

AT&T Rubs 'don't be evil' in Google's Face - jrwoodruff
http://mashable.com/2009/10/14/google-at-t-feud-fcc/

======
teilo
Not surprisingly, AT&T redefines net neutrality to somehow mean that a service
provider is required by law to provide specific services. There is a reason we
don't call it "service neutrality". The network is the network. That's what's
supposed to be neutral. A service is a service, which by definition is
specific, meaning NOT neutral.

An IM provider, such as Yahoo, can offer any level of service they choose.
They can choose to not allow you to message Skype accounts. Likewise, VOIP is
a service. A VOIP service can offer any level of service they choose, and the
network provider has no say whatsoever in the transaction. Don't like Google's
service? Use another one that offers the services you want, all while keeping
the same __neutral __network connection. Just what about this is so bloody
hard to understand?

------
ramanujan
Genuinely interesting point that AT&T raises.

Net neutrality means AT&T cannot prioritize traffic to different sites. But
Goog wants to remain able to prioritize its own search results...effectively
prioritizing traffic to different sites!

~~~
lanaer
AT&T cannot reduce performance to some classes of sites, and charge other
sites more to have their traffic put on the fast-lane. Because if AT&T were to
do so, then anyone whose connection gets passed to AT&T at any point in the
routing would be affected, even if neither the provider nor consumer is a
customer of AT&T.

Google, on the other hand, can only prioritize sites for people who visit its
site, or search through something else that uses Google’s API.

People are free to search with Bing, they are not free to ask that their
routers avoid AT&T’s network.

~~~
ramanujan
Preface: I'm not anti net neutrality. Just thinking through the issues here
out loud.

First consider it from the perspective of a packet receiver for a second
(because, among other things, this is how Goog and Yahoo were thinking about
it when they supported net neutrality).

\-- If AT&T deprioritizes your inbound packets, it's like losing several US
states worth of traffic. Your main option: pay AT&T more to prioritize your
packets.

\-- If Goog deprioritizes you out of their search rankings, again, like losing
several states (or countries) worth of traffic. Your option: pay Goog to place
you more prominently via AdWords.

> People are free to search with Bing, they are not free to ask that their
> routers avoid AT&T’s network.

From the perspective of a packet receiver, you cannot realistically make your
customers switch from Goog anymore than you can make them avoid routing
packets through AT&T connections.

> then anyone whose connection gets passed to AT&T at any point in the routing
> would be affected, even if neither the provider nor consumer is a customer
> of AT&T.

Also, a second point: when I make a telephone call to a business, I have no
idea whether AT&T dropped the connection or what if it doesn't go through. I
just give up on that business and call another business.

Similarly, if a business isn't in the organic top 10 on Goog, I don't even
know about it. I just use another business. Note that in this situation
neither I nor the business am paying Goog money.

Of course the business can use Adwords, but that's like paying AT&T to
prioritize their packets.

~~~
whopa
It still boils down to switching costs. If Google pulls shenanigans often
enough, some users will notice, and they switch to Bing or some other search
engine with very little effort. Google doesn't want to lose those users, so
they have incentive to not be evil.

On the other hand, AT&T either has a physical monopoly or is part of a duopoly
of broadband in many markets. If AT&T pulls shenanigans often enough, even if
users do notice, they can't switch to some other provider easily. So AT&T can
be evil, and people have to accept it, because there isn't much other choice.

If the capital costs of becoming a broadband provider were as low as being a
search engine, regulation wouldn't be necessary. But since the landscape isn't
competitive due to physical limitations, and AT&T has a history of being evil,
regulation seems necessary.

