ie8 fix
Click Here

Google's net neutrality defeat

By | October 20, 2010, 7:18am PDT

Summary: Google’s major cave-in to Verizon on net neutrality got them a lot of bad press. But it wasn’t Google’s fault. It was yours.

Google’s cave-in to the telcos on net neutrality got them a lot of bad press. But it wasn’t Google’s fault. It was yours.

America is roughly 15th in broadband penetration. We pay about $3/Mb of bandwidth, while the French pay 33¢ and the Japanese only 13¢. Even Portugal has better Internet than America.

Google is fighting an uphill battle to change that. And they’re losing.

On the Internet and in Silicon Valley we think Google is important. But to the old pols - this is the the oldest Congress in history - they aren’t.

Google is new to the Washington game. “Don’t be evil” looks naïve to amoral Mos Eisley-on-the-Potomac dealmakers.

Google has a few tens of thousands employees concentrated in mostly liberal areas. They have a dozen or so US data centers. Not much local clout.

The telcos, on the other hand, have thousands of employees in every congressional district. They employ an army of lobbyists. And dole out huge campaign contributions.

Numbers
AT&T was the largest campaign contributor with over $45 million from 1989 to 2010. According to the Center for Responsive Politics. Other big Telco/Cable contributors include:

  • Time Warner: $20,029,888
  • Verizon Communications: $19,320,192
  • BellSouth Corp: $12,993,782
  • Comcast Corp: $11,185,687
  • News Corp: $10,998,353
  • MCI Inc: $8,092,972

That’s over $125 million. The only infotech company to make the list is Microsoft with $21M. Google isn’t on the list.

The net neutrality hoax
That’s why the debate is about net neutrality. “Net neutrality” was invented during the Bush administration to create controversy.

It should have been called by its rightful name: common carrier. Common carrier status for telcos is over 150 years old. Common carrier law is derived from English common law that is almost 400 years old. This should be settled.

In a Scientific American editorial Why Broadband Service in the U.S. Is So Awful - And one step that could change it the authors point out

A decade ago the U.S. ranked at or near the top of most studies of broadband price and performance. But that was before the FCC made a terrible mistake. In 2002 it reclassified broadband Internet service as an “information service” rather than a “telecommunications service.” In theory, this step implied that broadband was equivalent to a content provider (such as AOL or Yahoo!) and was not a means to communicate, such as a telephone line. In practice, it has stifled competition.

The Storage Bits take
All the scary hand-waving about government takeovers, investment freezes, bandwidth caps and net neutrality itself are designed to take American’s eyes off the ball. As game theory shows, net neutrality means a faster Internet for all.

The telcos swing a heavy hammer: big campaign and lobbying budgets; hundreds of thousands of employees; big media/cable companies to spread the word; and a political party that is happy to have them write the rules. Amazing that Google has done as well as it has.

The only way to even this out is for citizens who want common carrier broadband is to vote for those who favor it. And hey! Sergey, Larry, Eric: how about cutting loose with a few hundred mill to help even out the debate?

Comments welcome, of course.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Robin Harris has been messing with computers for over 30 years and selling and marketing data storage for over 20 in companies large and small.

Disclosure

Robin Harris

Robin Harris is a president of TechnoQWAN, a consulting and analyst firm in northern Arizona. He also writes StorageMojo.com, a blog which accepts advertising from companies in the storage industry, and has a 25 year history with IT vendors. He has many industry contacts, many of whom are friends and all of whom he has opinions about. Robin has relationships with many companies in the technology industry. Every company he writes about may have sought to influence his opinion through carefully-crafted marketing messages and self-serving white papers, gifts ranging from desk calendars, t-shirts, lunches and trips as well as analyst or consulting assignments. He also invests in some technology companies. He may accept payment for services in stock as well. Robin discloses financial investments in or client relationships with companies named in Storage Bits. To help readers sort out the gold from the dross in his writings, Robin tries to communicate his reasons as clearly as he can. If you agree, you are intelligent and discerning. If you disagree, well, you disagree. In all cases, Robin encourages readers to subject everything they read, see or hear on the internet or from politicians to some simple questions: * What assumptions are implicit in the world view and judgments of the author? * What, if any, is the factual basis for the opinions the author expresses? * Is it reasonable, logical and clear? Your critical faculties: use ‘em or lose ‘em!

