Google and the dangers of one entity controlling access to information... [Archive]

Silent_Buddha

16-Oct-2009, 23:52

Interesting letter from AT&T to the FCC.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/Second%20ATT%20Letter%20to%20FCC%20on%20Google%20V oice%20v8%20Filed.pdf

If they have hard evidence of Google doing such things it's a bit worrying. Selectively blocking calls depending on access charges to give it a competitve advantage over traditional call providers who are required to provide access.

And further accusations that it's using it's virtual monopoly as an information gateway to determine what information is diseminated to the public through either ranking them higher or blocking them entirely.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=16524

Furthermore, AT&T accuses Google of practicing broad-scale manipulation of the media. It says that Google blocked political advertisements from Senator Susan Collins, due to her criticism of Moveon.org, a Google net neutrality partner. It also accuses Google of blocking the Inner City Press from Google News, as the publication criticized the United Nation Development Programme, a Google-sponsored program.

Goes back to a discussion that was going on in another thread that I can't seem to find (I'm not great with search terms. :P)

Replace Google with any other name of an organization that has so much control over the flow of information. Although I can't think of another organization that has so much direct control over the flow of information. Maybe the AP or Wikipedia, but they have far less control than Google does currently.

Regards,
SB

digitalwanderer

17-Oct-2009, 00:25

Yeah, but since it's Google I'm cool with it...I trust teh google.

MfA

17-Oct-2009, 04:05

If they have hard evidence of Google doing such things it's a bit worrying. Selectively blocking calls depending on access charges to give it a competitve advantage over traditional call providers who are required to provide access.
Access charges are passed on by the traditional providers right? How is offering less service a competitive advantage?

I imagine that the fact that allowing computers to make charged calls is just a very bad one is the main reason they don't allow it. Call charge fraud is rampant enough without putting millions of trojaned computers into the mix.

Silent_Buddha

17-Oct-2009, 15:00

Access charges are passed on by the traditional providers right? How is offering less service a competitive advantage?

I imagine that the fact that allowing computers to make charged calls is just a very bad one is the main reason they don't allow it. Call charge fraud is rampant enough without putting millions of trojaned computers into the mix.

The government requires all phone carriers to patch through calls to all locations capable of receiving calls even if the fee's set by the local providers is high. In other words, they can't deny phone service to someone, and they cannot deny others the ability to call those people.

Providers in each location determine the fee's required to patch through a call. Locations in rural/low population density area's have significantly higher access charges that locations in a city/high population density area. Lower population density means economies of scale don't come into play to keep installation and maintenance costs down.

Google is basically blocking all calls to rural/low population areas to avoid paying these access fees. Not having to pay those fee's makes it significantly cheaper for them to offer voice calling services.

AT&T and other traditional carriers are required to patch through those calls, thus the financial burden is much greater. AT&T is arguing that if Google is to be allowed to offer calling services, they must also abide by all applicable rules and regulations that the traditional carriers are required to followed.

Regards,
SB

BRiT

17-Oct-2009, 16:14

Doesn't that law date back to a time where the phone carriers were monopolies?

MfA

17-Oct-2009, 16:38

The government requires all phone carriers to patch through calls to all locations capable of receiving calls even if the fee's set by the local providers is high.
Do they pass those charges on though? (If so it's not really a competitive advantage to Google not to allow those areas.)

Personally I agree with you up to a point. For calls from PSTN-PSTN google should follow the same rules .... for all calls made through internet connections though they should not have to follow the same rules (even if the other end is PSTN). It's both not really the same thing and it's technically just an invitation for fraud. Those local phone operators are essentially legal scammers and fraudulent use of botnets is not beneath them.

