More on Googlezon vs Bambi
Wired has a long, detailed explanation of Google’s slide from protector of the Internet to Carrier-Humping Net Neutrality Surrender Monkey.
While most analysis has pointed out that the wireless part of the deal reeks, Wired also points out that the wired form of “net neutrality” that Googlezon proposes has a giant loophole that benefits the big ISPs. ISPs are free to offer exclusive services to their customers. So, ISPs (which are mainly cable companies) can offer a bundled, loss-leading video service to drive competitors like Hulu and Netflix out of the market. Once they’ve captured the market, they’re free to price video any way they’d like.
This is the same tactic that cable providers used with telephone and DVR. Cable providers bundled telephone service to make third parties like Vonage marginal players. Similarly, cable operators bundled their own DVRs and made it very difficult or impossible for TiVo to connect to their system.
It’s impossible for entrepreneurial companies to compete with bundling, and Google has become complicit with Verizon in an effort to keep bundling alive, all to get more eyeballs on mobile ads.
Don’t know why everyone is hating on this decision. This is undoubtedly the best deal we can get in a country like this, so yelling about it is unproductive and wasteful.
See, kids? Nothing Can Be Done. Much better to get something through a preemptive compromise than attempt to get too much and fail.
August 11th, 2010 at 7:31 am
The FCC had better do its job here.
This is like the US Postal Service saying to people:
You live in a rural area, it costs a lot in gas, so your stamps are going to cost $.85.
And you live in an urban hellhole, security and theft, so your stamps are goint to cost $1.50.
Oh, you live in a nice rich gated community, so your stamps will cost $.25.
Now let’s talk about your magazine subsriptions. We’ve decided we’re going to charge YOU for getting them, and not the publisher for sending them.
MSM rags – $1.00.
Rightie mags – $.50.
Leftie mags – $2.00.
Straight porn – $3.00
Gay porn – $10.00
August 11th, 2010 at 7:48 am
De-lurking for a moment to ask why anyone is surprised at this development? Did someone actually believe the “don’t be evil” crap? Hahahaha.
August 11th, 2010 at 7:53 am
The point was made a few days ago—the reason for regulation is to force corporations to do things that are in the public interest. Evil, not evil, whatever—net neutrality is plainly in the public interest—and if it costs the cable companies or Verizon or Google a few dollars or a few opportunities to make profits, that’s just the way it is.
August 11th, 2010 at 8:10 am
What bugs me, and I actually kind of like the bundling option, is that cable companies want to lock you into 2 year contracts now like the wireless carriers. Not sure if I have a point, just throwing it out there.
August 11th, 2010 at 8:13 am
In 2005, On the Media ran a “Googlezon” type story based on am imaginary scenario of a merger between Google and Amazon, but the story focused on the media. Pretty fascinating.
http://www.onthemedia.org/tran.....5/12/02/08
August 11th, 2010 at 9:15 am
Uhm… who cares what happens to Netflix or Hulu? What matters is who owns the content I want to see. Time Warner and Comcast and whomever else are going to find a way to charge you to watch their stuff… whether that’s through Hulu or Netflix or a video player from the cable companies themselves is completely irrelevant. Note that you already have to pay for Netflix, and you will have to for Hulu soon. How is “net neutrality” protecting me here?
Unless you mean bit torrents?
August 11th, 2010 at 9:35 am
It matters what happens to the companies that stream the media to you in the sense that they may be more inclined to be innovative than the ISP overlords, and also may try to attract you to their innovation by providing their service for less money. Hulu is studio owned and Netflix made its bones through snail mail, but other services like Skype would clearly conflict with Verizon. And many other ideas which could make us each billionaires if we made them happen- and if we also could gain equitable access to the network.
Basically it’s the problem with cartels all around.
August 11th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Nonsense. Only if we could afford server farms to compete with established heavy weights… and if we can afford that we can afford to pay an ISP for higher tier access to customers. What should I care that an internet startup needs marginally more capital from extraordinarily rich investors for whatever their idea is? The next Twitter or Facebook needs massive investment server side to have any chance of success… so what difference does net neutrality make? You say Facebook and Verizon team up to kill it? Verizon’s not the only carrier… make a deal with somebody else.
August 11th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
This post would have more teeth if there weren’t a GoogleAd next to it.
August 11th, 2010 at 6:35 pm