Biography

Robin Harris

Harris has been messing with computers for over 30 years and selling and marketing data storage for over 20 in companies large and small. He introduced a couple of multi-billion dollar storage products (DLT, the first Fibre Channel array) to market, as well as a many smaller ones. Earlier he spent 10 years marketing servers and networks. After leaving corporate life he founded TechnoQWAN, a consulting and analyst firm. He also developed StorageMojo into one of the top storage industry blogs.

Robin writes, consults, coaches and lives among the mountains of northern Arizona.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
86
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Google's net neutrality defeat
FAULKNE 13th Oct
Good day to confirm this comment I would appreciate T h e b e s t o f Z D N e t d e l i v e r e d your website very nice to everyone Yes, Oracle is the only one with shared-disk architecture, but that is there advantage. It means you can add or remove nodes and the database lives on. In a shared nothing architecture, if you lose a node, you lose the system. I'm sure Oracle appreciates EMC highlighting their advantage.I also desire to signal in your RSS feeds. Thank you as soon as once again and maintain up the great operate Awesome post! Thank you very much || thanks for nice content this is really benefit to me.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google's net neutrality defeat
MLHACK 20th Oct 2010
Yeah this proves that big business runs this country. And Abraham Lincoln said at Gettysburg
"that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Unfortunately now it is no longer for the people by the people it is for the people and shoved by the corporate america bureaucrats and goverment.
0 Votes
+ -
Lincoln's vision is still alive
ron.cleaver@... 20th Oct 2010
@MLHACK We're just trying to perfect it with imperfect (e.g. profit motivated) people.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google's net neutrality defeat
blueskip 20th Oct 2010
@MLHACK This article is riddled with missing facts. Like the fact that Google wanted to allow more of the same garbage that's going on right now where the person owning the wire can say who gets premium access. That's the OPPOSITE of net nuetrality. Verizon cooked that up with Google and brought down the whole show. Verizon is the bad guy here. They wanted to be able to control high bandwidth content and not give equal access to all. That is bs.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google's net neutrality defeat
DLClark 21st Oct 2010
@MLHACK According to a Supreme Court decision corporations are people too. They are virtual people having no morals or conscience with enough money to buy what they want from politicians and run rough shod over others.
0 Votes
+ -
No, government runs this country.
frgough 22nd Oct 2010
Big business has no power to fine you, put you in jail or pass a law. Big business can accomplish nothing in any of those above categories. Only government can. And that government has apparently done a good job at convincing you that it is a helpless victim, powerless against the evil corporation. Which, of course, means the government can continue to oppress you and you'll keep voting them back into office.
0 Votes
+ -
@frgough
Your so busy worrying about that scary puppet, you are happy to ignore the few who hold the strings.

In real dollar terms, the GDP in the 1930s was approximately $700 Billion. Today the GDP of the country is around $16 Trillion. You know why we "can't afford" healthcare for all Americans? Because all the loot is held by the few, sequestered away from working Americans.
0 Votes
+ -
It's NOT OUR FAULT
iPad-awan 20th Oct 2010
that Goolge is Evil. They 'caved-in' when the deal no longer benefit them. Saying they are fighting for us -- the little people -- is just a smokescreen.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google's net neutrality defeat
Robin Harris 20th Oct 2010
@iPad-awan
I think they decided that half a loaf was better than none. Not good, but if they'd continued the fight they could have lost everything.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google's net neutrality defeat
tkejlboom 20th Oct 2010
@iPad-awan

At least they tried, even if they failed. If Jobs had his way, 50% of the internet bandwidth in this country would be dedicated to iTunes.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google's net neutrality defeat
MsMills81 20th Oct 2010
@tkejlboom