BTW, this is not relevant to the discussion ... but it does go to show how this piece of text was written. This is what AT&T claims google says ... (ie. this is their straw man).
Google Voice is only blocking adult chat line
services and “free” conference calling arbitrage schemes
This is what Google actually claimed :
The reason we restrict calls to certain local phone carriers' numbers is simple.
Not only do they charge exorbitant termination rates for calls, but they also partner with adult sex chat
lines and ‘free’ conference calling centers to drive high volumes of traffic
They never said they only blocked individual numbers of certain local phone carriers ... whether what they are actually doing is above board, they never denied doing it.

digitalwanderer

17-Oct-2009, 18:21

You must trust teh Google, teh Google is good. :yep2:

nutball

17-Oct-2009, 18:27

You must trust teh Google, teh Google is good. :yep2:

Methinks you jest, sire :yep2:

digitalwanderer

17-Oct-2009, 18:31

Nope, I actually am a Google supporter. I think they'll make the best possible overlord/masters of any of the corporations out there, so I'm rooting for them. :)

eastmen

17-Oct-2009, 19:28

Nope, I actually am a Google supporter. I think they'll make the best possible overlord/masters of any of the corporations out there, so I'm rooting for them. :)

I'm all for MS to lead us

Neb

17-Oct-2009, 20:53

Google sucks donkey balls. They dont fix dirty links and those being at the forefront of the legitime links only helps to spread malware.

And hell no for MS. No thank you to "RROD" class situations and string puppet freedom.

Neb

17-Oct-2009, 20:54

Nope, I actually am a Google supporter. I think they'll make the best possible overlord/masters of any of the corporations out there, so I'm rooting for them. :)

I have told Google to ban all links linking to torrents, am it still luved? :lol:

digitalwanderer

17-Oct-2009, 21:03

Sure, you really think they're gonna listen to you or that I ain't got a couple dozen other good sources? :razz:

Silent_Buddha

18-Oct-2009, 01:04

Do they pass those charges on though? (If so it's not really a competitive advantage to Google not to allow those areas.)

The costs are passed on in the form of higher rates for calling services. Thus making it harder to compete with a "free" service. This is then futher compounded if users of the "free" service are forced to use traditional carriers to call those numbers that are blocked (the higher cost ones). Further driving up costs for the carrier and making it harder to compete as they can no longer average out the higher (though lower volume) calls with the cheaper calls to patch through.

With less revenue from the lower cost calls the traditional carrier would in turn be forced to raise prices for calling services due to the ratio of high cost-low volume:low cost-high volume increasing. Thus making it even more unattractive.

Personally I agree with you up to a point. For calls from PSTN-PSTN google should follow the same rules .... for all calls made through internet connections though they should not have to follow the same rules (even if the other end is PSTN). It's both not really the same thing and it's technically just an invitation for fraud. Those local phone operators are essentially legal scammers and fraudulent use of botnets is not beneath them.

I'd have to disagree. As long as one end of the call is a PSTN you should be required to follow the same rules and regulations, otherwise you get some serious competitive advantages (that are government mandated) versus traditional carriers. If there was no government controls that I'd agree, do what you will. Of course, the fallout from that is that rural communities might find themselves without access to phone services.

If both ends are internet connections then it's obviously a non-issue.

They never said they only blocked individual numbers of certain local phone carriers ... whether what they are actually doing is above board, they never denied doing it.

Yes, neither of them is being entirely straight with their documentation. Google's wording strongly leads the reader to assume that this is primarly driven by the partnering with adult sex chat lines to downplay the fact that the vast majority of numbers blocked are rural/low population density numbers.

Its classic misdirection without actually committing perjury.

Regards,
SB

Neb

18-Oct-2009, 01:50

Sure, you really think they're gonna listen to you or that I ain't got a couple dozen other good sources? :razz:

Shame on you... :roll:

kyleb

25-Oct-2009, 07:43

On the note of Google controlling information, a while back which searching Google News I stumbled across a copy of this AP article contradicting one of the commonly used propaganda points against Iran (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009922292_apununiranahmadinejadholocaust.html), which was hosted by Google at the time. The next day I searched again for the same article, but couldn't find it on Google, or anywhere other than some sole blog which had copied it. The day after that, Google had it back up and searching with Google located it a few other places as well.

