North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Equal access to content

  • From: Christopher L. Morrow
  • Date: Wed Nov 02 09:50:58 2005

On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Sean Donelan wrote:

> On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
> > the two year window is far too low given the sbc ceo's recent public
> > statements on the use of his wires by google and the like.
> Should content suppliers be required to provide equal access to all
> networks?  Or can content suppliers enter into exclusive contracts?

equal access at same cost perhaps... though honestly it's their content so
they can decide if they don't want one or some folks to view it I'd think.
(ianal, of course)

> If Google sets up a WiFi network in San Francisco or buys AOL with
> Comcast, can Google create a custom content for users on its networks?  Or

this is a 'customer portal' no? Don't lots of folks do this today? to
provide customized content to their subscribers, somehow wrapping that
cost into the cost of the network service they offer?

> must Google offer the same cotent on the same terms and conditions to
> everyone?  Should AOL be able to offer selected content to only its
> customers, such as music downloads?  Or must AOL supply that content
> to everyone equally?  Comcast offers its users access to the Disney

aol/google/content-provider-foo might provide exclusive content for a
higher (or lower) price than to normal folks, it also might be bitten by
the lose of potential customers that way :( This sounds like a business
decision not a legislative one, eh?

> Connection web site, should Disney be required to offer it to all Internet
> users equally? The NFL offers its Sunday Ticket exclusively through
> DirecTV? Or must the NFL offer the same content to every network?

no one cares about football... Now, hockey! That's a sport that everyone
should get access to! :)

> What rules should exist on how Google operates?  Or is it just
> traditionally lobbying?  Google says regulate the other guy, but
> not itself.  The other guys say regulate Google, but not them.

Isn't this just the normal political/regulator/lobbyist dance? Those with
the slickest, loudest, most-involved lobbyists 'win' in the end don't
they? Take Disney's constant push to up the Copyright timeframes for