You are sooo right. An A for effort to Google but that's about it. I can't even imagine how things would be if Jobs had his way.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google's net neutrality defeat
blueskip 20th Oct 2010
@tkejlboom I can imagine how things would be if Jobs got his way! You'd be paying to connect, paying for content, paying for downloads, paying for viewing, paying to switch websites, paying, paying, paying. Did I mention paying?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google's net neutrality defeat
blueskip 20th Oct 2010
@iPad-awan They didn't cave. They gave in to Verizon's demands because Verizon was the biggest player for Android. If Verizon pulled the plug on Android, then Google would have stood to lose millions, possibly billions. Google really had no choice but to try to work out a deal that ultimately screwed them over. It's unlike Google to make that kind of mistake. More business running over the little guy. Verizon should be broken apart anyway. They are a monopoly on CDMA networks. They should have NEVER been allowed to buy Alltel
0 Votes
+ -
um, that would be caving.
0 Votes
+ -
Don't apologize for Google
SomeGuy2123 Updated - 20th Oct 2010
@iPad-awan
Google was a big supporter of net neutrality when that was profitable for them (Google pushes a good chunk of traffic) and so they claim to still support it for the web.
For wireless (which its CEO thinks could make them 10B a year) it is more beneficial to sleep with the carriers so they promote Android, which is exactly what Google did.
Google's real moto is "make more money" which are are doing very well.
tech crowd is interesting. The company is one of the most unethical out there, and yet, they keep being held up as some sort of messianic deliverer from the evils of whatever evil you currently want to be delivered from.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google's net neutrality defeat
todd@... 20th Oct 2010
@MLHACK
"Yeah this proves that big business runs this country."

From Google's own info: over 20,000 employess, 20 offices in the U.S and many more world-wide, Q3 revenues of $3.8B... yeah, I think Google qualifies as "big business."
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google's net neutrality defeat
tkejlboom Updated - 20th Oct 2010
@todd@...

LOL, that's funny! In big business terms, Google is piss in the wind. Just AT&T's reported consolidated revenue from '09 was was $123 billion. HP made $114.5 billion and employees >300,000 people world wide. Big is a relative term. Compared to what they were 10 years ago, Google is huge. Compared to the giants lobbying Capitol Hill, they're nothing.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google's net neutrality defeat
blueskip 20th Oct 2010
@tkejlboom Somep people can't see the forest for the trees. You're wasting your time on people like todd.
0 Votes
+ -
Just like "rich" means "anyone who makes $1 more than me," "big" means "any company larger than the one I like."
@frgough
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google's net neutrality defeat
SomeGuy2123 Updated - 20th Oct 2010
@tkejlboom@... its profits that matter not revenue, Apple is not worth much more then Dell because they have more revenue they make more money. Very few companies make more money then Google, in fact Google makes more money then many states collect in taxes.

@blueskip.. some people can't see the "forest" of money Google makes.
0 Votes
+ -
OF course Google is a big business
JohnVoter 2nd Nov 2010
@todd@...
But that doesn't negate the author's point that the Telecos, whose economic interest is in limiting the consumer's access to web based businesses to those the teleco have a deal with, are collectively bigger than Google.
Enough said,
You prove my point.
Keep the government out of the internet.
KEEP the CHANGE
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google's net neutrality defeat
blueskip 20th Oct 2010
@tvman@... Yeah maybe we should keep the government out of the phone business too and put Ma Bell back together so we can pay a dollar a minute for state to state long distance again.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google's net neutrality defeat
tvman@... 20th Oct 2010
@blueskip Don't forget you'll need a pay phone and remember how to dial a phone and you'll need to pay the lease on the phone that you donot own. We saw more innovation after DEREGULATION like no other period in telecommunications.

KEEP the CHANGE
0 Votes
+ -
@tvman@... The only 'innovation' that's been done is the bigger corporations with the fattest wallets buying out the smaller companies that do the innovation.

There's only so much 'innovation' you can buy out before sloth & captive-audience mediocrity sets in.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google's net neutrality defeat
csteinola 20th Oct 2010
@tvman@... LOL! How ironic to call for government to stay out of the internet. They BUILT the dang thing!
0 Votes
+ -
Disingenuous Stats
mikefarinha 20th Oct 2010
Comparing American Broadband penetration to France and Japan is a completely disingenuous argument and taints the rest of your argument. America has by far more populated rural land than those two countries combined which is much more costly to build broadband infrastructure.

