Along the lines of my post last night about the WSJ’s claim that Google is abandoning the concept of network neutrality, Larry Lessig posted this to his blog, calling the situation a made-up drama. Specifically Lessig is responding to suggestions that his stance on network neutrality has changed. Rather it seems that WSJ is simply discovering nuance that was there all along.
The WSJ article has been a hot topic in the blogosphere today (I’ve been sharing some news using Google Reader as I’ve come across it). This illustrates for me the fact that there is still a need for a firm definition of network neutrality. It’s still too easy for journalists, think tanks, pundits and hacks to try to claim that something does or does not “violate” the principal of network neutrality.
In today’s Washington Post there is an article about the State Department using Google to identify Iranians to sanction for their role in developing the country’s nuclear capability. This article is an example of the poor application of Internet searching, and the potential application of the results of said poor searching is a cause for concern. If you’re going to use the Internet as part of your sourcing strategy it is worth your time to learn how to do it right.
Frustrated, the State Department assigned a junior Foreign Service officer to find the names another way — by using Google. Those with the most hits under search terms such as “Iran and nuclear,” three officials said, became targets for international rebuke Friday when a sanctions resolution circulated at the United Nations.
…
An initial Internet search yielded over 100 names, including dozens of Iranian diplomats who have publicly defended their country’s efforts as intended to produce energy, not bombs, the sources said. The list also included names of Iranians who have spoken with U.N. inspectors or have traveled to Vienna to attend International Atomic Energy Agency meetings about Iran.
The potential for open source secondary research for government intelligence and security research is significant. That potential is only going to realized if you apply appropriate techniques in your searching and then conduct the appropriate analysis to place your results within the context of the situation or subject.
Technorati Tag: Competitive Intelligence
Vint Cerf, Father of the Internet and a vice president with Google, mentioned this week that the company might file antitrust complaints against telco and cablecos that block the Internet traffic of competing services. A piece on Yahoo! has more detail.
“If we are not successful in our arguments … then we will simply have to wait until something bad happens and then we will make known our case to the Department of Justices anti-trust division,” {Cerf] said on Tuesday.
I think a claim of anti-trust violation only really works against broadband providers if the DOJ and courts can accept a claim that a monopoly of Layers 1 and 2 (and perhaps Layer 3) of the OSI layer are being unfairly leveraged to establish control over the other layers of the OSI stack. Im not sure how well such an argument will resonate. I think this is a difficult argument to make to the legal types, as the legal types who dominate our legislative branch of government clearly have not understood net neutrality. The lobbyists representing the incumbent broadband providers have done a very good job confusing this issue.
Speaking of confusion, listen to this attempt by Senator Ted Stevens (R, AK) to explain how the Internet works and net neutrality. Its really, really painful.
Tags: Net Neutrality
I came across this piece on the Networking Pipeline blog (thanks to this entry on Techdirt).
Google’s {PR Spokesperson] Barry Schnitt told Paul in an email: “Google is not discussing sharing of the costs of broadband networks with any carrier. We believe consumers are already paying to support broadband access to the Internet through subscription fees and, as a result, consumers should have the freedom to use this connection without limitations.”
It’s great to finally here some (muted) response from the other side of the argument over network neutrality. Of course sending a big “F you!” to the Bell companies doesn’t mean anything if you can’t play the regulatory game the same way that they do.
On a somewhat related topic, I’m very slowly making my way through the second draft of the telecom bill, which was released way back in November. The legal language has holes wide enough to accommodate a speeding semi tractor-trailer and ensure that Internet content and service companies will be in litigation with Bell and Cable companies for at least a decade after the bill actually passes (if it passes in anything like its current form).
I came across this piece talking about a possible partnership of Google with Equant. Equant, so you all know, is the global business services arm of France Telecom.
“We’re in talks with Google about some things. I can’t talk about [what things in particular], but it’s kind of their next evolution as a company, as they begin to grow, there are some things that could be of interest,” said [Equant president for sales and marketing in the Americas Mack ] Treece on the second day of a two-day stop in Santiago, Chile.
