Blogger News Network

From the Associated Press...

Internet giant Google said Tuesday that the wide variety of Web sites might shrink if broadband providers like AT&T start charging companies for premium access to high-speed networks.

The Bell companies promised members of the Senate Commerce Committee that they have no plans to block Internet services. Lawmakers are considering legislation to guarantee consumers open access to the Internet _ a notion those in the industry refer to as "net neutrality."

AT&T Inc. and BellSouth Corp. in particular have suggested charging Internet services such as Google Inc., Yahoo Inc. and Vonage Holdings Corp. for the high-quality delivery of their content over the phone companies' networks. The phone companies say they're investing billions of dollars upgrading their broadband networks and should be able to recoup that cost.

I generally limit my quotes to no more than four paragraphs (unless too many of the paragraphs are only one sentence) in order to respect the rights of the original publisher of the article, but occasionally I'll go beyond that when the need presents itself. In this case I want to introduce the gist of the story, then comment on several paragraphs. So excuse me if I quote more than my usual, and please go read to original (linked above)

So, in summary, "the Bells" want to charge more for the better network they build. Sounds fair to me, let's hear what the users (Google, Yahoo, et al) are saying...

Critics worry the Bells could discriminate against certain Internet companies and limit what consumers see when they go online.

This would be the exact same search engines that kowtowed to the Chinese Communists and allowed their services to be filtered in accordance with Communist propaganda needs? This would be the search engines that routinely block Christian and Conservative sites as "hate sites" and refuse to include them in news aggregators. Do they have a search for "hypocrite"?

For example, they say, a tiered service would allow Verizon and AT&T to give priority to Yahoo's search engine over Google's _ leaving consumers with long wait times to access Google services. Smaller companies could be run out of business, they argue.

And the media's obsession with promoting Google as a verb, which gives it a tremendous marketing advantage over Yahoo and other search engines is supposed to be fair? If Google wants fair, they need to at least demonstrate they understand the concept.

Cerf and Vonage Chairman Jeffrey Citron advocated legislation that keep phone or cable companies from blocking access or discriminating against certain Internet companies. The main trade associations for the phone and cable companies argued against legislation, saying it's not needed because they have no intention of impeding access to the Internet.

Okay, here I have to side with the critics. That the Bells don't do it, or claim they won't isn't really the point. That they can, is. Unless they can show why such legislation would pose an actual problem, they have no real argument against it.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said consumers already pay broadband providers for access to the Internet and questioned the need for additional charges.

So they arguments the Democrats throw out in defense of the corporation which lavishly donate to them, is that the people need to be screwed, not the Liberal big businesses. Okay, AT&T also donates to the DNC and has joined in the PC idiocy, but it's still ironic that the Democrats' rational is that the people should have to pay, not the corporations.

I still can't get away from the simple concept that if I build a better mouse-trap, then I darn well deserve the right to charge more for it. In all its efforts at diversifying, has Google (or Yahoo) tried to build their own network? They sure seem willing to diversify into smaller markets in order to run smaller businesses out of there. Too many of today's "markets" are monopoly oriented in the sense that they see the only viable future is to become THE company that provides a service and wipes out all competition. Monopolies are the death knell of Capitalism, and Capitalism is the life blood of any free society. Ma Bell was broken up, but the mini-bells still maintain a functional monopoly. This story pits one group of monopolists against another, both arguing that their efforts to monopolize are "just" while their opponents are just greedy.