Telecom Chief Calls For Google/Facebook Regulation

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Should Google and Facebook be regulated just like telecoms? This guy thinks so.

The CEO of Deutsche Telekom has made a call for internet search/services giants Google and Facebook to be regulated in the same way as telecoms companies, arguing that the California-based digital goliath offers the same type of communications services which require telcos to submit to regulation.
Click to expand...
 
Does everyone have to be bought and paid for?
"Join our corruption, or die!!!" -Every CEO and politician ever :rolleyes:
 
The big difference is that the "customer" of FB and The Google -- they don't pay for the services rendered..."directly". Meaning there is no exchange of legal tender. We do pay with our web browsing, searching, usage, purchasing, and other personal data. How do you regulate that?
 
The thing with FB and Google is that we are not the customers, we are the product.
 
No. they don't provide the connectivity. GTFO CEOTDASSHOLE
 
Because regulation is for companies that actually build things, not companies that strip mine your data and track your entire internet experience so they can pimp you out to advertisers, amirite?

The big difference is that the "customer" of FB and The Google -- they don't pay for the services rendered..."directly". Meaning there is no exchange of legal tender. We do pay with our web browsing, searching, usage, purchasing, and other personal data. How do you regulate that?
Click to expand...

Oh don't worry, they'll just move their IP overseas and then pay "licensing" fees to their tax havens.
 
flashoverride said:
Because regulation is for companies that actually build things, not companies that strip mine your data and track your entire internet experience so they can pimp you out to advertisers, amirite?



Oh don't worry, they'll just move their IP overseas and then pay "licensing" fees to their tax havens.
Click to expand...

Eliminate income tax, go to consumption tax. advertiser buys google advertising, thats a financial transaction, gets taxed, doesn't matter what country google is out of. Problem solved.
 
Google and Facebook are NOT utilities, if you dont like or agree with their services DONT USE THEM.

Google and Facebook should be able to tell all of their users that the Moon is made of green cheese and that Jimmy Hoffa is Santa Claus and there is nothing the gov't can do about it (nor should they be able to do about it).
 
virtualheretic said:
Google and Facebook are NOT utilities, if you dont like or agree with their services DONT USE THEM.

Google and Facebook should be able to tell all of their users that the Moon is made of green cheese and that Jimmy Hoffa is Santa Claus and there is nothing the gov't can do about it (nor should they be able to do about it).
Click to expand...

Good times, good times. You didn't have to use Windows or Internet Explorer back in the day either, but that didn't stop lawsuits and the government threatening to break up Microsoft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.
 
flashoverride said:
Good times, good times. You didn't have to use Windows or Internet Explorer back in the day either, but that didn't stop lawsuits and the government threatening to break up Microsoft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.
Click to expand...
from your own source:
"The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating system and web browser sales. The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. It was further alleged that this restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct."

tldr version: Microsoft's bad business practices led to the lawsuit.
 
flashoverride said:
Because regulation is for companies that actually build things, not companies that strip mine your data and track your entire internet experience so they can pimp you out to advertisers, amirite?



Oh don't worry, they'll just move their IP overseas and then pay "licensing" fees to their tax havens.
Click to expand...

At least you can continue crying about it then...
 
Google will be covered by the regulations where they provide connectivity services (which is what the Title II rules cover) ... Facebook and Microsoft do not provide connectivity nor does Google search ... although information may be power as he noted, there is no USA law that requires the regulation or monitoring of the information on the internet for accuracy or balance (nor would I want government to to get involved in that morass) ;)
 
Hypergreatthing said:
from your own source:
"The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating system and web browser sales. The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. It was further alleged that this restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct."

tldr version: Microsoft's bad business practices led to the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

So, Google's practices - which currently include shutting out competitor's platforms, which is precisely what Microsoft got in trouble for - are okay now, but they weren't okay then?

Or ... ?

If I'm reading this correctly, you seem to be saying those practices are okay when someone you like does them, but not okay when someone you don't like does them.
 
Shouldn't the title read European telco wants foreign competitors regulated for its own benefit.
 
The difference is that TelCo's own and maintain networks. Facebook and Google (Fiber aside) don't.
 
flashoverride said:
So, Google's practices - which currently include shutting out competitor's platforms, which is precisely what Microsoft got in trouble for - are okay now, but they weren't okay then?

Or ... ?

If I'm reading this correctly, you seem to be saying those practices are okay when someone you like does them, but not okay when someone you don't like does them.
Click to expand...
Who does google shut out?
There are many competing search engines.
Android is open source. Branches like kindle are there already.
Google fiber is a competitor to existing ISPs.

Does google make deals with hardware manufacturers strong arming them into including the OS (chrome OS maybe?) and excluding others?
 
