Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Preston Gralla's picture
Preston Gralla

Seeing Through Windows

Verizon: Evil Google has a "chokehold" on the Internet

Verizon, desperate to fend off net neutrality legislation, now has a new bogeyman: Google. It claims that Google has a "chokehold" on the Internet, and makes the bizarre claim that the reason Google backs net neutrality is that "Google doesn't want to compete."

So notes David Isenberg in a blog about a speech recently given by Verizon’s general counsel, William Barr.

Isenberg quotes Barr as saying that "Google doesn't want to compete," and that "Google is the gateway on the Internet, because it stands between you and the stuff you want to find. It has more of a choke hold than Verizon."

All this is the usual bluster and lies we've come to expect from telcos, who want to extort money from big Web sites if those sites want adequate bandwidth. Google has no chokehold, of course. People use it because it's the best search engine. If at any point a different one is better, people will flock to it.

The Verizon attack presents a new tactic --- try to portray Google and other sites as evil behemoths who need to be held in check, and the telcos as on the side of consumers.

As Paul Kaputska notes in his blog, "Expect to hear a whole lot more about how bad ol’ Google just wants to make money off the Internet without paying for it."

 

But the tactic won't work; very few people listen to telco lies these days. And even though net neutrality may face a tough time in Congress, the Democrats in control are a lot more likely to take action than did the Republicans.

 

What People Are Saying

Anonymous27: are you sure

Anonymous27: are you sure about those assertions?

I don't believe Google inflates the PageRank of its own sites. Do a Google search for "Internet Search Engine", "Web based email", or "webmail". The best counter example I can come up with for this right now is "how do I find videos on the web", which does indeed show YouTube in positions 2 and 3.

For sure there are many startups that fail. That's always the case. But consider that many of them are started with the specific goal of getting bought by Google. If you set out to do something you think will be interesting to Google, don't be surprised if they turn out to be developing it themselves already.

Do no evil is an anagram of

Do no evil is an anagram of "o no devil". Why not try out targ8 whos motto is dont google it, targ8 it. Just visit and you'll see why...

The argument (regardless of

The argument (regardless of source) has some merit. Net neutrality's premise is that control (even if the customer has alternatives) over internet content is wrong, but currently Google clearly exercises more control over what gets to consumers (and have not applied equivalent neutrality rules to themselves). There are many internet startups that have failed or that will never start because of a Google "beta" (that gets top-rate placement because its from Google).

politicians need money to

politicians need money to get elected, and then they need even more money to stay elected.

While dominating people's perceptions of the range of our country's political spectrum, the title "democrat" or "republican" only indicates which interests provide candidates with that money, the title does not provide a moral identity.

People usually lump themselves in with the party most similar to their overall worldview, but no free-thinking human I have met is completely a democrat or completely a republican, since neither term denotes an entirely specific set of beliefs or values.

like verizon's lawyers and lobbyists in general, politicians agree with those viewpoints that offer the best financial incentives, or they quickly are out of jobs.

To hope that the nature of politics will change is to hope that human nature will reverse course. If you think that this is gonna happen soon, I advise you to put down that ColecoVision controller long enough to slip back into reality.

It would be of great service

It would be of great service to consumers, if somebody could compare performance of free-market telcos against government-controlled systems. If the difference is not 100-fold in favor of free-market, I'd say kill the bastards and confiscate all stolen goods. Let's recall that Internet started (and its infrastructure's still based) on government and scientific institution. How many resellers is "sponsoring" the current free-market system?

I agree with you, anonymous.

I agree with you, anonymous.

I don't know why you think

I don't know why you think the Democrats are any more likely to take action on this. Their recent actions show they only care about power for themselves, and their record clearly demonstrates that they are just as beholden to business lobbyists as the Republicans are. If anything, their disdain for any 'outside imposition' of morality implies they are less likely to want to do anything that is right for the people or the country as a whole.