Net nutrality is a bad solution in search of a problem.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google's net neutrality defeat
tkejlboom 20th Oct 2010
@mikefarinha

Nonsense! It highlights America's broadband inadequacy! Japan is a giant mountain on a volcanic faultline! In France, you can't find street signs from Paris to Marseilles, but they somehow managed to lay high grade fiber between the two! He compared the broadband speeds in the U.S. to countries which, for either technical or political reasons, should NEVER be faster than us!
accompanied by total lack of critical thinking. Japan: 122 million people in an area the size of California, 70% of which is uninhabited mountains. Getting broadband in place in a country where everyone lives in a coastal plain is trivial.
0 Votes
+ -
You?re forgetting that most people in the U.S. live along the densely populated east and west coasts. Not even all of them have access to broadband.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google's net neutrality defeat
blueskip 20th Oct 2010
@mikefarinha You're in search of a brain.
it must've been an evil scheme by Bush and the "evil" republicans to cripple the internet and keep big business in control and making huge and obnoxious profits and the expense of the public.

Isn't that what you were implying with:

?Net neutrality? was invented during the Bush administration to create controversy.

.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google's net neutrality defeat
blueskip 20th Oct 2010
@adornoe@... Yeah, that's exactly what he was CORRECTLY implying you dink.
0 Votes
+ -
blueskip: Are you that dense?
adornoe@... 20th Oct 2010
When somebody inserts a line such as:

Net neutrality was invented during the Bush administration to create controversy.

it serves no other purpose other than to be just another attack against Bush.

So, why don't you explain why Bush would necessarily want to be "create controversy". It just doesn't make any sense. So, are you that dense that you can't see through a line such as that?

Why does a blogger feel the need to insert such a nonsensical statement into a discussion except to be controversial himself, or to attack Bush unnecessarily? The post from the blogger could have been just as worthy of a discussion without having to insert the blogger's personal political agenda.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google's net neutrality defeat
clfitz 21st Oct 2010
@adornoe@...

No way to reply to your reply below, so I'll add it here instead.

You answered your own question: THe reason ANY political party would want to create a smokescreen, controversy, etc., is, in your words, "keep big business in control and making huge and obnoxious profits and the expense of the public."

You have a huge chip on your shoulder where the Bush administration is concerned, apparently. I rather liked him (and his father, too) but neither was perfect, and to even imply that any politician, of any political party, would do anything at all to help a small consumer in the climate that exists now is naive in the extreme. If they accidentally did something that made it easier on "the little man", somebody would catch it and correct it.

As Mr. Spock would point out, your argument below is full of logical holes.
0 Votes
+ -
You answered your own question: THe reason ANY political party would want to create a smokescreen, controversy, etc., is, in your words, "keep big business in control and making huge and obnoxious profits and the expense of the public."

You are quoting what I wrote, but you are not good at detecting or understanding when something is written as sarcasm.

Anyhow, if you really believe that what I wrote as sarcasm is the reality, then you are just as naive as the blogger that started this thread and "blueskip" (who has somehow decided not to answer my post to him; the coward!). If you really think that way, then you are just as nutty as most liberals who cannot think below the surface of any issue.

You have a huge chip on your shoulder where the Bush administration is concerned, apparently.

Garbage!

If the blogger had decided to leave politics out of the discussion, then the discussion would've continued without the current tangent to the conversation. But, the blogger decided to insert his personal political view into the discussion and didn't even bother to explain how what he stated was truth.

Furthermore, I'm not trying to defend Bush or his administration. If the blogger wanted to make a point and didn't elaborate on it, I challenged him to please explain what he meant. It seems to be that it is you and "bluechip" that have "chips" on your shoulders about anybody defending Bush.

BTW, though Bush called himself a republican, I never really considered to be a republican, but rather, a RINO (republican in name only). For most of what he did, especially on the social issues, I disagreed with him and I actually would've preferred a different republican to have occupied the White House for those 8 years he was there.

But, the fact is that, the blogger threw out a charge about Bush and left it hanging without any real explanation about what he meant.

