and

kudos to Uncle Mike.

“Google’s choke hold”, give me a break. Like today’s my first day on the `net and the telco’s offer me a great, cheap product.

Google grew its monopoly by offering consumers a product they want, and everyone bought it. They use open APIs, and anyone can join the party. However, if Google did exhibit the exercise of market power in the search field (as Microsoft attempted to do) then they too would be subject to criminal antitrust prosecution, certainly in the EU.

Verizon and AT&T control the one (or second) pipe into your house, and your neighborhood. It was built with massive public subsidies, and is owned by the public.

Verizon won’t compete against AT&T, and vice versa. Their plans are to remain solely within their monopoly local service areas. There are no competitive business plans announced by either of these companies. Don’t lose sleep waiting for it.

Sorry, but I just can’t fake kurt’s well tested and much copied ‘aw shucks’ kind of post. But search the web, and you’ll see his unmistakable posts everywhere.

Uncle Mike

To top it all off, it won’t matter if you get access to the last mile if you can’t leave that network and it’s an international(not just USA) group of networks which comprise the internet. If these people were so worried about equality and leveling the playing field, you would think they would be ensuring that third world countries get access to other networks via peering instead of trying to stop businesses from making money. They aren’t doing this because they aren’t concerned in the least with a level playing field, they’re concerned with making a name for themselves, covering up their own missteps by transferring ‘blame’ on to market dynamics or they just are flat out ignorant.

WRT Google, of course they are getting so broad in scope and depth that they could, should and do pose threats to competing businesses but guess what, that is what known as an incentive to start a business, that one day you will have that market strength. It’s called efficiency and whoever is able to deliver the most efficient product will be able to deliver the most value to their customers by both price comparison and scope because as we’re seeing with google, they reinvest their nasty old profit (it’s really not a four letter word) back into the company for the development of new products and services.

Think this is all rhetoric? Take a look at the technological progression of Europe or APAC or South America against the US. US has a gov’t intervention hangover and there isn’t a new day in sight.

Google has the upper hand in the current fight between telcos and large web sites, but their good-guy image prevents analysts from realizing this fact…

not sure what you are saying, but clearly my sarcasm about “free” did not get through clearly.

I have spoken before of the abuse of the word “free” when it comes to telephony.

And today, a statement by Om Malik just set me off. He said:

[Unity is] a nifty marketing ploy that would allow big-spending AT&T wireless and wireline customers to call each other for free. (emphasis added)

“To call each other for free.” There it is again. The telco marketing execs must be proud. In order to qualify for the Unity plan, you have to PAY for an unlimited calling plan on your wireline service (that’s an extra $40) AND you also have to PAY for a more expensive wireless plan (an extra $20 or more, depending on the minute plan you could otherwise be on). You are PAYING for those calls. THEY ARE NOT FREE!

A Skype to Skype call is free. A PhoneGnome to PhoneGnome call is free. A call that is included in my $100+ monthly service fee is NOT free any more than a mile I drive is “free” with a fill up of fuel in my car.

No wonder the telephone companies, both wireline and wireless, abuse us so badly. There are no consquences for their actions. Even smart people like Om Malik, Andy Abramson, and countless others repeat the telco’s marketing spin for them. We all do it. I don’t mean to single out Om. You probably hear people say it almost every day. If you read industry news, you’ll see someone in the media or a blogger do it almost every day. We put up with the outrageous fees and horrible customer service of these companies. We take it with a smile. Why should they change their behavior when there are no consequences for not doing so? They will continue to rape us until we change our behavior and start fighting back a little.

If the Bells don’t want to be common carriers any more, that’s fine: they can start paying franchise fees for their rights of way like everyone else who wants access to the last mile. With some actual competition on a level playing field for residential broadband service, this whole debate would be moot.

When word got out that the FCC agreed to the terms of the Bell South/ATT merger with a supposed caveat that Net Neutrality principals must be followed for a good spell, one might have expected that the advocates for NN…

Why shouldn’t we be concerned about concentrating such power and control in single organization, however cuddly and good-intentioned they seem to be?

While I agree net neutrality is a legitimate concern, I don’t think it should be resolved by legislation.

If the govt intervenes in either case though, we’ll simply wind up with bureaucrats choosing the “winners” and stifling the creative entrepreneurial energy that we’ve all enjoyed so far.