Home » Competition »Consumer News »HissyFitWatch »Net Neutrality »Online Video » Currently Reading:

Hissyfit Between Google, Amazon Exploited by Anti-Net Neutrality Forces

Phillip Dampier December 6, 2017 Competition, Consumer News, HissyFitWatch, Net Neutrality, Online Video 7 Comments

News that Google is dropping support for YouTube on Amazon-branded set-top boxes, personal assistants, and set-top boxes is being used by anti-Net Neutrality forces to claim those two companies are a much bigger problems for Net Neutrality than cable and phone companies.

Google will make YouTube unavailable to Amazon device owners on Jan. 1, 2018, with the suggestion the company might change its mind if Amazon agrees to carry Chromecast and Google Home devices on its website and support casting Prime Video.

The last straw may have been Amazon’s decision to drop some of Nest’s newest products last month. Nest is owned by Google.

“Given this lack of reciprocity, we are no longer supporting YouTube on Echo Show and FireTV,” said a Google spokesperson to Multichannel News. “We hope we can reach an agreement to resolve these issues soon.”

“Echo Show and Fire TV now display a standard web view of YouTube.com and point customers directly to YouTube’s existing website,” Amazon responded in a statement. “Google is setting a disappointing precedent by selectively blocking customer access to an open website. We hope to resolve this with Google as soon as possible.”

The dispute was welcomed by anti Net Neutrality forces, who proclaimed consumers were the victims of Amazon.com and Google, not AT&T, Comcast, and other large telecom companies.

USTelecom, a group sponsored by the nation’s biggest telephone companies, also pounced on the dispute. CEO Jonathan Spalter:

“Broadband ISPs are committed to providing an open internet for their customers, including protections like no content blocking or throttling,” he said. “Seems like some of the biggest internet companies can’t say the same. Ironic, isn’t it?”

(Headline corrected. Thanks to Morgan Wick.)

Currently there are 7 comments on this Article:

  1. kaniki says:

    Does not surprise me about amazon.I have seen complaints, more then once, about how amazon refuses to sell stuff that is competition to them. They try to get a monopoly on areas of things that they sell doing this.

    I got their 7″ kindle fire, with advertisements stating about how you can hook the fires up to a TV with a firestick.. Then after I bought it, found that the 7″ are not compatible, only their 8″?? and higher versions are. Funny how they did not tell that when you purchase them. I got their fire stick to try and watch Vudu movies.. Nope.. They are competition, so not allowed either.. They advertise plugins available for the devices, to hype them up, but forget to tell you that you need to pay extra to use those plugins, even though they are advertised as free.. Ironic how they leave out the “subscription” costs when they advertise their stuff. Not one word of that, anywhere on the description page..

    My point is, amazon has been doing stuff like this for years, and now, google has had enough, and is firing back, and amazon is trying to act like a victim, when in fact, they are the instigators here..

    • LG says:

      Should have bought one of the Chinese boxes from eBay instead. So cheap you could buy 7 or 8 for the price of the Amazon thing and no subs if you don’t want them. Then you could put Amazon stuff next to any other company’s wares without a peep from Amazon.

      Amazon is easy to tame or just ignore, the ISPs are not.

      • kaniki says:

        I agree amazon is easy to ignore, but, the fact is, a monopoly is a monopoly.. what amazon is doing is no different then the ISP providers. The only real difference is platform. Get some better, local ISP to compete with the big companies, and there will be no difference there either. Here, they are starting to put fiber in thee area from a local company. Verizon refused to do it. The local company is offering better prices, with faster service for that price. Once they get established, and get all the lines run, the big greedy companies will be out the door.. and a lot of places have done just that. and then, the big companies, like spectrum, will be just as easy to ignore as what amazon is.

        As for the amazon stuff.. Not really. I got them on sale, so $25 for the fire stick, and I think $30 for the kindle.. Even those Chinese ones would not be much cheaper then that. Only difference.. The Chinese ones would give you a way to hook them up to a TV in some way, and not lie about it, or hide the facts, from the start. Luckily, I have a WD Live box that works just fine. The WD box also does much more too, so, I just use that.

        I use the Kindle if I need to check something quick, and do not want to boot up the PC to do it.. So it does get some use. But the Fire stick just gathers dust. and I have refused to buy anything with amazons label on it since then, so all they did was get one customer who will now refuse to buy anything with their name on it. If you deceive your customers once, you will do it again. I am not going to give them the chance.

        • EJ says:

          Amazon is far from a Monopoly. In fact I do most my purchasing from a direct competitor system call EBay. I can generally find things cheaper on EBay then Amazon. The benefit of Amazon is the two day shipping, but you have to pay a premium for that. In that respect WalMart is giving them a run for their money. Point is that Amazon as a platform is not a monopoly and the products they offer are defiantly not a necessity and do have some viable options if you feel the NEED for them. Comparing what an ISP does and how they do it to a shopping site with products you don’t truly need is ridiculous and is what we call political deflection. Scott Cleland knows what he is saying and he knows that is attempting to compare apples to oranges. He is paid to make sure net neutrality is squashed and for shame anyone how listens to douch canoe.

