" strikeout.Net neutrality is bad. It goes beyond paying more to watch videos on YouTube. With deep packet inspections, black hats can get a job at a provider who is participating in tiering and potentially violate your privacy in ways you never thought possible. Remember, not every login is secure and once you have one password, you might very well have them all. Never mind the fact that the supposed non-black hats that work for AT&T let the government compromise your privacy once before fairly recently.
dafragstaFeb 9, 2007
OMFG, strike that "Net neutrality is bad" part. What a moron. Net neutrality is good. It's the non neutral networks the telcos seek to create which are bad. Sorry, it's late. The bottom line is that it's improtant to create "ignorant" networks that don't compromise privacy or breadth of service. That's what telcos and cablecos seek to do so that at the same time their products aren't antiquated without first forming a revenue model around other people's innovations and success.I guess I inadvertently made another point too. There is a lot of confusion about the terminology. So much so, the people who know a neutral network is good, somehow end up tangled on the same two words inverted into net neutrality.
freffFeb 9, 2007
"Google want's what's good for Google. That's it, essentially."That's pretty much the business model for every company that's ever been formed. That doesn't mean that the author's assumption is valid. Just because Google has "more fiber rights than some telcos" doesn't mean that they should be looking to move into the type of distribution model of actual ISP's. One thing has nothing to do with another. The cost of unicast streaming data to end users is extremely cost inefficient. I can't possibly imagine how much the bandwidth costs of youtube alone are. And that's nothing compared to what iptv is going to require. Google is smart to look to work with the cable companies. And the ISP's, if they are smart, will look to work with companies like Google who are willing to provide the services and content that people want, instead of trying to muscle in on future profits for themselves.
ghoti06Feb 9, 2007
But the implication should be obvious. Google only supported net neutrality so far as they thought it was to their financial benefit. The same is true of Microsoft, and Microsoft already dropped out of their coalition, It's Our Net. And where is <a class="user" href="http://itsournet.org">http://itsournet.org</a> today? Funny, it's been dead for a month now.Google is going to find out that "neutrality" isn't in their interest either. Just watch.