Google CEO: We need Government Regulation of ISPs

Google CEO: We need Government Regulation of ISPs

www.businessandmedia.org

Google CEO Eric Schmidt says government regulation of Internet service providers (ISPs) is necessary. In fact, he said he thinks the entire concept of the Internet marketplace relies on it.

Schmidt spoke to conservative bloggers at the Republican National Convention on September 3 in St. Paul, Minn. He warned that if an Internet service provider were too large, it could use its size to create a “protected structure within the Internet” and suggested that would restrict competition – giving some content favorable treatment within its network.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 5-9-2008 by DimensionalDetective]

Uh yeah....That's JUST what we need...Hand over EVEN MORE control to Big Brother, who is ALREADY invading every facet of our lives.

I'm seriously considering boycotting ever using google again. These guys are becoming a bigger threat to us by the day IMO.

Opponents of Schmidt’s point of view argue such corporate control hasn’t occurred, and therefore the government should remain hands-off. However, Schmidt argued it is still necessary and justified for the government to intervene just in case a company was able to “get that level of control” over the Internet.

www.businessandmedia.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

When I found out Google had an internet browser, I knew this would start happening.

Internet privacy is a luxury that is fleeting fast.

Google needs to STFU, let's be honest.

If they aren't in on the whole "Let's censor the Net" plot, then their greed is an unwitting aid in the plan becoming a reality.

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective

I'm seriously considering boycotting ever using google again. These guys are becoming a bigger threat to us by the day IMO.

I'm with you on that one. Scroogle FTW. But given Google's history with the 10-million year cookies and the gmail user agreement, and now the Chrome user agreement this should surprise no one.

[edit on 9/5/2008 by sc2099]

Does anyone know of any other search engines aside from google, yahoo, or msn. I'm done after reading this. Google is going to be a hard habit to break, but I can't contribute to this madness. Thanks for the post!

And now you know why Google backs Obama - Obama will make it so the government has control of ISPs with Google in charge answering back to the government.

Want to trash free speech for Internet Censorship like China does? Vote for Obama then, it won't be much different.

Originally posted by KaginD
Does anyone know of any other search engines aside from google, yahoo, or msn. I'm done after reading this. Google is going to be a hard habit to break, but I can't contribute to this madness. Thanks for the post!

There is a new one called 'cuil', It was started up by ex google employees.

en.wikipedia.org...

It's still young so it has less results at the moment.

They only start this when they get control of the market.
Its the usual evil bs.
If Google cut off there services to all the other search engines.
There wouldn't be much to be found I can tell you.
Even Yahoo would be halved.
Google has been owned by the government since the beginning via stocks.

And all you guys villified Microsoft. Google is just as bad if not worse

Thier whole motto of do no harm is a joke. If by "do no harm" you mean to Google then you get the idea. Google (among others to be fair) were oh so quick to roll over for the Chi Com goverments request to censor, why whould the be any different here :shk:

Isn't this showing that Google are against a two-tier internet ... ?

I mean, how is making laws to restrict ISPs' powers over the content on their networks a bad thing ("giving some content favorable treatment within its network")?

He wants the government to restrict the powers that ISPs have to essentially censor things ... so why are you all in a huff about this?

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Isn't this showing that Google are against a two-tier internet ... ?

I mean, how is making laws to restrict ISPs' powers over the content on their networks a bad thing ("giving some content favorable treatment within its network")?

He wants the government to restrict the powers that ISPs have to essentially censor things ... so why are you all in a huff about this?

The only way ISP's could really do this was if the free market wasn't being applied. If the free market is in tact, then no ISP would ever think about making such a move alone. That ISP would lose customers quickly. If all the ISP's came into agreement and started doing this at the same time, I'm pretty sure that is illegal in the same way price fixing among businesses in a town is illegal.

Why making these laws is bad is for the same reason all these regulations and laws are bad. You are only in agreement with the power because that power is working in your favor. But once you've given that power away then you are opening up that power to work against you as well. You have said it is the governments job to regulate the internet. From that moment forth you have in essence approved anything else the government feels they need to regulate on the internet.

I would personally rather keep this power to myself. And if an ISP were to put up such a policy, I would quickly change my provider.

Furthermore, when did it become ok for the government to tell a business what to do? If that business is breaking the law and doing something illegal, then that business should be prosecuted for criminal acts(as I mentioned above), or they aren't doing anything wrong.

From what I've seen with regulations, they seem to punish everyone for the actions of a few. They go to increase costs on business making it so only the rich can succeed and the competition can't afford to keep up.

Regulations also seem to come with "protective" measures that are a part of the plan, such as with the media and keep it spread out, which then later get removed with deregulation while the politician is claiming "free market", but yet they leave in the other regulations the protective regulation were need for in the first place.

Sorry, but I trust the free market and consumer needs to better do the job than a bunch of politicians making laws based on what their lobbyists/top supporters want.

