Telcos will have to invest in capacity where Google wants in order to get a good rating.
Since Google is a de-facto monopoly, I think we'll see an Antitrust case soon.
If you look at the actual requirements they're talking about, they aren't that crazy. Even for HD video, they're talking > 2.5Mbps. So for really good quality, it's probably 5-6Mbps.
I have 85Mbps FiOS at home, and I still sometimes have issues streaming Youtube videos.
If my ISP can't even guarantee 10% of what I'm paying for over a fiber optic line, then yes, they need to be called out and publicly shamed.
I actually have much more faith in Google's capacity and CDN than I do in Verizon's history of sleaze.
After all, Google doesn't have a conflict of interest, Verizon does. The better Netflix and YouTube get, the closer I am to canceling my Verizon TV service.
Why would this be the case? It is only in Google's best interests to provide the best streaming service possible. It's not like they have any shortage of servers, bandwidth, or funds with which to do so.
5mbps per user, times tens or hundreds of thousands of users in a metro area.
Video is the thing that will finally get us faster IP networks, as it slowly replaces TV as the modern opiate of the masses. Even BitTorrent wasn't enough.
Google isn't close to a monopoly in the legal sense - especially in the online video delivery market. This will shine a light on ISP data handling and throttling.
Monopoly is defined by market share or market power. In the strict sense, it means "single provider", but a sufficiently large company can exercise an effective monopoly.
Having a monopoly is not of itself illegal. Using it in certain ways is.
Google are effectively a monopoly in search space. They're a massive presence in online advertising and video, as well as email.
