

A Note to Google Users on Net Neutrality, by Eric Schmidt (2006) - MikeCapone
http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html

======
treblig
It bothers me that Google did not throw a publication date on this page. While
it is certainly still applicable, this letter has been up for at least a few
years. (I believe I found it when researching for a paper in late 2006. )

~~~
huherto
I'm confused. Is this a current debate or it is here just as an interesting
(historical) note?

~~~
robryan
Doesn't look like it, a quick Google search reveals discussion on it from
2008.

------
raimondious
A more appropriate title would have been "A Note on Net Neutrality to Google
Users in the United States," but I'm happy to see this nonetheless. Hopefully
this will make its rounds and sway public opinion.

------
initself
That was the first call I ever made to my congressman.

~~~
initself
I'm not sure I was prepared to actually talk to someone.

~~~
buster
Out of curiosity: What did he/she say?

~~~
arch_hunter
Knowing a little about how the process works, you usually do not get to speak
to that actual congressman, but instead one of their staff workers who does
their best to sound sympathetic without committing to anything.

------
SlyShy
Of course, Google is protecting its business interests, but I happen to agree
with its business interests in this case.

~~~
DrJokepu
It's only their business interest because they've chosen so. They could have
reached an agreement with large telecom providers if they wanted to that would
have effectively made it impossible for a startup to ever challenge them.

~~~
bbuffone
The network would the least of a startups problem challenging google. This has
been one of the arguments for net neutrality and it doesn't make sense.

1.) No one has this issue now and I don't see much competition from any other
than microsoft. Eventually some one will find a way but isn't going to because
of or inspite net neutrality.

2.) Google can't act in an any competitive manner using the network just has
microsoft found out it couldn't do with the computer manufactures. As soon as
some one thought they were using their network contract to impede competition
they would be bust quicker than a "Gizmodo Editor with a 'lost' Prototype"

3.) Google would have more problems going this route and it would cost them a
lots of time, money and energy to manage, then add the fact they would be held
hostage by the network providers. Contract up? Ok, pay us even more, new
service even more. It would be road I think they avoid if not then why not.
With the proper network deals and content licenses: youtube could become a new
cable company. Google voice a new telephone network...

They could more easily expand beyond search into different revenue steams with
these deals if there wasn't big issues with them.

------
dpritchett
Nice touching quoting "The inventor of the World Wide Web". People might not
know who Berners-Lee or Cerf are but it's hard to argue with the inventor of
the Web.

------
debug
I just called, spoke to a guy named Eric - I left my concern with him, told me
to let anyone else know,that they can call to address their concern.

------
clammer
>would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose
what you will be able to see and do on the Internet

And I could pick and choose my provider. The problem with regulating
"monopolies" is that it does _more_ to ensure their monopoly position and
stifle competition than it does to "protect" the consumer.

This is a short-term vs. long-term debate. Net neutrality will be good in the
short term, but very bad for long term development of the Internet and access
to it.

~~~
clammer
Yeah, I figured no one here would like my point of view on this one.

~~~
raimondious
I'd like to know why you have the opinion you do — how is it good for the
Internet in the long term? I don't see how this is possible.

~~~
clammer
Because it creates a more rules for ISPs. The more regulated a market is, the
larger barrier to entry which perpetuates the monopoly.

Eventually, when smaller upstarts come along, the monopoly points at them and
says, "Hey, these guys aren't playing by the rules" and then the government
makes these upstarts comply with expensive regulations.

For instance, VOIP and 911. When you could get VOIP for nothing (or next to
it) the big telecoms pointed to these new providers and said "We have to
support 911, why don't they?".

In this case, the government jumped in to help the telecoms keep a foot hold
on their monopoly. See:
[http://www.sandiegobusinesslawfirm.com/net_telephone_service...](http://www.sandiegobusinesslawfirm.com/net_telephone_services)

This pattern repeats itself in almost all legislation attempting to regulate
monopolies. In the end, it only serves to stifle competition and remove
consumer choice from the market.

~~~
rortian
Read your econ. Regulation is hardly the only barrier to entry in a market.

The huge barrier to entry for cable, water, electricity, and
telecommunications (for now excluding cellular) is building the
infrastructure. There are good reasons why most of these are heavily
regulated.

It's funny you say ISPs because in the dial-up age there were a ton of them.
They were working on top of the highly regulated phone system. Fast forward to
the broadband age, which sadly was give a lot of free reign under the
regulation-averse Bush administration, and there are very few 'ISPs'. Instead
most markets are given a bad choice between oligopolistic cable companies and
a baby bell or AT&T itself.

These companies have way too much market power, people routinely get cable tv
in order to get a decent internet monthly rate, and regulation could have huge
benefits for consumers as well innovative businesses like Google.

~~~
clammer
Read my post. I never said it was the only barrier. Not sure why you put words
in my post that weren't there.

There really isn't a problem right now with good Internet service. NN solves a
problem that doesn't exist, yet wil have long term effects on the market in
ways we may not fully understand today.

Do you get a discount for biying cable and Internet together, yes, but I also
get a discount for buying my life, home owner, and car insurance from the same
company. I'm unclear on why a bundled discount is a bad thing for consumers.

~~~
rortian
Insurance, a heavily regulated industry with many competitors, huh. You
suggest that regulation always hurts competition and that is simply not true.

Bundling is an interesting topic and in some cases it not necessarily
malicious. However, unlike your insurance company, cable companies have a ton
of pricing power.

I don't know why you think NN problems haven't existed. Comcast tried to block
bit torrent connections, the FCC shut that practice down, but just recently
the courts said the FCC could not stop that from happening.

~~~
clammer
>Comcast tried to block bit torrent connections

That's exactly the sort of thing that is fine with me. Bit torrent isn't http
traffic. Comcast also blocks port 25... It's their network, and I simply go
around it anyway.

If Comcast does end up blocking torrents on their network, perhaps my
connection will be faster and/or cheaper for it. Torrent fans can go to
another provider, it's called choice.

This isn't a case of favoring one website over another, it's about blocking
non-http traffic vs a totally open network. If they blocked youtube, then I'd
be looking for another provider, but they're not going to do that.

~~~
rortian
Interesting to hear. I'm sure many people would be interested in certain
things not taking place on their network, but do you really think it is
appropriate for Comcast to make that call?

Also I'm trying to stress that you can only jump providers maybe once or
twice. Not exactly a great situation to be in.

~~~
clammer
>but do you really think it is appropriate for Comcast to make that call?

I'd rather Comcast make that call than the FCC, who censors the public
airwaves now. Some people think that's what NN is really all about anyway.

>Also I'm trying to stress that you can only jump providers maybe once or
twice

True. Though I imagine that if all the networks started to enforce draconian
traffic rules, there would be an opportunity for smaller, local startups (or a
large well funded one) to offer an unrestricted Internet. I'm thinking Sir
Richard Branson could start an ISP in that niche, Virgin Internet...

~~~
tensafefrogs
> True. Though I imagine that if all the networks started to enforce draconian
> traffic rules, there would be an opportunity for smaller, local startups (or
> a large well funded one) to offer an unrestricted Internet. I'm thinking Sir
> Richard Branson could start an ISP in that niche, Virgin Internet...

Not if they use the infrastructure of the larger companies to connect to their
customers. Then the larger companies end up throttling the smaller company
(and hence all of their clients)

------
grandalf
Net Neutrality laws don't exist now, and cable and broadband providers do not
restrict what content customers can access.

Sorry Eric, but I'm not convinced this is a big deal worth getting the FCC
Nipple Slip Police involved in.

