[IP] more on Google and 'neutrality' hypocrisy
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jim Forster <forster@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 24, 2006 6:53:27 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Google and 'neutrality' hypocrisy
Dave: for IP.
From: Pamela Jones <pjgrok@xxxxxxx>
Google doesn't do that. They accept money for AdWords Ads that show
on a page, on the right side of the page, as you can see here,
http://www.google.com/ads/ , but you don't get a higher placement
in the search results.
Actually, to me it seems pretty similar and quite relevant. With
both Google & the proposed ILEC scheme, a content producer has the
option of paying an intermediary for preferential treatment, or not.
I could imagine a web-like guide for IPTV, with sponsored content in
the same right side of the page, and un-sponsored content on the
left, just like Google search results. In some cases, especially
with a disk at home in the IPTV datapath (home PVR), page position
and knowledge of search history is more valuable than preferential
QoS that everyone talks about.
I don't have a problem with what Google is doing now, or the analog
for IPTV that I've portrayed, as long as they offer these services to
anyone willing to pay, and then treat them the same as others paying
the same.
That's a loose definition of common carriage.
Part of our problem grappling with this brave new world of the
Internet these days is that only recently have access and content
businesses figured out ways to do business with each other.
Naturally they're arguing and fighting about how to do it. Earlier
it was kind of weird in that they both needed each other, but they
had no ways to do deals with each other.
-- Jim
Here's a fascinating proposal from Congress on "discriminatory"
behavior at Google. The proposal states that search engines can
not provide preferential treatment (higher listing locations) for
companies that pay them ad fees. Does this sound like any other
proposed business models or regulatory battles we know about? Net
neutrality ring a bell?
Basically, the proposal, intentionally I believe, draws an analogy
between the business models of Google and Yahoo! with the proposed
models from the service providers which would like to charge for
premium treatment (access, ranking in search, etc.). What's
particularly amusing about this is Google is now in a rather
awkward position... Arguing that service providers can not provide
preferred treatment while Google can. Very creative, and I would
guess that the idea was planted by a telco lobbyist.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6346096.html
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/