AT&T Rubs 'don't be evil' in Google's Face
mashable.com
mashable.com
An IM provider, such as Yahoo, can offer any level of service they choose. They can choose to not allow you to message Skype accounts. Likewise, VOIP is a service. A VOIP service can offer any level of service they choose, and the network provider has no say whatsoever in the transaction. Don't like Google's service? Use another one that offers the services you want, all while keeping the same neutral network connection. Just what about this is so bloody hard to understand?
Net neutrality means AT&T cannot prioritize traffic to different sites. But Goog wants to remain able to prioritize its own search results...effectively prioritizing traffic to different sites!
Google, on the other hand, can only prioritize sites for people who visit its site, or search through something else that uses Google’s API.
People are free to search with Bing, they are not free to ask that their routers avoid AT&T’s network.
First consider it from the perspective of a packet receiver for a second (because, among other things, this is how Goog and Yahoo were thinking about it when they supported net neutrality).
-- If AT&T deprioritizes your inbound packets, it's like losing several US states worth of traffic. Your main option: pay AT&T more to prioritize your packets.
-- If Goog deprioritizes you out of their search rankings, again, like losing several states (or countries) worth of traffic. Your option: pay Goog to place you more prominently via AdWords.
> People are free to search with Bing, they are not free to ask that their routers avoid AT&T’s network.
From the perspective of a packet receiver, you cannot realistically make your customers switch from Goog anymore than you can make them avoid routing packets through AT&T connections.
> then anyone whose connection gets passed to AT&T at any point in the routing would be affected, even if neither the provider nor consumer is a customer of AT&T.
Also, a second point: when I make a telephone call to a business, I have no idea whether AT&T dropped the connection or what if it doesn't go through. I just give up on that business and call another business.
Similarly, if a business isn't in the organic top 10 on Goog, I don't even know about it. I just use another business. Note that in this situation neither I nor the business am paying Goog money.
Of course the business can use Adwords, but that's like paying AT&T to prioritize their packets.
It is a lot easier to change/create a search provider since there is nothing that has locked you in as such. But remember you are there because you find their walled garden useful.
However you don't have a choice if your packets are going to traverse AT&T. Also on some level creating a new search engine is a less costly task that rolling out new internet infrastructure. If AT&T shaping was opt-in and they didn't unfairly discriminate against those who haven't opted in ;) but that means you have to trust them to be benevolent.
They can do good with shaping, just like google does good with ranking. However once you grant them this power, you better hope they don't use it in an anticompetitive way.
On the other hand, AT&T either has a physical monopoly or is part of a duopoly of broadband in many markets. If AT&T pulls shenanigans often enough, even if users do notice, they can't switch to some other provider easily. So AT&T can be evil, and people have to accept it, because there isn't much other choice.
If the capital costs of becoming a broadband provider were as low as being a search engine, regulation wouldn't be necessary. But since the landscape isn't competitive due to physical limitations, and AT&T has a history of being evil, regulation seems necessary.