North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Google wants to be your Internet

  • From: Jim Popovitch
  • Date: Sat Jan 20 16:48:15 2007
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:Subject:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Mime-Version:X-Mailer; b=DJWfkEvU1yQRPgT+KgdNgw6MhcgPSz3qmuD4g6fndrwQ9MtFWzrfUWC2b5q1DLxVZEYLpHD2mD3UjZ/SPjQRG+07eORrAEMXh3Lr+rtdbMVWFnnR2Q9HwfcNTln12pnNoWfotYpv6tM9Fs6RKP4Ol3QxUbMqCTJ+QO5pmJxTBnA= ;
On Sat, 2007-01-20 at 10:12 -0800, Mark Boolootian wrote:
> 
> Cringley has a theory and it involves Google, video, and oversubscribed
> backbones:
> 
>   http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070119_001510.html

Aren't there some Telco laws wrt cross-state, but still interlata, calls
not being able to be charged as interstate?  Perhaps Google wants to
avoid any future federal/state regulations by providing in-state (i.e.
"local") access.  Additionally, it makes it easier to do state and local
govt business when the data is in the same state (it's not out-sourcing
if it's just nextdoor...).  And then there is the "lobbying" issue, what
better way to lobby multiple states than do do significant business
their in?  Or perhaps I'm just daydreaming too much today.... ;-)

-Jim P.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part