He warned that if an Internet service provider were too large, it could use its size to create a “protected structure within the Internet” and suggested that would restrict competition – giving some content favorable treatment within its network.

This is somewhat ironic statement because Google gives "favorable treatment" (ads on the first page of search results) to sponsored websites all the time. This is how Google generates revenue on its website.

There is a huge difference between Google and an ISP though. Google is just a website/database/service, while ISPs are the actual backbone of the internet. So if Google filters out a website, you can still access it with a web browser by going directly to that website's address. If an ISP filters out a website, that website essentially ceases to exist for everyone using that ISP! ISPs have a lot more power than Google and it is therefore arguable (from Google's perspective) that they should be more closely regulated.

It seems to me that this CEO understands the power of media, and the even greater power of controlling its physical infrastructure. He doesn't want ISPs to abuse their power as a medium through which people access the internet. Government regulation is a good idea as long as this ISP government is fully transparent. People have a negative mentality when it comes to government because most forms of government are corrupt, secretive and incompetent. This usually happens because politicians are too rich, stupid, and lazy to read and fully understand the documents that they sign. So most likely they inadvertently create an agency to censor the internet, thinking that they are actually creating an agency to protect the freedom of the internet.

Internet 2.0 meets Patriot Act 3.0

So what?

There is a difference between 'Government Regulation' of ISPs, and 'Net Censors'. Hell, I say I agree. Monopolies in the ISP business would be bad news.

No company would willingly hand the keys to their company over to the Government, that is just an irrational thought.

Nothing wrong with a couple laws to keep Internet Giants' in line. Keep in mind he is talking about regulation, is not control.

[edit on 9/6/2008 by FadeToBlack]

Originally posted by FadeToBlack
So what?

There is a difference between 'Government Regulation' of ISPs, and 'Net Censors'. Hell, I say I agree. Monopolies in the ISP business would be bad news.

No company would willingly hand the keys to their company over to the Government, that is just an irrational thought.

Nothing wrong with a couple laws to keep Internet Giants' in line. Keep in mind he is talking about regulation, is not control.

[edit on 9/6/2008 by FadeToBlack]

It is already illegal for those things to happen. You can't legally make a monopoly, just look at Microsoft. So it's already illegal. Why do you need new laws for something that is already illegal?

The only way ISP's could really do this was if the free market wasn't being applied. If the free market is in tact, then no ISP would ever think about making such a move alone. That ISP would lose customers quickly. If all the ISP's came into agreement and started doing this at the same time, I'm pretty sure that is illegal in the same way price fixing among businesses in a town is illegal.

They are already thinking about it, since they know people have no where to go. You can bet they would get around the "at the same time" somehow. And then you would end up with a restricted internet for the next 5-10 years, before the govt wakes up. You must proactively stop this by regulating the corporations' rights. Just look at the "not allowed to run a server" type clauses.

The internet's intelligence is in the end nodes, they are preventing this with those kind of contracts. So they are already restricting your rights, and nothing is being done about it. That is why regulation is needed. Corporations are essentially dictatorships and can not be trusted.

Why making these laws is bad is for the same reason all these regulations and laws are bad. You are only in agreement with the power because that power is working in your favor.

Does this argument even make any sense in this context? In this case, this law would prevent ISPs from charging three times for internet access. As it is right now, you pay for your connection, and, for example, google pay for theirs. The ISPs either want to decide what sites you can go to, or charge google more to allow their customers access - even though google is already paying.

But once you've given that power away then you are opening up that power to work against you as well. You have said it is the governments job to regulate the internet. From that moment forth you have in essence approved anything else the government feels they need to regulate on the internet.

They already have that power. Now they are using it to protect your rights.

I would personally rather keep this power to myself. And if an ISP were to put up such a policy, I would quickly change my provider.

You, as an individual, are irrelevant. The wast majority can not choose their providers. They are limited to maybe two alternatives.

Furthermore, when did it become ok for the government to tell a business what to do?

The US is supposed to be a representative democracy. For the good of the people, the govt must be able to pass laws that dictate what "laws" dictatorial entities such as corporations are allowed to take away from you in the name of profit.

When did it become ok for a business, subsidized by tax money, to restrict your rights?

If that business is breaking the law and doing something illegal, then that business should be prosecuted for criminal acts(as I mentioned above), or they aren't doing anything wrong.

First you must pass laws.

From what I've seen with regulations, they seem to punish everyone for the actions of a few. They go to increase costs on business making it so only the rich can succeed and the competition can't afford to keep up.

Occasionally that does seem to be true, however, this time it is not.

Sorry, but I trust the free market and consumer needs to better do the job than a bunch of politicians making laws based on what their lobbyists/top supporters want.

The market has no interest in providing what the consumer needs. It has an interest in making profit. Without this law, the most profit can be made by letting you buy yourself free from restrictions.

ISPs are already abusing their powers. Look into the comcast bittorrent issue.

Originally posted by Progress
They are already thinking about it, since they know people have no where to go. You can bet they would get around the "at the same time" somehow. And then you would end up with a restricted internet for the next 5-10 years, before the govt wakes up. You must proactively stop this by regulating the corporations' rights. Just look at the "not allowed to run a server" type clauses.

That is the corporations right to not allow you to run a server. It's because you are eating up more resources than normal. You can always get a business line if you want to run a server. I spend over $3,000 a month in bandwidth and servers for my work servers, and thats just for 1 site. I have servers with different ISP's all over the country.

The internet's intelligence is in the end nodes, they are preventing this with those kind of contracts. So they are already restricting your rights, and nothing is being done about it. That is why regulation is needed. Corporations are essentially dictatorships and can not be trusted.

This is the corporations right. They can decide what they want to do and what they don't. If you don't like your ISP then simply change ISPS. It's not that hard.

Does this argument even make any sense in this context? In this case, this law would prevent ISPs from charging three times for internet access. As it is right now, you pay for your connection, and, for example, google pay for theirs. The ISPs either want to decide what sites you can go to, or charge google more to allow their customers access - even though google is already paying.

If the ISP tries to dictate what sites I can go to, then I will quit using that ISP period. I make my living on the web and I certainly don't want ISP's doing this. It would pretty much kill my business as I rely on organic searches and wouldn't/couldn't afford to compete with bigger companies. However that doesn't give me the right to tell those companies what to do.

They already have that power. Now they are using it to protect your rights.

Exactly what right is it of mine to tell another business what they can and can't do with their services? Sorry, they aren't protecting my rights, they are removing my rights. Whats next, is my company going to be regulated on the prices I charge?

You, as an individual, are irrelevant. The wast majority can not choose their providers. They are limited to maybe two alternatives.

I, as an individual am not irrelevant. That is absurd.

The US is supposed to be a representative democracy. For the good of the people, the govt must be able to pass laws that dictate what "laws" dictatorial entities such as corporations are allowed to take away from you in the name of profit.

democracy allows the majority to rule over the minority. We had that before, it was called slavery. And that is all you are wanting to do here. How is it for the good of the people for them to regulate the internet. And whats next, it's for the good of the people that sites like this aren't allowed because they don't tote the government line?

When did it become ok for a business, subsidized by tax money, to restrict your rights?

The same time when you had the right not to use that business.

First you must pass laws.

There are plenty of anti-monopoly laws and anti-cartel laws. All that needs to be done is for them to be enforced. Take a look at Microsoft. I didn't see new regulations needing to be passed for that. Because it's already illegal because business laws as such have long been on the books.

Occasionally that does seem to be true, however, this time it is not.

Only because as I said before, you feel this power is working in your favor. You have a extremely short sighted view of things.

The market has no interest in providing what the consumer needs. It has an interest in making profit. Without this law, the most profit can be made by letting you buy yourself free from restrictions.

That is ridiculous. The market has no interest in providing what the consumer needs? Are you serious?

ISPs are already abusing their powers. Look into the comcast bittorrent issue.

That is not an abuse of power. It would only be an abuse of power if ALL the ISP's got together and did that. Which is considered a cartel and is already illegal.

Originally posted by badmedia

Originally posted by FadeToBlack
So what?

There is a difference between 'Government Regulation' of ISPs, and 'Net Censors'. Hell, I say I agree. Monopolies in the ISP business would be bad news.

No company would willingly hand the keys to their company over to the Government, that is just an irrational thought.

Nothing wrong with a couple laws to keep Internet Giants' in line. Keep in mind he is talking about regulation, is not control.

[edit on 9/6/2008 by FadeToBlack]

It is already illegal for those things to happen. You can't legally make a monopoly, just look at Microsoft. So it's already illegal. Why do you need new laws for something that is already illegal?

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of back-door ways to get around that. My point was... That regulation where it's needed isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be.

Originally posted by FadeToBlack
I'm pretty sure there are plenty of back-door ways to get around that. My point was... That regulation where it's needed isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be.

The internet now is the most free market we have. I myself make my living on the internet the same as google. It would likely kill my company if ISP's started doing these things.

But I've been around the internet for many years. And all I see is things with the ISP's going in a different direction. I remember when it was expensive to use the internet. Where you had to pay by the minute. I remember how the competition between the ISP's has taken it to unlimited access and reduced costs while the quality of services has increased by huge amounts.

As I said before, all the ISP's would have to agree to this at the same time or they would all lose their business. And if they did, it means those companies have formed a basic price fixing cartel and that in itself is illegal.

I understand why people think it's good to have. That they want to keep the internet open. I agree with that, but I just simply don't think that is what will happen.

[edit on 6-9-2008 by badmedia]

i wish i had the money to buy a house far away from this crazy world i live in..no electric or phones \ taxs etc..just me and the wife blissfully ignorant of the nutcases turning this world into a nightmare...roll on the lotto win..