Sure he is.

.

The Times had an article on Google's massive computer complex in Gresham, OR. They may not be as credible as the Orange County Register, but what can you do.

Google's corporate interests vs. AT&T's corporate interests, who really cares?

Ed Whitacre, his methods, his company and not to mention a little NSA domestic spy ring and well, you know: I care. Call me a concerned citizen, or is that too old fashioned for you?

You hate Ed Whitacre so Americans can't have Quality of Service on their Internet connections to fend off performance degradation caused by somebody else's BitTorrent?

That's smart.

put words in my mouth. For someone who is concerned about astroturfers from the net neutrality camp, you sure act like one for the telco shills. Are you sure you aren't a paid shill for Ed and his boys? Are you sure you and Charlie Gonzalez don't hang out at anti-net neutrality pic-nics?

Wyden wasn't laughed off anything, and quickly learned he was wrong. He definitely jumped the gun and misunderstands the issue, though.

As to Google, who cares? I'll flip the rhetoric on you. Verizon and AT&T are digging up our backyards (and front yards) all over the country, including almost assuredly somewhere "right down I-84 from Portland, with the intent on cornering the market on" video, period.

You write off hard coded net neutrality principles at your own risk, though do note I'm not saying better bills shouldn't and couldn't be written.

"Round and round, round we go." - Tupac

AT&T faces competition from Comcast and all that spiffy new wireless stuff, but I'm not sure who Google's natural foe is. Their market share has been as high as 75% of the search market.

a few years ago when Lycos was at the top, or remember Altavista? Then it was Yahoo! and now we have Google. Who will replace them?

Well, if we don't re-impose the net neutrality principle maybe no one will ever replace them because the barriers to entry will be too high and then we will be stuck with an inferior product, like MSFT IE, until Firefox came along and force MSFT to innovate--er, copy Firefox.

And you can't regulate the Internet like it was a telegraph network.

Think about it. Do all web sites load equally fast today? Is anybody going to take search away from Google when they bring a million computers on-line?

The net neutrality movement is stuck in 1983.

All web sites never loaded equally fast. They're different sizes.

Google's success lies in its simplicity and perceptions of its search algorithms, not in a million online computers. If that were the case, then Yahoo and Google would be much closer in the search race.

If you're going to argue, at least prove to me that there's no other way to provide reliable IP video than prioritization, that the Internet is indeed becoming clogged, that skyrocketing bandwidth availability doesn't solve some of the problem by itself, that we can't optimize TCP via other methods, that the telcos will be transparent with their tiered services, that whatever prioritization telcos themselves do shouldn't be available to others, that walled gardens won't have any effect on the rest of Internet traffic, etc.

Note that I'm not talking about Akamai, I'm not talking about private MPLS, and I'm not even talking about (at least for now) the already non-neutral wireless and cellular networks. I'm talking about the open Internet and the multimedia services telcos want to provide on their own.

I've yet to see a cogent argument as to why we should just willy nilly throw net neutrality out the window as a set of enforceable principles and FCC rules or even a well-written law. Just as the other side is full of hyperbole, the "hands off the Internet" crowd ::cringe:: is full of rhetoric and the same.

"Round and round, round we go." - Tupac

If Google's success doesn't depend in comoute power, why are they spending all that money in Oregon? CNet has a story about it today.

I can prove mathematically and empirically that the rise of BitTorrent makes prioritization (or some other QoS scheme) necessary, but would you understand the argunment? So far, the pro-regulation side has basically made an arguement that boils down to "I don't like Ed Whitacre 'cause he reminds of my daddy" and hasn't addressed traffic mangement at all.

And BTW, there has never been a law affected the Internet that says all packets are equal. That's a myth, and if you think otherwise kindly provide a reference to the section of US Codes where you think it exists. And just for the record, the telecom regulations that used to apply to DSL have no such provision, and the DSL isn't the Internet in any case, just one of several ways to access it.

I should have said Google's success doesn't depend exclusively in computing power, as you seemed to argue. Who cares if they are spending all that money in Oregon? Even if AT&T does set up a tiered Internet, Google will be able to afford it. It's not Google I'm worried about. It is, as I mention, the YouTubes of the world as well as many others.

I'd definitely like to see that math. BTW, what datasets will you be using? Are they available for public use and analysis?

As for the third graf, I never said there was. Does it matter that there wasn't a law before when the nuanced principles of the open Internet are what is at stake -- on both sides?

"Round and round, round we go." - Tupac

Wait, I thought you were talking about video? As for the search market, Yahoo is another dominant competitor and there are scores of others. As for video, think iTunes, Veoh, YouTube, iFilm, and every major media company that has video online.

In terms of AT&T, let's not forget their market share has been as high as 100% of the voice market. And in most places in this country, there are only two possibilities at max to choose between for Internet access. A duopoly does not competition make.

"Round and round, round we go." - Tupac