          • kaniki says:

            I am failing to see the difference between the 2. OK, you say that amazon has competition.. But, there are places that have multiple internet options too. Here, we have verizon DSL, Spectum internet, and now Velocity is starting to install fiber. Plus, there are ways to get internet through cell companies too. Granted, it is not the cheapest way, but it is still an option. I would call that some choices..

            Say spectrum decided to throttle netflix, then you can simply switch to velocity, or wireless through the cell companies, or even maybe verizon DSL which may not. One company can clearly do something to try and keep “their” services the best, but hurting competition from competitors. Which is exactly why amazon refuses to sell some competitors products, that line up with their line of products. Amazon does it with products.. Some ISP’s do it with sites.

            You say, but amazon’s stuff is not a necessity.. But, at the same time, I fail to see how netflix, or internet in general, is a necessity. A lot of people live without it, and always have. and the fact that if any company does throttle a site, it will be for competitors, not for things like schooling.

            I am not saying that I like the idea of them being able to throttle anything, or, the idea of neutrality being removed. But, at the same time, from what I have seen, most ISP’s do not throttle sites. Only a select few do. and the fact that Net neutrality has done nothing to keep prices reasonable, or affordable to the masses, says to me that it is nothing but a band-aid on the larger problem. You can complain about them throttling one or two sites all you want, but the fact is, if the ISP’s charge so much for the service that you can not afford it, then it really does not matter, and there still be will none available to the person. and net neutrality does nothing about this problem.

  2. LG says:

    “anti Net Neutrality forces, who proclaimed consumers were the victims of Amazon.com and Google, not AT&T, Comcast, and other large telecom companies.”

    So, the free e-mail company and the discount (non-subscription) company are the one’s holding us hostage? Geez, i would have thought the ISPs who introduced bandwidth caps and charged ridiculous rates and fees (remember the technology fee?). These were the companies who started in Hollywood, bought cable companies when people weren’t going to theaters because they became too damn expensive.. then, when Netflix started drawing customers away and people started downloading from Amazon, they bought up ISPs to throttle anyone who dare cut the cord from their other TV interests.

    Sure. Thanks Verizon. Thanks Comcast. Thanks AT&T, Time Warner, Frontier and others….
    Thanks for freeing us from the situation where we had money for our families. Thank god it’s going where it should, to a multi-billion dollar monstrosity and their Wall Street masters.

    • kaniki says:

      Depends on if that is “Time Warner” the media company, or “Time Warner Cable”. I can not say TWC was the best, as they were far from it, as a company.. But I will take them over “most” internet providers out there these days. At least TWC would give you discounts if you asked, and they had unlimited internet plans, that people “could” afford.. Like there ELP (Every day low price) plans, that started at just $15. One single buy of a cable modem, and no lease fees too. Most people could afford $15 a month.. Spectrum bought them out, and now $65 is the lowest.. There goes that greed for you..







Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

  • EJ: Josh you are correct as of right now. Without unlimited and/or very high (1TB) caps 4g/5g is nothing more then competition for satellite internet. We ...
  • Dylan: Got that right!...
  • Gayle Conversion: My name is Gayle Anne Wehner-Foglesong.To McAdams! Watch your mouth! You do not blame anyone but yourself. I know everything and I want my money now! ...
  • Michael sherwood: Spectrum charged me an overdue amount and I haven't even been with them for a month...
  • Josh: He’s not wrong, for once. The cell phone stuff keeps blathering s out speeds and how great it is, then can’t actuslly provide unlimited service or an...
  • Dylan: Yeah, Spectrum definitely needs this. I know here in New York, we have National Grid as our electric and gas provider and they definitely tell you abo...
  • FRED HALL: I wish Spectrum had this (and it was accurate). Whenever there's an outage, their tech support is either too stupid or too lazy to let the customer r...
  • Bob61571: TDS Telecom is a sub of Telephone & Data Systems(TDS). US Cellular is also a sub of TDS. TDS Telecom owns a number of smaller small town/rural t...
  • D H: If you want to really feature someone serious for the Governorship. I would suggest Larry Sharpe instead who is actually doing a grassroots campaign....
  • David: Well, I dropped them for earthlink DSL which is slower and buggier but I don't regret it since I don't accept getting pushed around. If earthlink keep...
  • baboonie: I glad that pai did what he did and this go stopped. That would of been to much power in sinclairs hands, But everybody knows the only reason pai did ...
  • David: In order to have those 'revenue enhancers' opportunities.. they would have to have more customers. Which are not coming to Frontiers services. The bi...

Your Account: