Setbacks for Google and Comcast
As Onion columnist Jim "The Cruise" Anchower would say, "Hola amigos. I know it's been a long time since I rapped at ya." Sorry about that. Too many things on the proverbial plate - and, if I might inquire, is there a phrase you like to hear less at work than "I've got a really full plate"? Maybe it's: "I'm swamped," but I doubt it.
Anyway, I was finishing up my keynote for the first of Network World's new IT Roadmap events, in Boston on Monday, as well as moderating two roundtables - one a CIO roundtable on the subject of joint ventures and strategic partnerships, the other a discussion among chief information security officers (CISO) hosted by the Institute for Information Infrastructure Protection. On top of that (the gravy?), I had to pen my remarks for my annual emcee gig Thursday at the Massachusetts Network Communications Council's awards ceremony. Maybe I'll see you there?
I wanted to briefly follow up on a couple of items that have generated a great deal of feedback. First, my piece from January applauding Google for refusing to comply with a federal goverment demand for information about searches and searched sites.
Ostensibly, the government wants the information in order to bolster its anti-pornography efforts but, as several readers pointed out, there are easier and less intrusive ways to achieve the same end. Uncle Sam claims he doesn't want any personal information from Google, but if all the government needs to know is how many porn sites there are and how often people are searching on porn terms, there are easily obtained tools that can provide the data. (BTW, the answer is that there are lots and lots of porn sites and lots of people visiting them.)
Now, it looks like a federal court will push Google to comply, at least in part, with the Justice Department request. This CNN.com story explains. The government has narrowed the scope of what it wants Google to provide, but that's beside the point. This is a fishing expedition and acceding to the request opens the door for the next, wider demand. Google ought to flat out say no.
The Wall Street Journal is running a reader poll on the topic today and 75% of voters say Google shouldn't be required to hand over information to the government. The Journal crowd is generally quite conversative and it is interesting to read comments from this group about how the feds are, not to put too fine a point on it, sticking their noses into too many windows. Here are a couple examples: "This is most disturbing to anyone with liberterian values...these searches, no matter how broadly conducted, are without purpose or evidence that a crime has been committed. Seems more like a witch hunt. Case of the remedy worse than the disease."
"I find it reprehensible this request comes from the party who promoted smaller government. this adminstration has forgotten what has helped build the GOP. As Reagan so eloquently stated, "Government is not the solution to our problems, it is the problem!"
I'd give you a link to the forum, but the Journal is a paid site. If you have a subscription, enjoy!
On another front, I continue to get messages about my post regarding Comcast's cable price increases in the face of emerging video competition from Verizon. For example, in response to a Comcast rep's defense of the price hikes, this reader wrote: "You have to love this. We include more free stuff. That is why we increased your prices. We also added more items you can choose not to purchase. So we increased your prices." And another added: "Mr. Goodman's letter makes it even more obvious just how far out of touch Comcast is with consumers (who wrote that thing, a really junior PR person???). It's this kind of obtuse greed that will eventually backfire in a spectacular way. I anxiously await a company that can serve consumers fairly by offering a service for a REASONABLE fee. It's great, Mr. Goodman, that Comcast is out bulking up its infrastructure and passing along those costs to customers for services that many of us NEVER USE. If history is any indicator, your days as a monopoly are numbered." Those CAPS were not added by me, by the way.
But the most important development on the cable front has got to be the news that AT&T (formerly SBC, for those who are counting) plans now to buy BellSouth, a move that, if approved, is widely seen as putting more pressure on the cable companies. The New York Times did a good job exploring this issue in this piece., and the Philadelphia Inquirer's Miriam Hill also examined the growing battle in this story, which is undermined only by Ms. Hill's unwise decision to quote yours truly. (To paraphrase Groucho Marx, do I want to read any story that would quote me?)
Today, Comcast and its cable ilk are squeezing the phone companies by signing up lots of VoIP customers. But it seems only a matter of time before the dynamics of this battle turn around. Armed with plenty of money and powerful fiber networks, the telcos are very likely going to make life increasing difficult for Mr. Brian Roberts and his counterparts at the other cable firms.
Bye for now.
Back to Vortex Blog
Comments
Post a comment