Searching now with Google (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Iranian+backs+off+Holocaust+denial%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=) turns up quite a few search results which are dead links, The Boston Globe, Salon, and CBS News on the first page alone. Perhaps there was some honest reason Google to lost the article for a day and reasonable explanations for it disappearing from other sites too, but particularly considering the political implications of the information presented in the article, I found the situation a bit suspicious. Not that I think it would be any matter of company policies, but I'm sure some individuals would have preferred the information not come out, and it's not a stretch to think some might do whatever they could to suppress it.

eastmen

28-Oct-2009, 19:07

Google announced free gps map navigation for their phones (turn by turn voice and what not) now tom tom and garmin's stock is tanking.

As much as I love free nav , is it right that they should be able to offer it for free on one of their device platforms because they have so much money from other products they provide ? Isn't this a bit like MS and their web browser ?

Mize

28-Oct-2009, 19:14

This is a good point (the gps thing).
At some point one has to think about "dumping" type laws. Giving GPS navigation away for free is, technically, selling below cost. All that NRE, support, updates, etc.

When Taiwan and China have to stop shipping fasteners to the US for 18 months while allegations of dumping are investigated, there is no such mechanism in the software realm.

Interesting.

DemoCoder

28-Oct-2009, 20:45

Well, these companies (Garmin and Tomtom) make single-use devices that utilize data from NavTeq and TeleAtlas. If the map data was public domain, they would naturally be put out of business by any platform with general purpose programmability. (e.g. phones, netbooks, computers, etc) because open source/free apps would just leverage this data.

On the subject of the data, NavTeq and TeleAtlas leverage data from governments which is paid for by taxes, they then curate that data and add their own, but they do not release curated data back to the public. So they're getting a free ride to some extent.

I personally think information about roads, signs, traffic, etc -- infrastructure built and maintained by the government -- as well as postal address databases, should be freely available.

In this light, Garmin and Tomtom simply based their businesses on a model where the barrier to entry to creating mapping applications was high. Google's only "crime" here is to take data which should be free anyway, and make it free. Once the barrier to map data falls to zero, anyone trying to charge money for mapping software is ultimately at a disadvantage because it becomes a commodity.

Further more, as phones become more powerful, the era of purpose-built GPS devices is eroded. Don't just blame Google, blame cheaper GPS hardware, aGPS, minaturation, faster ARM cores and phone chips, better phone development platforms, etc.

All of this is conspiring to hurt their business model. It's all inevitable I say.

Mize

28-Oct-2009, 21:17

DemoCoder

28-Oct-2009, 22:01

Undoubtedly DC, and I have no pity for Garmin or TomTom. The question for me is where does Google get their map data and is access equal? Now if access is equal to all there are still costs so how does one justify free product under anti-competition laws?

Today, Google uses a combination of their own data and data from TeleAtlas, LeadDog, Europa, and probably others, based on region, so Google does not have the rights to release the data to the public domain, but I'm sure given Google Street View, that they are slowly collecting the data they need to divorce themselves from these vendors.

Google applications technically aren't free, they're indirectly ad supported. You can't apply anti-dumping laws to every product offered for free, otherwise TV and radio would go bye-bye, as well as newspapers.

Google doesn't "sell" Android. Android is open source, anyone can download it and use it. Even Garmin and TomTom could run Android on their devices. The navigation app isn't open source, but it is most likely paid for by OEMs who want it.

But you can't call this dumping. Google has been running a free maps service for *years*. Many people have taken the Maps API and used it to create free navigation applications. As devices started to get GPS hardware built in, these applications started to integrate the locale-coordinates with the online service, a lot of it done without Google intervention.

This is how things develop organically in an open ecosystem. For example, the HTML5 specification, implemented by Firefox and Safari/Chrome now supports querying location. That means any Laptop with GPS/3g/Skyhook Wifi with just a few lines of Javascript, can be wired up to Google's Maps API for turn-by-turn directions.

Garmin and TomTom existed before GPS was miniaturized and cost reduced, before mobile devices were powerful. Car GPS systems had DVDs or large memories with maps databases, and expensive GPS hardware.