I found this comment very interesting. The BNAmericas article where this quote appears goes on to indicate that Equant are an ideal choice for partner should Google launch a broader set of VoIP services, particularly for business. I would expect otherwise.
Equant is a partner to consider if Google somehow wanted to go forward with a business VoIP offering more global in scope. Equant have points of presence or operations in something like 140 countries. (I cant give an exact number because their marketing material is all over the place, and I dont even think an Equant employee would ever be able to give you a definitive answer. I’ll leave discussion about how questionable any of their coverage claims really are for another day). Equant are a company you partner with if you want to go global with a telecommunications service. If you want to focus on any specific national markets you look elsewhere for better in-country capabilities.
Its also interesting that Equant never top any list of a low-cost, low-maintenance partners. I would expect to Google to focus more on partnering with one or more wholesale companies offering VoIP for re-sale. Think Level(3) in the US, COLT in Europe or perhaps Asia Netcom in Asia. All of these carriers would be much cheaper and probably a better fit for Google if Google wished to maintain a higher level of product control. Companies with big wholesale businesses have a better capability to provide the capacity and keep their hands off of the end product and marketing. Ive never seen Equant particularly skilled or willing to take a wholesale approach, generally eager to be active in the definition of the product and very keen for partner marketing. France Telecom, to their credit, have always kept their wholesale business away from Equant.
I dont see the deal being involved with VoIP. If it does theres some angle Im not seeing or anticipating to make Equant a partner Google would tend to favor. So I think it’s something other than VoIP, though I can’t see what yet. If Google are looking to expand on their VoIP offerings they would be well-advised to look for partners that would be low cost and take a hands-off approach to the final product.
Om Malik has on his blog an entry on his blog discussing some rumors that Google have issued a proposal in response to San Franciscos municipal Wi-Fi RFP. Now, this is something that is very, very interesting.
I may have to eat my own words about Google not being willing to deploy ubiquitous Wi-Fi coverage, which is one of the recurring rumors related to Googles recent lease of dark fiber and launch of their Secure VPN for Wi-Fi software. I took some issue with the conclusion that the dark fiber network should lead one to conclude a push for Wi-Fi ubiquity from Google based on the complications and expense of deploying access points and purchasing the last mile connectivity to those access points. I stand by the supposition that this would be a pain for Google, but active participation in municipal Wi-Fi efforts really does turn this issue on its side. By getting municipalities to pony up the rights of way on lampposts and whatnot as well as effectively pay Google for the privilege of taking on the role of deploying access points and last mile connectivity, all of a sudden this is looking like a strategy Google could pursue.
The beauty part of this both for Google and municipalities is that Google can separate the ad revenue from Wi-Fi access through the VPN software offering. By making the VPN software optional to accessing the Wi-Fi network, Google frees the municipalities from being concerned about Google receiving ad revenue from a network built on a municipal contract. The great thing for consumers is that Googles network is most likely going to be required to offer non-discriminatory access to users of other security and other value-added Wi-Fi access software. I would suspect that those approving municipal contracts would look to prevent Google from getting an advantage from vertical integration with the underlying infrastructure built on a municipal contract (at leas they SHOULD). We should expect the value-added Wi-Fi software space bloom in a few years with competing companies looking to provide all kinds of functionality above and beyond simple Wi-Fi connectivity and offering customers a number of business models.
One issue that made me a big fan of Googles VPN software was the ability of this service to offer an important security function to Wi-Fi. I said something to the affect that companies offering traditional broadband (mostly the Bells and cable companies) should be kicking themselves. Google taking an active role in municipal Wi-Fi networks should keep executives at these companies awake at night. I hope the executives at the Bell and cable companies can recognize that a very savvy competitor has just entered their space. If Google succeeds with this strategy, they are going to eat your breakfast, lunch and dinner.