I rather liked him (and his father, too) but neither was perfect,

Red herrings! Irrelevant!

You probably liked them a lot more than I did, but your points about them sound like a prelude to your disclaimer.

And, hey, who would've thunk it: they're not perfect?!?! You just destroyed all of my thought and idolizing about them. I'll have to get me some new political idols. Is Reagan still around somewhere?

and to even imply that any politician, of any political party, would do anything at all to help a small consumer in the climate that exists now is naive in the extreme.

You're reading a lot more into my post than I intended. Where do you come up with so many "red herrings"? What ocean do you reside next to?

Believe it or not, politicians, even with all the faults that come with them, are "expected" to work for the good of the people. Whether they deliver on the hopes of the people is a different matter. But, there really are politicians who still try to work to make matters and life, better for the people they serve.

If they accidentally did something that made it easier on "the little man",

That's a pretty naive and stupid statement. "Accidentally"? Really? That's so dopey. Really, I can't believe anyone would think as you do.

somebody would catch it and correct it.

So, with that kind of dopey thinking that you've exhibited, would the "attempt" to repeal Obamacare be an example of a policy being "caught and corrected"? Keep in mind that, the majority of "the little people" have stated their desire that Obamacare should be repealed.

As Mr. Spock would point out, your argument below is full of logical holes.

And, like Mr Spock, you're in an imaginary world. The logic of my arguments is apparently way beyond your capabilities to comprehend.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google's net neutrality defeat
clfitz 22nd Oct 2010
@adornoe@...
Again trying to deal with the broken threading here.

My post amounted to only one argument, really: You do not have enough evidence to conclude, from the blogger's post, that he was implying anything at all by using the Bush administration as a time stamp. To steal an analogy from someone else, just because the birth control pill was invented during the Kennedy administration doesn't mean the Kennedy administration had anything to do with it. It doesn't address cause or actor at all. He could as easily have said it was invented "sometime between 2001 and 2008".

That said, he may well have intended the statement to mean what you say it means (he probably did, and if so, I'm in agreement) but you don't have any basis for reaching that conclusion.

The rest of my comments stand. I no longer have faith in ANY politician, government entity, business or corporation to do anything at all except spin, market and twist.
my point that the blogger threw out an accusation regarding Bush's "desire to create controversy about net neutrality".

Neither the blogger nor you have explained away the fact that, it was a baseless accusation and intended just for the sake of vilifying Bush regarding the issue.

I could just as easily create an accusation about Clinton or Obama regarding any issue. That would be just as stupid as what the blogger did with accusing Bush about "creating controversy".

That said, he may well have intended the statement to mean what you say it means (he probably did, and if so, I'm in agreement) but you don't have any basis for reaching that conclusion.

That's not the way things should work. If somebody accuses you of doing something, then they should have the decency to explain their accusations. The blogger for this discussion intended to point the finger at Bush, and when he didn't back up the accusation, then he is guilty of journalistic malpractice.

So, when it comes to my points against the accusation and against the blogger, I'm the only one making a rational and coherent argument. Your point about me "not having any basis for reaching" my conclusions are illogical.

ZDNet is a division of CBS, and CBS is very liberal, and when it comes to politics, they play it all the time, and that includes demonizing anyone that is remotely republican or not liberal. So, the blogger's accusation and cheap shot is just more politics from those on the left who will do and say anything in order to score political points, even if they think that they're being subtle about it. It's the same kind of politics being used right now by Obama and the democrats with their accusation that the republicans are using foreign money to finance their campaigns against the democrats this election cycle. It is based on suspicion and innuendo and malicious intentions, and not on facts, and it's only intended to deflect attention from the real issues of the elections. Likewise, the blogger thought he could get away with his snide remarks and intentional and irresponsible jabs at Bush.

However, do you yourself believe that there is any basis at all for the blogger's accusation against the Bush administration that they were just trying to "create controversy" with internet neutrality? If you don't have an answer, then why do you insist on defending what the blogger stated; that just puts you on the same boat as the blogger.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google's net neutrality defeat
clfitz 22nd Oct 2010
@adornoe@...