Now the GPS functions have been assisted by the wireless networks, pervasive connectivity allows the maps database to exist in the cloud, the mobile platforms are far more powerful than just 5 years ago, and the applications are simple to write now.

Garmin and Tomtom now find themselves in the position of Horse and Buggy makers. Why should the Government step in and say "No, despite the fact that any Wifi access point can provide your location, despite the fact that mobile devices are 100x times powerful, smaller, have built in GPS and carried everywhere, and despite the fact that the mapping data is becoming more and more free, We DEMAND YOU PAY $200 for a separate Garmin device or iPhone application."

The world has changed, ubiquitous, cheap, connectivity and location services, and Moore's law has effectively wiped out any advantage niche devices had. Google's just hastening the transition, and I for one, thank them.

obonicus

29-Oct-2009, 11:47

I think I missed something somewhere. Why does Google running maps for years mean they're not dumping? The question is whether they're engaged in anti-competitive behavior and I don't think the answer to that is clear is at all.

On top of that, whether google's APIs are open are not is somewhat beside the point, since you're still running through google to get the information you need.

DemoCoder

29-Oct-2009, 16:09

I think I missed something somewhere. Why does Google running maps for years mean they're not dumping? The question is whether they're engaged in anti-competitive behavior and I don't think the answer to that is clear is at all.

#1 Dumping is not simply charging a cheap price. Dumping is price discimination -- charging a high price in one market and a low price in another, like Japanese charging domestically high prices for cars, and selling them cheap in the US. Dumping is a geographic concept, tied to international trade, and is NOT illegal domestically.

#2 Google Maps charges the same price no matter where you are, there is no discrimination

#3 The market price of online mapping was set years ago: Zero. Google didn't set this price. MapQuest did. DriveThere.com did. Yahoo Maps, MSN. Remember, Google Maps was not the first online driving directions, they were last, they just did it better.

On top of that, whether google's APIs are open are not is somewhat beside the point, since you're still running through google to get the information you need.

It is not beside the point. Let's look at it this way:

#1 Online driving direction market has had price set to zero for over a decade. ZERO *IS* the market price, all competitors agree on this basic fact. They also offer open APIs for leveraging their services (mash ups)

#2 Mobile phone manufacturers start adding GPS hardware to phones, add ability for developers to extend phone functionality by writing applications. (J2ME, Brew, Symbian, Microsoft Mobile, Apple iPhone, again, all competitors agree)

#3 Connect the dots: Developers write applications for phones which "mashup" and leverage #1. Price of *IN CAR* GPS/Driving Directions now falls to zero. Poof.

This is why you cannot apply archaic dumping laws designed for international food/manufacturing trade issues, and apply them to information technology. Why? Because if a given segment of the internet provides a service whose cost is zero, and another market depends on that service being implemented offline, then as soon as connectivity is added to the equation, the price in that market will also fall to zero.

The internet reduces geographical distances to zero and renders the geographic dumping notion moot.

Bludd

29-Oct-2009, 16:18

The cloud sucks. I don't trust the cloud.

rpg.314

29-Oct-2009, 16:49

As much as I love free nav , is it right that they should be able to offer it for free on one of their device platforms because they have so much money from other products they provide ? Isn't this a bit like MS and their web browser ?

Not really, you are confusing cross subsidization with product tie-in.

rpg.314

29-Oct-2009, 16:54

Garmin and Tomtom now find themselves in the position of Horse and Buggy makers. Why should the Government step in and say "No, despite the fact that any Wifi access point can provide your location, despite the fact that mobile devices are 100x times powerful, smaller, have built in GPS and carried everywhere, and despite the fact that the mapping data is becoming more and more free, We DEMAND YOU PAY $200 for a separate Garmin device or iPhone application."

This is the correct analogy here. Single function GPS devices are a technological dead-end. The sooner world is rid of them, the better it will be. :yep2:

obonicus

29-Oct-2009, 18:31

#1 Dumping is not simply charging a cheap price. Dumping is price discimination -- charging a high price in one market and a low price in another, like Japanese charging domestically high prices for cars, and selling them cheap in the US. Dumping is a geographic concept, tied to international trade, and is NOT illegal domestically.

