Comments on: The Folly of Value-Added ISPs http://techliberation.com/2007/12/12/the-folly-of-value-added-isps/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:51:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Tim Lee http://techliberation.com/2007/12/12/the-folly-of-value-added-isps/comment-page-1/#comment-40131 Tim Lee Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:58:17 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/12/12/the-folly-of-value-added-isps/#comment-40131 <p>Sean, I didn't mean that it's necessarily a bad thing for a single company to own both Internet access and content/services. I just don't think there's any reason to think that such a combination creates synergies that benefit customers. And when a company does own both, it seems like it would probably make the most sense to manage and sell them as separate products, rather than trying to bundle them together in some way.</p> <p>Google's WiFi seems more like an experimental testbed than a serious effort to be an ISP. If they bid for some spectrum, that will be a more interesting case.</p> Sean, I didn’t mean that it’s necessarily a bad thing for a single company to own both Internet access and content/services. I just don’t think there’s any reason to think that such a combination creates synergies that benefit customers. And when a company does own both, it seems like it would probably make the most sense to manage and sell them as separate products, rather than trying to bundle them together in some way.

Google’s WiFi seems more like an experimental testbed than a serious effort to be an ISP. If they bid for some spectrum, that will be a more interesting case.

]]> By: Tim Lee http://techliberation.com/2007/12/12/the-folly-of-value-added-isps/comment-page-1/#comment-46827 Tim Lee Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:58:17 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/12/12/the-folly-of-value-added-isps/#comment-46827 <p>Sean, I didn't mean that it's necessarily a bad thing for a single company to own both Internet access and content/services. I just don't think there's any reason to think that such a combination creates synergies that benefit customers. And when a company does own both, it seems like it would probably make the most sense to manage and sell them as separate products, rather than trying to bundle them together in some way.<br><br>Google's WiFi seems more like an experimental testbed than a serious effort to be an ISP. If they bid for some spectrum, that will be a more interesting case.</p> Sean, I didn’t mean that it’s necessarily a bad thing for a single company to own both Internet access and content/services. I just don’t think there’s any reason to think that such a combination creates synergies that benefit customers. And when a company does own both, it seems like it would probably make the most sense to manage and sell them as separate products, rather than trying to bundle them together in some way.

Google’s WiFi seems more like an experimental testbed than a serious effort to be an ISP. If they bid for some spectrum, that will be a more interesting case.

]]> By: Sean D http://techliberation.com/2007/12/12/the-folly-of-value-added-isps/comment-page-1/#comment-40130 Sean D Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:09:35 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/12/12/the-folly-of-value-added-isps/#comment-40130 <p>Would the converse also be true? If ISPs shouldn't be in "value added services," does that mean "value added service providers" should not be ISPs? Should Google have WiFi access in Mountain View, should Time-Warner own cable access around the country, should Earthlink be only an e-mail provider and not an access provider? Or is this trying to protect one favored set of companies from another favored set of companies?</p> Would the converse also be true? If ISPs shouldn’t be in “value added services,” does that mean “value added service providers” should not be ISPs? Should Google have WiFi access in Mountain View, should Time-Warner own cable access around the country, should Earthlink be only an e-mail provider and not an access provider? Or is this trying to protect one favored set of companies from another favored set of companies?

]]> By: Sean D http://techliberation.com/2007/12/12/the-folly-of-value-added-isps/comment-page-1/#comment-46826 Sean D Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:09:35 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/12/12/the-folly-of-value-added-isps/#comment-46826 <p>Would the converse also be true? If ISPs shouldn't be in "value added services," does that mean "value added service providers" should not be ISPs? Should Google have WiFi access in Mountain View, should Time-Warner own cable access around the country, should Earthlink be only an e-mail provider and not an access provider? Or is this trying to protect one favored set of companies from another favored set of companies?</p> Would the converse also be true? If ISPs shouldn’t be in “value added services,” does that mean “value added service providers” should not be ISPs? Should Google have WiFi access in Mountain View, should Time-Warner own cable access around the country, should Earthlink be only an e-mail provider and not an access provider? Or is this trying to protect one favored set of companies from another favored set of companies?

]]> By: Steve R. http://techliberation.com/2007/12/12/the-folly-of-value-added-isps/comment-page-1/#comment-40129 Steve R. Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:58:28 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/12/12/the-folly-of-value-added-isps/#comment-40129 <p>A radical suggestion, do we even need ISPs?? Technology advances, to borrow from the Terminator movies, could we have a "self-aware" network that does the function of assigning your internet address and managing traffic. In a sense, my home computer network is already doing this at a very primitive level.</p> <p>Of course there there is the cable issue, we need to have a cable operator provide a physical cable to move our packets. Even that could be done away with if there was a "critical mass" of wireless connections were every computer was an integral part of the network.</p> A radical suggestion, do we even need ISPs?? Technology advances, to borrow from the Terminator movies, could we have a “self-aware” network that does the function of assigning your internet address and managing traffic. In a sense, my home computer network is already doing this at a very primitive level.

Of course there there is the cable issue, we need to have a cable operator provide a physical cable to move our packets. Even that could be done away with if there was a “critical mass” of wireless connections were every computer was an integral part of the network.

]]> By: Steve R. http://techliberation.com/2007/12/12/the-folly-of-value-added-isps/comment-page-1/#comment-46825 Steve R. Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:58:28 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/12/12/the-folly-of-value-added-isps/#comment-46825 <p>A radical suggestion, do we even need ISPs?? Technology advances, to borrow from the Terminator movies, could we have a "self-aware" network that does the function of assigning your internet address and managing traffic. In a sense, my home computer network is already doing this at a very primitive level.<br><br>Of course there there is the cable issue, we need to have a cable operator provide a physical cable to move our packets. Even that could be done away with if there was a "critical mass" of wireless connections were every computer was an integral part of the network.</p> A radical suggestion, do we even need ISPs?? Technology advances, to borrow from the Terminator movies, could we have a “self-aware” network that does the function of assigning your internet address and managing traffic. In a sense, my home computer network is already doing this at a very primitive level.

Of course there there is the cable issue, we need to have a cable operator provide a physical cable to move our packets. Even that could be done away with if there was a “critical mass” of wireless connections were every computer was an integral part of the network.

]]>