My point is this: You are calling the statement the blogger made an accusation, just because he used the Bush administration as a timestamp.

I don't see an accusation at all, so any further argument is futile. You see an attack by liberals; I see a simple statement, akin to saying, "the computer was invented during the Eisenhower administration in order to make people's lives simpler."

My point, again, is simply that there is no way to conclude that the blogger is saying the Bush administration intended to create the controversy simply because it was invented during that time. The two are not necessarily linked. Notice, please, the word "NECESSARILY".

And yes, I DO believe that it was invented (at least partly) to create controversy. I do *not* necessarily believe that the Bush administration did it; it may well have been one of that administration's owners, such as Verizon, AT&T, or someone else.
When the blogger made the following statement:

Net neutrality was invented during the Bush administration to create controversy.

it was a clear and simple and "declarative" statement.

In other words the blogger "declared" that "net neutrality" was invented or declared by Bush. It can't get any simpler or clearer than that. Why do you insist on defending the blogger when he didn't leave any room for doubt that Bush invented "net neutrality" to "create controversy". The blogger didn't say "perhaps" or "maybe" or "probably" or "could have". The blogger made a direct accusation against Bush. So, why is that so hard for you to wrap your head around?

My point is this: You are calling the statement the blogger made an accusation, just because he used the Bush administration as a timestamp.

The blogger could have referred to the year that the term was first used. But, he chose the "Bush administration". The blogger could've said "the term or controversy first came about at around 2003", but no, he chose "Bush". That's accusatory.

I don't see an accusation at all, so any further argument is futile.

Yet, here you are arguing.

You see an attack by liberals;

You must be brand new to ZDNet blogs or you are a liberal yourself, because you haven't noticed the liberal slant to a lot of their posts.

I see a simple statement, akin to saying, "the computer was invented during the Eisenhower administration in order to make people's lives simpler."

You are so naive.

There is no controversy in inventing the computer. However, if the computer had been invented in order to control people's lives and to insert computerized chips in their bodies in order to keep track of everything people do, then it could've been interpreted as a harmful invention created by evil people. Then, somebody who wanted to get back at Eisenhower could point a finger at him for not preventing the "evil" invention, and that somebody could also state that "the harmful and evil computer was invented" during the Eisenhower administration. In that sense, Eisenhower would be indirectly getting blame for the "evil" invention because he didn't do enough to stop it. But, Eisenhower would not have been the inventor. Now, with "internet neutrality", the statement, "was created during the Bush administration" carries an accusation implying that, Bush was either responsible for creating the policy, or didn't do anything to prevent it. (Gosh, I feel like a kindergarten teacher trying to explain to a 6 year old the benefits of evolution; it would be almost impossible to explain to such an undeveloped mind).

My point, again, is simply that there is no way to conclude that the blogger is saying the Bush administration intended to create the controversy simply because it was invented during that time.

Accusations do not have to be direct. Can't you understand that? Statements that imply wrongdoing are just as damaging if they're not challenged.

Like I said in an earlier post, the democrats last week implied that the republicans were committing wrongdoing or were even being criminal because they were getting campaign financing from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce while that group also gets some of their own funding from some of their foreign affiliates. Now, the democrats insist that the republicans have to disclose the sources for that chamber of commerce of funding or they'll be violating campaign finance regulations. Though they're not directly accusing the republicans of criminal activity, they're implying it with their advertising and statements. So, the republicans have to defend against the "implied" accusations because, a falsehood repeated often enough tends to become "factual" in many people's minds. Same with the "implied", "Bush did it" when it comes to the statement by the blogger about net neutrality.

The two are not necessarily linked. Notice, please, the word "NECESSARILY".

Stop being so naive.

In the world of politics, "necessarily" doesn't exist, and an accusation tends to become fact if it's not rebutted.

And yes, I DO believe that it was invented (at least partly) to create controversy.

"Neutrality" sounds like a nice word, but when it's used as a backdoor for regulations or control, it's never a good thing. The controversy always stems from what opposing sides want to accomplish.