#2 Google Maps charges the same price no matter where you are, there is no discrimination

Eastmen may have meant the term dumping using the older definition. Predatory pricing, if you will. Naturally, if it's a term tied to international trade it doesn't apply here.

#3 The market price of online mapping was set years ago: Zero. Google didn't set this price. MapQuest did. DriveThere.com did. Yahoo Maps, MSN. Remember, Google Maps was not the first online driving directions, they were last, they just did it better.

And this answers the question of why it's not dumping, I think I'm satisfied: google is just meeting the price set by other people. The act in of itself is not anticompetitive (well, unless someone can prove there's a cartel, but I don't think that's likely).

eastmen

31-Oct-2009, 11:19

Mapquest and drivethere.com did not give turn by turn navigation updated in real time . You printed directions and hoped to god they were right. Trust me , i got lost in canada cause of map quest.

Anyway Google is using profits from its search engine to give away andriod and to make andriod move faster they are giving away other products with it. Garmin and Tom Tom do pay for acess to updated map information and construction detors and what not. That doesn't come free. I'm sure google pays for it too.

rpg.314

31-Oct-2009, 11:55

DemoCoder

31-Oct-2009, 17:15

eastmen

31-Oct-2009, 17:47

It seems what you're trying to describe is not dumping, but "predatory bundling", which for various technical reasons, Google's GPS app fails to meet, anymore than newspapers funding distribution via ads and classifieds counts as dumping or bundling.

I'm not sure about that. It took years for anyone to say something about IE in windows. HOpefully it doesn't take years for someone to look into google.

This is the correct analogy here. Single function GPS devices are a technological dead-end. The sooner world is rid of them, the better it will be.

I don't know about that . Single function gps devices have thier place. I wouldn't want to be lost some where with both my phone and gps dead because they are the same device.

rpg.314

31-Oct-2009, 18:09

I don't know about that . Single function gps devices have thier place. I wouldn't want to be lost some where with both my phone and gps dead because they are the same device.

Well, just for redundancy, single function gps devices have their uses, but IMHO, market for them is not big enough to sustain these devices.

nutball

31-Oct-2009, 18:38

Well, just for redundancy, single function gps devices have their uses, but IMHO, market for them is not big enough to sustain these devices.

Well then I respectfully submit that you need to get out and meet some people who aren't your own age and aren't tech-obsessed. There are still many, many people in this world who want a phone to phone people, a music player to play music, and a sat-nav to nav-by-sat.

These people may well be dying out in the long-term, but generally speaking right now they earn/have more disposable income than you, less patience for confusing geeky user interfaces, and they'll likely out-live the useful life of Android.

flynn

31-Oct-2009, 19:35

What makes you think that android is not turning in any money for google? With 9% market share already, and a lot of room for growth, I won't be surprised if android starts making money for google sooner rather than later.

Indirectly, yes. If you use an Android device, at least the Google experience branded ones you will be using Google Search, Maps and other Google services, so you might generate some revenue for Google.

rpg.314

01-Nov-2009, 06:04

Indirectly, yes. If you use an Android device, at least the Google experience branded ones you will be using Google Search, Maps and other Google services, so you might generate some revenue for Google.

It's not just that. Android distributions contain some proprietary software/firmware as well, for which you have to pay up.

rpg.314

01-Nov-2009, 06:08

Well then I respectfully submit that you need to get out and meet some people who aren't your own age and aren't tech-obsessed. There are still many, many people in this world who want a phone to phone people, a music player to play music, and a sat-nav to nav-by-sat.

These people may well be dying out in the long-term, but generally speaking right now they earn/have more disposable income than you, less patience for confusing geeky user interfaces, and they'll likely out-live the useful life of Android.

I am not sure what fraction of those richer (and more mature?) people would want to have 3 devices with them at the same time when 1 iPhone can do the job much better and without any of that geekiness you refer to .

DemoCoder

01-Nov-2009, 07:54

It's not just that. Android distributions contain some proprietary software/firmware as well, for which you have to pay up.