If he is suggesting that Google and Facebook should be covered by Net Neutrality rules, there aren't any yet ... even when there are they are going to be more focused on the connectivity providers and not the portal or service providers ...

although both Google and Facebook may be information brokers (of a sort), they are both voluntary services that are provided FoC ... because of the way they obtain financing through advertising or purchases within their system they will always have a certain preference for things that benefit their service while you are using their service (the sponsored links at the top of the search results) ... net neutrality is intended to prevent them from gaining advantage by negotiating preferential performance with the connectivity providers ... by prohibiting the connectivity companies from creating fast or slow lanes they are already covered ... additional regulation of their services would serve no useful purpose and would likely be illegal under the current laws ... this is just DT posturing to make the law look untenable ;)
 
Hypergreatthing said:
Who does google shut out?
There are many competing search engines.
Android is open source. Branches like kindle are there already.
Google fiber is a competitor to existing ISPs.

Does google make deals with hardware manufacturers strong arming them into including the OS (chrome OS maybe?) and excluding others?
Click to expand...

Windows Phone.

Oh, and while Google Fiber runs last-mile access due to sweetheart deals with municipalities, they pay other ISPs for backhaul transport. Why do you think they paid for Net Neutrality regulation which included the government's ability to regulate interconnections? Now the government can force the other ISPs to accept settlement-free peering from Google, to include all YouTube traffic.

Too bad Google don't have an s in their name we can switch to $. Maybe folks would start understanding they are, in fact, one of those evil corporations.
 
flashoverride said:
Windows Phone.

Oh, and while Google Fiber runs last-mile access due to sweetheart deals with municipalities, they pay other ISPs for backhaul transport. Why do you think they paid for Net Neutrality regulation which included the government's ability to regulate interconnections? Now the government can force the other ISPs to accept settlement-free peering from Google, to include all YouTube traffic.

Too bad Google don't have an s in their name we can switch to $. Maybe folks would start understanding they are, in fact, one of those evil corporations.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the windows phone's youtube app that allows downloading of videos even though it's against the TOS? Please tell me you have other examples.
Interconnections should be a shared cost. The customers whom the ISPs sell to are demanding content on youtube. Why should google pay for that? And you're saying google, but google hasn't been in the news, it's been netflix. Why should netflix pay ISPs just to allow their service to go through their network at a reasonable rate? It's the customers who are demanding that service and the ISPs should be beholden to the customers. Ohh that's right, because of local monopolies, the ISPs can play games with netflix access because if there was choice everyone would switch to the service who didn't throttle netflix.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
Are you talking about the windows phone's youtube app that allows downloading of videos even though it's against the TOS? Please tell me you have other examples.
Interconnections should be a shared cost. The customers whom the ISPs sell to are demanding content on youtube. Why should google pay for that? And you're saying google, but google hasn't been in the news, it's been netflix. Why should netflix pay ISPs just to allow their service to go through their network at a reasonable rate? It's the customers who are demanding that service and the ISPs should be beholden to the customers. Ohh that's right, because of local monopolies, the ISPs can play games with netflix access because if there was choice everyone would switch to the service who didn't throttle netflix.
Click to expand...


Because the internet - the layers 1-4 portions of it - cost hundreds of billions of dollars to install and tens of billions annually to operate, and the tier 1 ISPs have made that investment because they thought they could make a good ROI selling transport.

Cogent throttled Netflix. COGENT. NETFLIX'S OWN ISP. Once Netflix built out their own CDN, it actually reduced their costs and improved service.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
Are you talking about the windows phone's youtube app that allows downloading of videos even though it's against the TOS? Please tell me you have other examples.
Interconnections should be a shared cost. The customers whom the ISPs sell to are demanding content on youtube. Why should google pay for that? And you're saying google, but google hasn't been in the news, it's been netflix. Why should netflix pay ISPs just to allow their service to go through their network at a reasonable rate? It's the customers who are demanding that service and the ISPs should be beholden to the customers. Ohh that's right, because of local monopolies, the ISPs can play games with netflix access because if there was choice everyone would switch to the service who didn't throttle netflix.
Click to expand...

Don't feed the troll...
 
flashoverride said:
Because the internet - the layers 1-4 portions of it - cost hundreds of billions of dollars to install and tens of billions annually to operate, and the tier 1 ISPs have made that investment because they thought they could make a good ROI selling transport.

Cogent throttled Netflix. COGENT. NETFLIX'S OWN ISP. Once Netflix built out their own CDN, it actually reduced their costs and improved service.
Click to expand...
All of the build out was subsidized with tax payer money. They're sitting on their asses while other countries surpass us in terms of service/speed/reliability. They've also recouped the costs associated over 100 times.
Cogent didn't throttle anyone. A simple vpn on any isp who throttles netflix can get you the speed to stream without buffering. That's only possible if the ISP is doing packet inspection and throttling.
You're either hugely misinformed or a telecom shill/lobbyist.
 
Facebook is generally the place where the lowest dregs of society collect in kinda like an online crackhouse of mutual dumb even worse than 4chan and Google is the most invasive, pervasive, revoltingly awful company to crawl from the collected slime pit of corporate entities. Both should be forcefully taken over by a government and shutdown post haste, but they're not utilities and shouldn't be treated like they're more important than they really are.
 
Extra taxes for something that no one sees as necessary, no thanks.
 
gamerk2 said:
The difference is that TelCo's own and maintain networks. Facebook and Google (Fiber aside) don't.
Click to expand...
They both provide services like mail, Voice, Video, data storage.

There's a ton of overlap despite Google only dipping its toes in hardware aside from hardware.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top