I do *not* necessarily believe that the Bush administration did it;

You might be right, but that's not what was implied by the accusation when the blogger intentionally used the words "during the Bush administration". Those are intentionally chosen words in order to demonize and accuse. He could've said that "it occurred while the debate about net neutrality was first initiated". But the blogger didn't say that, did he?

it may well have been one of that administration's owners, such as Verizon, AT&T, or someone else.

That sounds very stupid and very ignorant.

So, you're now making an accusation of your own?

So, the administration was "owned" by Verizon, ATT or someone else? Where do you get such garbage? So, who exactly was "owned"? Was it Bush, or Cheney, or Karl Rove? When you make an accusation, try to back it up with facts. So, bring on the facts.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google's net neutrality defeat
chartguy 20th Oct 2010
When you compare the bandwidth costs across countries, there seems to be an obvious relationship. The cost of bandwidth is inversely proportional to the population density. That makes sense, since lower population density means longer runs are required.
0 Votes
+ -
Don't throw logic onto the mix
Bruizer 23rd Oct 2010
@chartguy

This crowd can not handle that idea.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google's net neutrality defeat
e_caroline@... 20th Oct 2010
If you have even a tiny handle on "big numbers" the thing to be noted is how incredibly cheaply bought are the corrupt officials who are so easily bought.

What is amazing is the morons on both sides of the bribery checkbook.... the imbeciles who promise obdience for such tiny sums.... and the retards on corporate payrolls who pay so little and expect results.... which they pretty much don't get.

The real problem is mediocre trash.. of which there is a gigantic abundance..... on both sides of the corruption equation.

It is moronic trash buying off their own kind.. moronic trash... and getting trivial results compared to the investment.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google's net neutrality defeat
PassingWind 20th Oct 2010
The net IS a telecommunication service. It CARRIES information.
Just like the telephone.
Web sites provide information, just like old-fashioned advertising hoardings.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google's net neutrality defeat
Robert Hahn 20th Oct 2010
We had government regulation of telcos for 100 years. Weren't those the good old days of innovation and low prices? Imagine: landline telephones in colors other than black! The rotary dial replaced by pushbuttons! It was one Great Leap Forward after another. But then we abolished it. Now we are plagued with cellphones, PDAs, answering machines, 4G wireless networks being rolled out from sea to shining sea by not one, not two, but at least 4 different companies. And all because we got rid of the benevolent stewardship of our common carriers by the wonderful government.

The good news is, in two weeks the country will elect a Congress that will send the would-be re-regulators scurrying back under their rocks for a good ten years.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google's net neutrality defeat
mikefarinha 20th Oct 2010
@Robert Hahn

One can only hope...
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google's net neutrality defeat
progan01@... 20th Oct 2010
@Robert Hahn -- And when that happens, we'll spend five times as much to get one-quarter the service the rest of the world with their bad, bad, mean ol' regulators have to suffer under, all so that your wonderful 'innovators' can send an army of lobbyists to Washington to make sure those regulators keep on scurrying. Hey, you have a PDA and cellphones and the Internet -- you should be grateful, you little people you! Mmm -- maybe you don't pay ENOUGH!

If you let these people take over, and your Internet bill goes to $100 a month for 1.5 Gb/s downloads and no TV when the carriers disagree on their internal rates, don't come crying to me.
0 Votes
+ -
@Robert Hahn

While agree deregulation had some great impacts, your examples are not among them.
0 Votes
+ -
How neutral was this article?
tehpea 20th Oct 2010
The way you flame Portugal in the opening is preposterous, as well as nowhere near neutral and not what a journalist should do. We have better internet than you because we have a lot less territory to spread our awesome fibre optic cables around. That means great speeds.
0 Votes
+ -
Good day to confirm this comment I would appreciate T h e b e s t o f Z D N e t d e l i v e r e d your website very nice to everyone Yes, Oracle is the only one with shared-disk architecture, but that is there advantage. It means you can add or remove nodes and the database lives on. In a shared nothing architecture, if you lose a node, you lose the system. I'm sure Oracle appreciates EMC highlighting their advantage.I also desire to signal in your RSS feeds. Thank you as soon as once again and maintain up the great operate Awesome post! Thank you very much || thanks for nice content this is really benefit to me.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix