NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Google and ISPs
------- Forwarded Message From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com> To: Brett Glass <nnsquad@brettglass.com> cc: Barry Gold <bgold@matrix-consultants.com> Subject: Re: [ NNSquad ] Re: FCC paths to Internet network management? (from IP) Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:25:36 -0800 Golly, I didn't realize that you were such an expert on Google, Brett. And your certainty about so many complex issues, from your own rights vs. the powers of regulators, to how courts will rule on complicated technical issues, is sort of refreshing in a bible-thumping kind of way. But your own analysis notwithstanding, both Google's public statements and my own sources suggested strongly that Google was "not amused" by the Rogers message insertion experiments (experiments which I originally revealed last December in: http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000337.html ). Other unofficial statements implied that they hoped ISPs would decide not to proceed with broad deployment of such systems, which could render the need for legal action moot. But if ISPs plow forward anyway, Google's actions in this regard will be theirs to determine -- not yours, or mine. I will however offer two free truisms: 1) Some of the smartest people I've ever known are now at Google. It's unwise in the extreme to *ever* underestimate Google. 2) Google is very protective of their brand -- as I would be if I were in their position. But that being said, anybody outside of Google who really believes that they have such a handle on Google's strategic planning that they can predict Google's future actions with any degree of certainty is a fool. - --Lauren-- NNSquad Moderator - - - > At 04:17 PM 2/29/2008, Barry Gold wrote: > > >Google will _make_ it their business, in one of several ways. One option, of course, is the courts. Their pages are copyright (at least, the logos and lay > out are, and I suspect a compilation copyright would apply to the information). Read up on "derivative works". > > Google is too smart to pursue such a suit. > > First of all, it'd lose. A window with two things in it -- a notice and a Web page -- is not a derivative work any more than a desktop with two windows on it > , or a framed Web page, or for that matter a shop window with two books in it, is. > > Secondly, Google is not in the business of harassing or antagonizing ISPs and would be ill advised to do so. ISPs are their customers and their way of reachi > ng the rest of the world. Google -- which wants to avoid becoming an ISP itself -- needs them as allies. > > Thirdly, Google would lose a big advantage if ISPs were required to allow P2P. Right now, Vuze, Inc. is trying to compete with YouTube without buying the sor > t of pipes that Google can afford. It's doing this by stealing the bandwidth from users' ISPs. If ISPs are required to allow this theft, Google loses its edg > e. > > Finally, Google has more important fish to fry. It needs to fend off Microsoft. > > --Brett Glass > ------- End of Forwarded Message