Um, no. In fact, not only is Android firmware (the Google Licensed one with the app goodies) free, it's less than free. Google Pays Verizon in order for them to ship those apps. So Google is in fact, not only giving you a free phone OS, plus free apps, they are paying carriers for them to not drop those apps.

The payment is in the form of a revenue split. Verizon gets a cut of ad revenues from searches made from Google apps on the phone.

eastmen

02-Nov-2009, 22:53

Well, just for redundancy, single function gps devices have their uses, but IMHO, market for them is not big enough to sustain these devices.

Oh i like that my phone can double as a gps in a pinch. But what if I'm hiking and I use my phone as a gps ? What am I going to do when I'm in the middle of no where and my phone dies ?

In my car there is no reason not ot use a dedicated product for gps. Not only can I get a bigger screen for it , but it wont lessen the battery time of my phone.

Just like I rather have a dedicated pmp so that I don't fill up my phone with music and I don't have to choose between music /video or talking to someone

am not sure what fraction of those richer (and more mature?) people would want to have 3 devices with them at the same time when 1 iPhone can do the job much better and without any of that geekiness you refer to .

1 Iphone can not do the job better because if I want to use hte iphone to make a call I an no longer use the gps function while i'm making the call. Also with the iphone I have to choose between having more talk time or using these apps.

When I'm in the car it hardly matters if i have two or three devices.

Infact almost all the people I know who have an iphone also have an ipod touch or some even zunes (for more storage space and or zune pass) so that they don't have to choose.

Mize

03-Nov-2009, 01:36

I have a phone with GPS (and PAC rim UMTS) & it can play music & videos too. That said I use an iPod touch for media on my Asia flights so my phone is fresh when I land.

For the foreseable future, batteries will be the Achilles heal of all-in-one devices.
What's the point if you have to carry extra batteries?

Mize

03-Nov-2009, 01:42

I remember when the DVD-integrated-TV obsoleted single function devices too :)
Ever see one of those hammer/screwdriver/wrench thingies?

I.S.T.

09-Dec-2009, 12:58

http://www.dailytech.com/Concerned+About+Privacy+Youre+Probably+up+to+no+Go od+Says+Google+CEO/article17069.htm

flynn

09-Dec-2009, 17:52

http://www.dailytech.com/Concerned+About+Privacy+Youre+Probably+up+to+no+Go od+Says+Google+CEO/article17069.htm

That's a pretty unfortunate statement to make and even a bit ironic considering that Schmidt himself blacklisted CNET (http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/05/technology/google_cnet/) a few years ago when they published information about him that they found using Google.

Davros

24-Dec-2009, 04:38

article about google books (not just them) and your privacy
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/21/effs-ebook-buyers-gu.html

3dilettante

16-Feb-2010, 13:34

Speaking of privacy, there's some Buzz on the intertubes as of late we can default into hearing about and be completely incapable of opting out of hearing about...

flynn

16-Feb-2010, 14:19

Speaking of privacy, there's some Buzz on the intertubes as of late we can default into hearing about and be completely incapable of opting out of hearing about...

Ars Technica has an article about it: clicky (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/02/google-works-to-clean-up-buzz-privacy-mess-after-launch.ars?utm_source=microblogging&utm_medium=arstch&utm_term=Main%20Account&utm_campaign=microblogging).

Hopefully they've chosen more reasonable defaults this time. I will not touch it with a 10ft pole, though. Once bitten...

Silent_Buddha

16-Feb-2010, 22:56

Yeah, Google goofed up yet again. Unless you knew about the tiny link at the bottom of the page, your social information was basically out there for anyone to see as you were automatically enrolled in it and options defaulted to on.

At least they responded fairly quickly and changed things, but whatever happened to their motto of, "Do no Evil" or whatever it is.

Had they been following that motto, this never would have happened in the first place. Even MS when they introduced something similar years ago with their Spaces (or whatever it was called) defaulted to options off on most things defaulting to protecting users privacy rather than defaulting to on.

Regards,
SB

Sxotty

22-Feb-2010, 00:34